See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/240526629

Experienced Secondary Science Teachers' Representation of Pedagogical

Content Knowledge
Article in International Journal of Science Education · August 2008
DOI: 10.1080/09500690802187058
CITATIONS
READS 191

536
Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:
Science Education Career Trajectories View project
All content following this page was uploaded by Julie Luft on 19 May 2014.
The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.
Teaching future science teachers View project
This article was downloaded by: [University of Georgia] On: 25 June 2013, At: 08:03 Publisher: Routledge Informa Ltd
Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street,
London W1T 3JH, UK

International Journal of Science Education

Publication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information:
http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/tsed20 Experienced
Secondary
Science Teachers’ Representation of
Pedagogical Content Knowledge Eunmi Lee a & Julie A. Luft
b
a Dominican University, River Forest, IL, USA b Arizona State University, Tempe, AZ,

USA Published online: 23 Jul 2008.

To cite this article: Eunmi Lee & Julie A. Luft (2008): Experienced Secondary Science Teachers’ Representation of
Pedagogical Content Knowledge, International Journal of Science Education, 30:10, 1343-1363

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09500690802187058

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Full terms and conditions of use: http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and- conditions

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any substantial or systematic reproduction,
redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden.

The publisher does not give any warranty express or implied or make any representation that the contents will be complete or
accurate or up to date. The accuracy of any instructions, formulae, and drug doses should be independently verified with
primary sources. The publisher shall not be liable for any loss, actions, claims, proceedings, demand, or costs or damages
whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with or arising out of the use of this material.
International Journal of Science Education Vol. 30, No. 10, 13 August 2008,
pp. 1343–1363
RESEARCH REPORT

Experienced Secondary Science Teachers’

Representation of Pedagogical Content
Knowledge
a b
Eunmi Lee * and Julie A. Luft aDominican University, River Forest, IL, USA; bArizona State University,

Tempe, AZ, USA

Taylor and Francis TSED_A_318872.sgm 10.1080/09500690802187058 International Journal of Science Education 0950-0693 (print)/1464-5289 (online) Research
Report 2008Taylor & Francis 301000000013 August 2008 EunmiLee lee@northwestern.edu

Science teacher educators recognise a professional learning continuum for teachers. This has resulted in studies of science teachers at
different career stages, with the goal of building an under- standing of teacher learning from preparation through practice. While these
explorations help build an understanding about teacher learning over time, the work is far from complete. The present study tackles one
aspect of teacher knowledge—pedagogical content knowledge (PCK)—from the perspective of the teacher. Specifically, it depicts the PCK
of experienced secondary science teachers who are serving as mentors to beginning science teachers. Each teacher ultimately
conceptualised PCK as the knowledge for teaching science, and all of the teachers had the following components in their individual
models: science, goals, students, curriculum organisation, assessment, teaching, and resources. Each teacher, however, had a personalised
representation that directed his or her instructional decisions and actions. While these findings are from a small pool of exceptional teach-
ers, they articulate components that experienced teachers may need to benefit from professional development programmes, along with
ways in which these components can interact with practice. A preliminary understanding of the components and their interaction can assist
those who plan and implement professional development programmes for science teachers.

Introduction

The American Association for the Advancement of Science (1989) states:

Although creative ideas for reforming education come from many resources, only teachers can provide the insights that emerge
from intensive, direct experience in the classroom itself. They bring to the task of reform knowledge of students, craft, and
school structure that others cannot. (p. 212)

*Corresponding author: School of Education, Dominican University, 7900 West Division St., River Forest, IL 60305, USA. Email:
elee@dom.edu

ISSN 0950-0693 (print)/ISSN 1464-5289 (online)/08/101343–21 © 2008 Taylor & Francis DOI:
10.1080/09500690802187058
1344 E. Lee and J. A. Luft
 This statement clearly indicates the crucial role a science teacher plays in imple- menting reform. As core agents
in reform, teachers possess specialised knowledge that is acquired through years of teaching and professional
development experiences. The knowledge that teachers acquire through practice is specialised, much like the
knowledge found in other practice-driven professions, such as architecture, social work, and medicine. Moreover, this
knowledge distinguishes science teachers from other professionals and other teachers in different content areas.
Science teacher educators recognise a professional learning continuum over time and have begun studying the
development of science teachers at different career stages, with the goal of building an understanding of teacher
learning from preparation through practice (Feiman-Nemser, 2001). While these explorations help build a continuum
about teacher learning, the work is far from complete. This study tackles one aspect of the continuum with the intention
of elucidating pedagogical content knowledge (PCK) from the perspective of the teacher.
Several scholars have tried to describe the special knowledge needed for teaching (Ball & Bass, 2000, 2003;
Hashweh, 1987). These conversations have examined the role of content knowledge, understanding of pedagogy, and
knowledge of context. While not well defined, the roots of this knowledge base reside in a teacher’s under- standing of
the content along with the instruction of the content. Ultimately, PCK is the unique combination of content and
pedagogical knowledge that helps teachers transform science content into learning experiences for students. This
special knowl- edge ultimately differentiates the expertise of science teachers from that of scientists (Cochran,
DeRuiter, & King, 1993; National Research Council, 1996; Shulman, 1986a, 1987).
Most of the attempts to define and understand PCK look at the phenomenon through the lens of the researcher.
These explanations have resulted in limited repre- sentations, and can have a direct impact on school reform efforts.
Furthermore, these representations do not consider the teachers’ perspectives on their existing knowledge, beliefs, and
attitudes. If educational researchers hope to influence the learning processes of teachers, we must also provide a
representation of PCK that accurately reflects teachers’ perspectives. Given the field-based nature of this concept
(Baxter & Lederman, 1999; Gess-Newsome, 1999; Grossman, 1990; Magnusson, Krajcik, & Borko, 1999; van Driel,
Beijaard, & Verloop, 2001), perhaps the best representation resides within studies of experienced science teachers.
Experienced science teachers who frequently discuss instruction may be able to shed some light on this unique concept.
The present study explores the concept of PCK with experienced teachers who are serving as mentors to beginning
secondary science teachers.

