Reconciliation Between the Refined Consensus Model of PCK and Extant PCK Models for Advancing PCK Research in Science

  • Soonhye ParkEmail author


In this chapter, I discuss how two pedagogical content knowledge (PCK) models known as the pentagon model of PCK and the indispensable and idiosyncratic PCK model can be situated within the Refined Consensus Model (RCM) of PCK as I reflect on examples of my earlier research in science teacher education. To guide my previous research, I used the pentagon model of PCK to capture and portray PCK and the indispensable and idiosyncratic PCK model to measure and assess PCK. I also illustrate how research methods drawn from these two existing models, including approaches such as PCK mapping, in-depth analysis of PCK, PCK surveys, and PCK rubrics, align with the RCM and what insights the RCM provides for improving these methods and advancing PCK research. The body of this chapter is structured around four distinctive features of the RCM, compared to the earlier Consensus Model (CM), that emerged through a critical comparison of the new model with the two extant PCK models, i.e. the RCM’s (1) emphasis on learning context for capturing PCK, (2) explicit visual representation of the link between PCK and the enactment of PCK, (3) distinction between personal PCK and collective PCK, and (4) shift in focus towards PCK development. Major methodological suggestions emerging from this critique for future research into science teacher education using the RCM include data collection encompassing the entire pedagogical cycle and greater attention to contextual factors, student learning, and pedagogical reasoning.


  1. Barnett, J., & Hodson, D. (2000). Pedagogical context knowledge: Toward a fuller understanding of what good science teachers know. Science Education, 85, 426–453.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Baxter, J. A., & Lederman, N. G. (1999). Assessment and measurement of pedagogical content knowledge. In J. Gess-Newsome & N. G. Lederman (Eds.), Examining pedagogical content knowledge (pp. 147–161). Dordrecht, Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers.Google Scholar
  3. Berry, A., Depaepe, F., & van Driel, J. (2016). Pedagogical content knowledge in teacher education. In J. Loughran & M. L. Hamilton (Eds.), International handbook of teacher education (pp. 347–386). Singapore: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Coffey, A., & Atkinson, P. (1996). Making sense of qualitative data: Complementary research strategies. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
  5. Depaepe, F., Verschaffel, L., & 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, 34, 12–25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Donnelly, J. F. (2001). School science teaching as a profession: Past, present, and future. School Science Review, 82(300), 31–39.Google Scholar
  7. Donovan, M. S., & Bransford, J. D. (Eds.). (2005). How students learn: Science in the classroom. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.Google Scholar
  8. Fenstermacher, G. D. (1994). The knower and the known: The nature of knowledge in research on teaching. In L. Darling-Hammond (Ed.), Review of research in education (pp. 3–56). Washington, DC: American Educational Research Association.Google Scholar
  9. 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: Routledge.Google Scholar
  10. Hiebert, J., Gallimore, R., & Stigler, J. W. (2002). A knowledge base for the teaching profession: What would it look like and how can we get one? Educational Researcher, 31(5), 3–15.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Park, S. (2005). A study of PCK of science teachers for gifted secondary students going through the national board certification process (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). University of Georgia, Athens.Google Scholar
  12. Park, S., & Chen, Y.-C. (2012). Mapping out the integration of the components of pedagogical content knowledge (PCK) for teaching photosynthesis and heredity. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 49(7), 922–941.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Park, S., Jang, J., Chen, Y.-C., & Jung, J. (2011). Is pedagogical content knowledge (PCK) necessary for reformed science teaching?: Evidence from an empirical study. Research in Science Education, 41, 245–260.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Park, S., & Oliver, J. S. (2008a). 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
  15. Park, S., & Oliver, J. S. (2008b). National board certification (NBC) as a catalyst for teachers’ learning about teaching: The effects of the NBC process on candidate teachers’ PCK development. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 45(7), 812–834.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Park, S., & Suh, J. (2015). Trajectory from portraying toward assessing PCK: Drives, dilemmas, and directions for future research. In A. Berry, P. Friedrichsen, & J. Loughran (Eds.), Re-examining pedagogical content knowledge in science education (pp. 104–119). New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  17. Park, S., Suh, J., & Seo, K. (2017). Development and validation of measures of secondary science teachers’ PCK for teaching photosynthesis. Research in Science Education.Google Scholar
  18. Schneider, R. M., & Plasman, K. (2011). Science teacher learning progressions: A review of science teachers’ pedagogical content knowledge development. Review of Educational Research, 81(4), 530–565.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Schön, D. A. (1983). The reflective practitioner: How professionals think in action. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
  20. Settlage, J. (2013). On acknowledging PCK’s shortcomings. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 24, 1–12.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Shulman, L. (2015). PCK: Its genesis and exodus. In A. K. Berry, P. Friedrichsen, & J. J. Loughran (Eds.), Re-examining pedagogical content knowledge in science education (pp. 3–13). New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  22. Suh, J., & Park, S. (2017). Exploring the relationship between pedagogical content knowledge (PCK) and sustainability of an innovative science teaching approach. Teaching and Teacher Education, 64, 246–259.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Tesch, R. (1990). Qualitative research: Analysis types and software tools. New York: Falmer Press.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of STEM Education, College of EducationNorth Carolina State UniversityRaleighUSA

Personalised recommendations