PCK from the Perspective of Researchers

Definition of PCK

Many researchers in the area of teacher education have recognised PCK as a critical component of the professional
status of teachers. However, accounts of PCK and attempts to measure it have varied greatly. Despite numerous
conceptualisations of
PCK from the Perspective of Teachers 1345

PCK, Shulman’s (1986b) definition of this concept remains the standard. His defini- tion responded to the evaluation of
teachers in the mid-1980s, and denied that the competence of teachers resided in teachers’ management of the
classroom. Shulman brought to light the critical features of teaching and stressed three categories of content
knowledge—subject matter content knowledge, pedagogical content knowledge, and curricular knowledge. In
highlighting the importance of these three knowledge domains, he identified PCK as ‘the most useful forms of content
representation, the most powerful analogies, illustrations, examples, and demonstrations—in a word, the ways of
representing and formulating the subject that makes it comprehensible for others’ (Shulman, 1986b, p. 9). That area of
knowledge also includes ‘an understand- ing of what makes the learning of specific topics easy or difficult: the
conceptions and preconceptions that students of different ages and backgrounds bring with them to the learning of
those most frequently taught topics and lessons’ (p. 9). Since then, many researchers of PCK have extended the concept
by adding other categories. Table 1 summarises different conceptualisations of PCK by different researchers.
The National Science Education Standards (National Research Council, 1996) incor- porated the concept of
PCK as an essential component of professional development for science teachers. In doing so, the National Science
Education Standards defined PCK as ‘special understandings and abilities that integrate teachers’ knowledge of
science content, curriculum, learning, teaching and students’, allowing science teach- ers to ‘tailor learning situations to
the needs of individuals and groups’ (National Research Council, 1996, p. 62). Although the concept of PCK is still
difficult to pin down theoretically, it is clear that this knowledge for science teaching represents a class of knowledge
that is central to science teachers’ work, and would not typically be held by scientists or by teachers who know little
science subject matter.

Models and Orientations for PCK

Conceptualisations of PCK vary greatly, but researchers have reached a consensus on its nature: PCK is the experiential
knowledge and skills acquired through class- room experience (Baxter & Lederman, 1999; Gess-Newsome, 1999;
Grossman, 1990; Magnusson et al., 1999; National Research Council, 1996; van Driel et al., 2001); and PCK is the
integrated set of knowledge, concepts, beliefs, and values that teachers develop in the context of the teaching situation
(Fernandez-Balboa & Stiehl, 1995; Gess-Newsome, 1999; Loughran, Milroy, Berry, Gunstone, & Mulhall, 2001;
Loughran, Mulhall, & Berry, 2004; Marks, 1990; van Driel, Verloop, & de Vos, 1998). Thus, while pre-service or
beginning teachers usually have limited or minimal PCK, experienced teachers possess an integrated and developed
understanding of teaching (Lee, Brown, Luft, & Roehrig, 2007).
Addressing the evolving feature of this knowledge, Gess-Newsome (1999) devel- oped two models for PCK: the
integrative and transformative models. To make a distinction between the two models, Gess-Newsome used a ‘mixture
versus compound’ analogy. In the integrative model, knowledge domains of subject matter, pedagogy, and context tend
to exist as separate entities, like chemical elements in a
1346 E. Lee and J. A. Luft
PCK from the Perspective of Teachers 1347

mixture. Looking at PCK development as an integrative process, Fernandez-Balboa and Stiehl (1995) suggested that
enhancing any of the components would enhance PCK as a whole. Based on this model, they argued that having
knowledge about the components of PCK independently determines a teacher’s ability to integrate these components.
On the other hand, PCK in the transformative model is recognised as a synthesised knowledge base for teaching, as in a
chemical compound. In this perspective, content and pedagogy are integrated and transformed into classroom practice.
Marks’ (1990) model was similar to the transformative model and asserted that it is impossible to distinguish PCK
from either subject matter knowledge or general pedagogical knowledge. Many researchers suggested that beginning
teachers tend to rely more heavily on one domain of knowledge rather than drawing simulta- neously from all domains,
as is the case with an expert teacher (Ball & Bass, 2000; Davis, 2003; Grossman, 1990). Therefore, the integrative
model will probably portray the PCK of beginning teachers, while the transformative model is more suitable to
represent the PCK of experienced teachers.
Additional studies on PCK have sought to explore the interactions of the different knowledge bases in order to
describe more clearly possible orientations of PCK. Veal and MaKinster (1999) suggested that there were three
different types of PCK: general, domain-specific, and topic-specific. According to their definition, general PCK is
related to science as a subject; domain-specific PCK is connected to different domains within science, such as
chemistry, biology, Earth science, and physics; and topic- specific PCK is relevant to a list of concepts, terms, and
topics in each domain. In a follow-up study, Veal and Kubasko (2003) examined the topic-specific nature of PCK by
exploring the teaching of evolution by biology and geology teachers. After observing and interviewing the teachers,
they concluded that the content background of the teachers made a difference in how they approached the teaching of
evolution, and that beginning and experienced teachers held different levels of complexity in their topic- specific PCK.
In earlier studies, educational researchers explored various orientations towards PCK that resulted in different findings.
Sanders, Borko, and Lockard (1993) suggested that experienced science teachers held general orientations, while
Carlsen (1993) concluded that beginning science teachers held domain or topic orientations.

Research Questions

In order to elucidate PCK from experienced secondary science teachers, we used the following questions to guide our
process:

1. What are the components and specific elements of PCK according to experienced
secondary science teachers? 2. How do experienced teachers organise these components and specific elements
in their conceptualisation of PCK?

In these questions, each component indicates a broad and abstract category while each element indicates a specific and
concrete item. An additional discussion and examples of components and elements occur later in this paper.
1348 E. Lee and J. A. Luft

Research Method

A case-study method was used to look at how mentor science teachers conceptual- ised their own PCK that impacted
their teaching practice. According to Merriam (1998), this research method is the best vehicle for providing ‘intensive
descriptions and analyses of a single unit or bounded system such as an individual, program, or group’ (p. 19). By
employing case-study methods, our intent was to represent the teachers’ understanding of the situation and share their
meaning with all involved in the research.
The main feature of this case study is its focus ‘on a particular situation, event, program, or phenomenon’
(Meriam, 1998, p. 29). Within the context of their teaching and mentoring, participant teachers selected from a
mentoring programme at a university in the US Southwest were asked to characterise the required knowledge areas for
teaching science in their classes.

Participants

The participants in this study were recruited from a programme that was designed to enhance the practice of beginning
science teachers through the mentoring process. Experienced mentor teachers facilitated beginning teachers’
development as profes- sionals, and they also had a chance to enhance their own teaching and leadership skills.
Teachers in this study were identified through a process of purposeful sampling (Patton, 2002). The target
sample population consisted of teachers with more than 10 years of teaching experience and more than 3 years of
mentoring experience. In consultation with the mentoring programme director, six teachers were initially identified as
potential participants in the study. Each potential participant was contacted via email. Five teachers responded that they
were interested, and four ulti- mately participated in the study. Table 2 provides additional general information about
these teachers.

Data Collection

Four types of data were collected over a 24-month period, including semi-structured interviews, classroom
observations, a collection of lesson plans, and monthly reflective summaries from the participating teachers. Interviews
were conducted three times throughout the study, at times and locations mutually agreed upon by one of the authors
and study participants. The authors of this study, along with two research assistants, collaboratively developed the
interview protocols, following guidelines by Seidman (1998). The protocols enabled us to obtain the components and
specific elements of PCK, as well as general conceptualisations of PCK within the context of teaching science.
While the first interview focused on biographical information, the second inter- view involved discussing an
observed lesson. This second interview was conducted
PCK from the Perspective of Teachers 1349
Table 2. Participant demographic information
Current teaching Participant Years of experience Degree
assignment
in the teacher’s classroom after a lesson, for two purposes: to clarify the observed instruction, and to explore
the teacher’s perceptions about the knowledge required to teach science. As the teacher talked about preparing,
enacting, and altering the lesson, the interviewer prompted the teacher to also talk about the knowledge needed
to teach science. The analysis of these data guided the third interview in that it provided the teachers with an
opportunity to reflect on the initial descriptors (e.g., students, content) from their own interviews. During this
interview, teachers constructed a diagram representing the components and elements of PCK. Teachers created
the diagram through a combination of ‘card sort tasks’ and ‘concept mapping’ (Baxter & Lederman, 1999).
This entailed grouping cards that had the names of the components and elements, and demonstrating how these
different groups were related to one another. Throughout the interview, the teachers were asked to elaborate on
their grouping decisions, the relationships among the groups, and the appropriateness of the terms.
Components and elements unique to each
Topics of observed lessons
Wendy 28 years of teaching
in high school (Biology, Physical Science, Chemistry)
Bachelor’s in Kinesiology and Biology Master’s in Biology and Integrated Science
10th–12th grade (Chemistry, Physics, Advanced Placement Biology)
- Chemical reactions - Projectile motion
Shawna 33 years of teaching
(25 years: 1–6th grade; 8 years: middle school, General Science)
Bachelor’s in Elementary Education Master’s in Education Administration
6th grade (General Science)
- Energy transfer - Water cycle
Roger 10 years of teaching
in High School (Biology, Physics, Chemistry)
9th–10th grade (Integrated Physics and Chemistry) 11th–12th grade (Geology, Meteorology and Oceanography)
- Newton’s laws - Electromagnetism and electricity
Emily 18 years of teaching
experience (11 years: Middle School; 2 years: High School; 5 years: Special Education)
Bachelor’s in Biology Master’s in Education
Bachelor’s in Biology and Chemistry Master’s in Integrated Science
10th–11th grade (Chemistry) 6th grade (General Science) 7th grade (General Science)
 - Levers and pulleys - Systems in the human body
1350 E. Lee and J. A. Luft

teacher were elaborated upon, revised, or deleted during this interview. The result- ing diagram was then modified
through exchanges of email, which encouraged the teacher to further develop the diagram by adding and reviewing the
linking words, and explaining and expanding upon the relationships among the components. Each teacher was then
presented with his or her final diagram and asked to review it for accuracy. In addition, teachers were asked to order the
components in their repre- sentation by importance and discuss their rationale for the rankings. A more detailed
discussion of this process can be found in Lee (2005).
Classroom observations were another data source in this study. By observing the teachers in their own
classrooms, we gained a better understanding of their teaching practices and the context in which they taught (Bogdan
& Biklen, 1992). Each partic- ipant was observed for a minimum of two class periods of the classes they taught (see
Table 2). By actually observing teachers’ classroom practice and taking field notes, we were able to capture the details
of how teachers act in their classrooms, which represents their PCK. In addition, our observations served as the basis
for the inter- view questions (Patton, 2002). Specifically, in the second interview participants were asked to discuss
their rationale and decisions surrounding the various activities they enacted during the lesson.
Lesson plans, project flyers, and monthly reflective summaries were also collected from each participant. From
these supplementary materials, we were able to under- stand how PCK was represented in their lesson plans. In
addition, our examination of the mentor teachers’ monthly reflective summaries helped us to understand how the
teachers’ conceptions of PCK emerged from their own reflections. These addi- tional documents helped reveal the
unique perspective of the teacher (Creswell, 2003).

Data Analysis

Data analysis was based on the following process. Codes were formulated from each data source and modified as the
data collection proceeded. Since qualitative research is an open-ended and on-going process, once the analysis of
collected data began the process of constant-comparative analysis was essential (Lincoln & Guba, 1985; Patton, 2002).
Three types of coding were sequentially conducted to analyse the data: open coding, axial coding, and selective coding
(Strauss & Corbin, 1998). Specifically, the line-by-line and section-by-section analysis that is common in open- coding
led to terms that were combined in new ways to represent the knowledge a teacher needs to teach science. These
constructions were further explored in order to understand the phenomena of teaching science.
In order to name elements and components, each author initially coded the inter- views, field notes, and
important class documents (Bogdan & Biklen, 1992). The initial codes emerged from these sources and drew upon the
language of the teacher. After that, we examined a list of codes and identified the salient codes that were based upon
our discussion. This work enabled us to come up with broader, more compre- hensive, and more definitive labels for
the codes and groups of codes. The final labels that emerged were from the teachers and represented the components
and elements.
PCK from the Perspective of Teachers 1351

Throughout this process, we adopted practices that would support a theoretical sensitivity to the emerging
findings. Following Strauss and Corbin’s (1998) recom- mendations, we regarded our initial constructions as
provisional and sought additional data as we examined our emerging constructions. Additionally, the emerging findings
were checked against the data provided to ensure that the teachers were giving the data meaning and not the
researchers. On-going interactions with the teachers and the data resulted in final representations that belong to the
teachers in this study.

Validity and Credibility

The present study incorporated several techniques in order to meet the standards of validity for naturalistic inquiry.
First, we achieved triangulation by collecting data from multiple sources. Triangulation provided the means for
observing data that might have been overlooked by relying on only one source of data collection. This process also
allowed the same data to be viewed from various perspectives, which clarified the meaning of the data in the larger
context and provided validity (Yin, 2003). Second, we conducted a member check (Lincoln & Guba, 1985) to establish
credibility, to clarify meaning, and to check the accuracy of our understanding of the data. Third, we also discussed our
on-going investigation with colleagues. Such discussions served the purpose of ‘peer debriefing’ (Lincoln & Guba,
1985, p. 243). This process was also helpful in developing interview questions and in developing and testing the
emerging categories and subcategories.

Results

Seven Components of PCK

The seven components that emerged were common to all four participants, with slight variations in specific elements.
They are classified as PCK in that they repre- sent a class of knowledge that is unique to the work of science teachers.
Seven components of PCK and the specific elements within each component are discussed below and summarised in
Table 3, while the order of importance of the components in teaching science can be found in Table 4.

Knowledge of science. The teachers in this study took the ‘knowledge of science’ for granted as the primary knowledge
area for science teaching. They felt that a strong science background was essential in their capacity as science teachers,
and all pointed out that their scientific knowledge was broader, but shallower, than the knowledge held by scientists.
The teachers also commented that they had to continually enhance their content knowledge.

Knowledge of goals. When teachers spoke and wrote about their lessons, they had a tendency to link their lessons to the
goals of their science classes. Goals were
1352 E. Lee and J. A. Luft

Table 3. Seven components of PCK and specific elements within each component

Components Elements

Knowledge of science Science content, scientific practice, the nature of

science, scientific process. Knowledge of goals Scientific literacy,
real-life application,
integrated understanding. Knowledge of students Different levels,
needs, interests, prior
knowledge, ability, learning difficulties, misconceptions. Knowledge of curriculum organisation State and local standards, state
and local
standardised tests, making connections between lessons and units, organising lessons in specific order, making decisions about what to
teach, flexible design. Knowledge of teaching Various teaching methods, use of motivating
 activities, ability to select effective activities. Knowledge of assessment
Formal and informal ways of assessment, skills
for students’ discussion and questioning, immediate feedback. Knowledge of resources Materials, activities, multimedia, local facilities,
laboratory technology, science magazines.

important to these teachers, and they felt that the subject area taught determined the instructional goals. One common
goal among all teachers was teaching science to students so that they better understood natural phenomena in everyday
life. The teachers viewed ‘goal setting in science teaching’ as a priority in their practice because it gave direction to
their lessons, and it was, in the words of Roger (Inter- view 3-05), ‘what I want my students to gain in my science
class’.

Knowledge of students. All of the teachers in this study spoke at length about their students. Not only did they know
how their students preferred to learn, they also understood their students’ lives outside of school. This knowledge was,
according to the teachers, acquired through classroom experience and could not be learned through books or in
university or college courses. It ultimately connected to their content knowledge, and both were essential in the
decisions pertaining to curricu- lum organisation and teaching strategies.

Knowledge of curriculum organisation. The teachers referred to the knowledge of curriculum organisation as a way of
emphasising ‘what a teacher needs to bring out to the students in the class’ (Wendy, Interview 3-05). Teachers felt it
was important to make connections between scientific concepts, other subjects, and other knowledge bases. When the
curriculum was organised appropriately, teachers felt it was flexible, as they always encountered unpredictable
situations.
PCK from the Perspective of Teachers 1353

Table 4. Ratings of each component by the teachers according to the importance to teaching science

Wendy Shawna

1. Knowledge of science 1. Knowledge of science 2a. Knowledge of goals 2. Knowledge of assessment 2b. Knowledge of students 3.
Knowledge of goals 3a. Knowledge of teaching 4. Knowledge of curriculum organisation 3b. Knowledge of curriculum organisation 5.
Knowledge of students 3c. Knowledge of resources 6. Knowledge of teaching 4. Knowledge of assessment 7. Knowledge of resources

Roger Emily

1a. Knowledge of science 1a. Knowledge of science 1b. Knowledge of students 1b. Knowledge of goals 2a. Knowledge of goals 2a.
Knowledge of students 2b. Knowledge of teaching 2b. Knowledge of curriculum organisation 3. Knowledge of resources 3a. Knowledge of
teaching 4. Knowledge of assessment 3b. Knowledge of assessment 5. Knowledge of curriculum organisation 3c. Knowledge of resources

Knowledge of teaching. This category of PCK refers to, in the words of the teachers, ‘how science should be taught’
and ‘how do we get there’. Teachers indicated that this category of knowledge allowed them to format and modify their
lesson plans to enhance student learning. All teachers discussed linking their teaching to their goals.

Knowledge of assessment. Teachers articulated how they adopted a variety of assess- ments for ascertaining students’
understanding of science concepts. Teachers used assessments not only to foster students’ learning, but also to gather
information about the effectiveness of their curriculum and instruction. This category includes elements that focus on
‘what’ and ‘how’ to assess.

Knowledge of resources. The teachers spoke at length about how their knowledge of resources, in and out of school,
could supplement their practice. The teachers acknowledged that this component of PCK helped them link local
facilities or external materials to their own instructional goals and strategies. This knowledge ultimately enabled the
teachers to bring the scientific world outside of the classroom to the students.

Conceptualisation of Seven PCK Components

The teachers in this study all named the components listed above as essential areas in science teaching, and stated that
these components were connected to one
1354 E. Lee and J. A. Luft

another in different ways. The teachers’ descriptions of components are included in the following paragraphs.

Wendy’s conceptualisation. Wendy described her representation (see Figure 1) by commenting that the knowledge of
science set the goals and should fit the students. She felt that her ultimate goal was to have an impact on the learning of
students. Teaching strategies and curriculum organisation influenced student learning, and were determined by the
goals and by the students. She believed that the knowledge of curriculum organisation (what to teach) and the
knowledge of teaching interacted with each other, drawing upon her knowledge of resources to determine what and
how to teach. Wendy concluded that the seven components were interwoven and influenced each other in
Figure 1. Wendy’s conceptualisation of PCK

teaching science. For example, the knowledge of science was strongly related to the knowledge of goals, and the
knowledge of goals determined teaching strategies. Wendy revealed the connection that exists between goals and
instruction when she stated:

I think, especially in science, there are so many things that we don’t know and if we don’t have kids that are into that--we are
never going to find them out. We need people that have inquiring minds. You will have the students do a lab and they will have
ques- tions like ‘What if?’ or ‘Can I now do this?’ ... If we don’t get students into the inquiring mood here, where is it going to
come from? (Interview 3-05)

When she was asked to name the group of knowledge components, Wendy entitled it ‘essential knowledge areas for
science teaching’ (Interview 3-05). According to Wendy, teachers develop essential knowledge areas through years of
experience in the field, as well as by participating in workshops that enhance their knowledge.

Roger’s conceptualisation. Roger stated that sound science knowledge was the most important knowledge base for
teaching science (see Figure 2). He considered this component of knowledge to be the driving force behind teaching
science. Along with knowledge of science, he reported that his understanding of students is the other important part of
teaching science. These two components determined ‘what his class is aiming at’ (goals), ‘what to teach’ (curriculum
organisation), and ‘where to look for activities and information’ (resources) (Interview 3-05). He put these three
components in a group because all were determined by his knowledge of science and of students. Of these three
components, curriculum organisation was influenced by goals as well as by resources. Figure 2. Roger’s conceptualisation of PCK
The three components
mentioned above, as a group, guided Roger’s teaching process. Specifically, he reported that his teaching strategies
relied heavily upon the resources outside of his school. He also felt that his knowledge of teaching was linked to his
knowledge of assessment, because he usually incorporated various assessments when he planned and taught his
lessons. Equally important, Roger spoke about adjusting his instruction according to his students’ responses. The coor-
dination of areas was essential to his description of how to teach science.
PCK from the Perspective of Teachers 1355
1356 E. Lee and J. A. Luft
PCK from the Perspective of Teachers 1357

When asked to entitle his diagram, he named it ‘science teachers’ knowledge flow chart’ (Interview 3-05). He
concluded that this routine applied to his science teach- ing practice, regardless of the specific topic being addressed.

Emily’s conceptualisation. When describing her conception of the knowledge needed for teaching (see Figure 3), Emily
provided terms that agreed with the seven compo- nents and elements identified by the other teachers. She did,
however, add a few elements to knowledge of resources. In the third interview, she was excited about seeing the
diagram that emerged from her data. When asked to show how the components were interrelated, Emily first
categorised the seven components into three groups and then drew linking lines between the groups. Figure 3. Emily’s conceptualisation of PCK

According to Emily, knowledge of science and knowledge of goals were attached, and these two components were the
‘object’ of teaching science. A teacher’s curricu- lum organisation and his/her students were influenced by these two
components. She also compared knowledge of students and knowledge of curriculum organisation with the ‘subject’
within the situation of teaching. These two components were factors that determined how to teach (teaching strategies),
and what and how to assess.
Emily placed the remaining three components—knowledge of teaching, knowl- edge of assessment, and
knowledge of resources—into a methods group. She believed that this group helped her to achieve her teaching goals
and it allowed her students to make sense of the science.
When she was asked to name the group of knowledge components, Emily entitled it ‘knowledge components for
teaching science’ (Interview 3-05). She felt that these essential knowledge areas were developed over years of teaching
experience. She also stated that participation in workshops ensured that science teachers enhanced their knowledge and
learned new strategies for science teaching.

Shawna’s conceptualisation. When asked to make connections among the compo- nents to show how they were
interrelated within the scope of teaching science, Shawna first placed the seven components into three groups (see
Figure 4). The first group included knowledge of the goals, knowledge of science, and knowledge of assessment. She
stated that the first group was the basis for teaching science, naming goal-setting and assessment as characteristics of
teaching science as a subject. Figure 4. Shawna’s conceptualisation of PCK
Shawna placed the knowledge of students, knowledge of curriculum

organisation, and the knowledge of assessment in the second group. Since her curriculum devel- opment was guided by
a backwards design process, a method that identifies outcomes for students and then aligns curriculum and assessments
to ensure the outcomes are met, the connection between student knowledge, curriculum, and assessment was naturally
reinforced. When designing these lessons, she considered the diversity of her students and their previously learned
knowledge. Shawna stated that the second group contained ‘the content’ for science teaching, and that this group
directly influenced the third group.
1358 E. Lee and J. A. Luft
PCK from the Perspective of Teachers 1359
Goals Connection to the real life Scientific literacy Scientific thinking Scientific communication Understanding of concepts
Science
Assessment Science content
Questioning Integrated understanding of
Authentic assessments science content
Performance (problem based) Understanding the spiralling
assessment effect
Classroom discussions Authentic assessment
Curriculum Organisation
Students State assessments
eds Integration of science subjects
difficulties in learning Interdisciplinary lessons
different abilities Vertical alignment Extension
nowledge Linking local issues to the lesson
misconceptions Connection between activitiesResources

Teaching strategies Local source

Brainstorming Materials
Choosing quality activities Technology
Building and refining activities Internet
Simulation/hands-on
laboratories Guided inquiry Field trip Safety
Figure 4. Shawna’s conceptualisation of PCK
The third group included knowledge of curriculum, knowledge of teaching, and knowledge of resources. The
three components, according to Shawna, could not be separated as they interacted with each other. She stated
that the third group was the
1360 E. Lee and J. A. Luft

process for science teaching. This group determined a teacher’s ability for designing quality activities for the students.
When asked to further explain the diagram, she stated, ‘All seven components are interrelated and influence
each other, but some components are more strongly connected to each other. That is why I put them in a group’
(interview 4-05). She named this diagram ‘the knowledge components of a quality science teacher’ because it was
compatible with the state recommendations for a high quality teacher.

Discussion

A central goal of this study was to portray PCK from the perspective of experienced secondary science teachers. As we
engaged in this process, three important points emerged that are important to discuss. First, this study helped to clarify
the notion of PCK, which is the unique knowledge that teachers draw upon as they teach a subject. In 1987, Shulman
theorised several categories of knowledge, but did not expand upon their composition. The many studies that have
addressed the complex- ity of PCK since its introduction (Loughran et al., 2001, 2004; van Driel et al., 1998) clearly
demonstrate that PCK is still difficult to articulate. The findings from this study reveal that there are common PCK
components that teachers can identify. As the teachers in this study portrayed these components, they demonstrated
their ability to access and emphasise the different components individually and simulta- neously. These descriptions
suggest that experienced teachers’ PCK contains quali- ties of both the integrative and transformative models
(Gess-Newsome, 1999) and that, when compared with previous studies (Lee et al., 2007), PCK develops over time.
Second, this study is distinct from other studies because the teachers actively participated in the construction of
their representations of general PCK. Although Loughran et al. (2001, 2004) did attempt to depict PCK from the
perspective of teachers, they approached the research in a topic-specific orientation and did not have teachers create
representations of PCK. Our study demonstrates that general PCK has different areas and that these areas are
emphasised in different ways. Specifically, teachers maintained a core PCK—knowledge of content, knowledge of
goals, and knowledge of students. These different components may exist in different orientations in PCK and may take
on different positions as PCK is represented through a domain or topic. This suggests that teachers concurrently hold
different forms of PCK, but the forms evolve differently at different points in their careers. Thus, beginning teachers do
not primarily hold domain and topic orientations— they can also hold general orientations that are also developing, but
all have knowledge of content, goals, and students at the core. Veal and Kubasko (2003) indirectly suggested this in
their study on topic-specific PCK. Our methodology provides a way to understand these different orientations at
different times in a teacher’s career, which challenges researchers’ views that different types of PCK may or may not
be prominent at different points in a teacher’s career (e.g., Carlsen, 1993; Sanders et al., 1993). This is a line of
research worth pursuing.
PCK from the Perspective of Teachers 1361

Third, the teachers in the study discussed an area that had not yet been articu- lated in the PCK literature when
they spoke about a need for knowledge of resources in teaching science. Resources ultimately allowed these teachers to
make their instruction relevant to their students, and provided instructional experiences that were outside the
curriculum. Furthermore, the four participating teachers’ conceptualisations of PCK revealed that knowledge of
resources impacted their curriculum organisation, selection of teaching strategies, and use of assessments. This study
suggests that knowledge of resources should be explored to determine whether it should be considered a component of
PCK.

Implications

Although educational researchers have addressed PCK as fundamental knowledge for teaching, we are not aware of
studies of PCK conceptualisation with regard to its general nature from the teacher’s point of view. This attempt to
conceptualise PCK from experienced teachers’ perspectives can encourage science education research- ers as well as
educators to find new ways to capture the knowledge that is held by science teachers. Identifying this knowledge base
will ultimately help teacher educa- tors understand how to facilitate the enhancement of a science teacher’s PCK.
The findings of this study also suggest that professional development programmes for teachers should consider
how they are incorporating these seven components. Professional development programmes, which support the reforms
in science, should address these components and encourage teachers to making linkages between them. Such an
approach will probably enhance a teacher’s knowledge and practice to the degree that the science education reforms
will be actualised in science classroom.

References

American Association for the Advancement of Science. (1989). Science for all Americans: A Project
2061 report on literacy goals in science, mathematics, and technology. Washington, DC: Author. Ball, D.L., & Bass, H. (2000).
Interweaving content and pedagogy in teaching and learning to teach: Knowing and using mathematics. In J. Boaler (Ed.), Multiple
perspectives on the teaching and learning of mathematics (pp. 83–104). Westport, CT: Ablex. Ball, D.L., & Bass, H. (2003). Toward a
practice-based theory of mathematical knowledge for teaching. In B. Davis & E. Simmt (Eds.), Proceedings of the 2002 annual meeting of
the Canadian mathematics education study group (pp. 3–14). Edmonton, AB: CMESG/GCE.DM 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: PCK and science education (pp. 147–161). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer. Bogdan, R.C., & Biklen, S.K. (1992).
Qualitative research for education. Boston: Allyn & Bacon. Carlsen, W.S. (1993). Teacher knowledge and discourse control; Quantitative
evidence from
novice biology teachers’ classrooms. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 30(5), 471–481. Carlsen, W.S. (1999). Domains
of teacher knowledge. In J. Gess-Newsome & N.G. Lederman (Eds.), Examining pedagogical content knowledge: PCK and science
education (pp. 113–144). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer. Cochran, K.F., DeRuiter, J.A., & King, R.A. (1993). Pedagogical content
knowing: An integrative
model for teacher preparation. Journal of Teacher Education, 44(4), 263–272.
1362 E. Lee and J. A. Luft

Creswell, J.W. (2003). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches (2nd
ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Davis, E.A. (2003). Knowledge integration in science teaching: Analysing teachers’ knowledge
development. Research in Science Education, 34(1), 21–53. Feiman-Nemser, S. (2001). From preparation to practice: Designing
a continuum to strengthen
and sustain teaching. Teachers College Record, 103(6), 1013–1055. Fernandez-Balboa, J., & Stiehl, J. (1995). The generic nature
of pedagogical content knowledge
among college professors. Teaching & Teacher Education, 11(3). 293–306. Gess-Newsome, J. (1999). Pedagogical content
knowledge: An introduction and orientation. In J. Gess-Newsome & N.G. Lederman (Eds.), Examining pedagogical content knowledge:
PCK and science education (pp. 3–17). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer. Grossman, P.L. (1990). The making of a teacher: Teacher
knowledge & teacher education. New York:
Teachers College Press. Hashweh, M.Z. (1987). Effects of subject-matter knowledge in the teaching of biology and physics.
Teaching & Teacher Education, 3(2), 109–120. Lee, E. (2005). Understanding pedagogical content knowledge from the
experienced science teacher
perspective. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Texas at Austin, TX. Lee, E., Brown, M., Luft, J.A., & Roehrig, G. (2007).
Assessing beginning secondary science
teachers’ PCK: Pilot year results. School Science and Mathematics, 107(2), 418–426. Lincoln, Y.S., & Guba, E. (1985).
Naturalistic inquiry. Newbury Park, CA: Sage. Loughran, J., Milroy, P., Berry, A., Gunstone, R., & Mulhall, P. (2001). Documenting
science teachers’ pedagogical content knowledge through PaP-eRs. Research in Science Education, 31, 289–307. 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. 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: PCK and science education (pp. 95–132). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer. Marks, R. (1990).
Pedagogical content knowledge: From a mathematical case to a modified
conception. Journal of Teacher Education, 41(3), 3–11. Merriam, S.B. (1998). Qualitative research and case study applications
in education: Revised and
expanded from case study research in education. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. National Research Council. (1996). National
Science Education Standards. Washington, DC:
National Academy Press. Patton, M.Q. (2002). Qualitative research and evaluation method (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA:
Sage. Sanders, L.R., Borko, H., & Lockard, J.D. (1993). Secondary science teachers’ knowledge base when teaching science
courses in and out of their area of certification. Journal of Research in Science Teacher Education, 30(7), 723–736. Seidman, I. (1998).
Interviewing as Qualitative Research: A guide for researchers in education and the
social sciences (2nd ed.). New York: Teachers College Press. Shulman, L.S. (1986a). Paradigms and research programs in the
study of teaching: A contempo- rary perspective. In M.C. Wittrock (Ed.), Handbook of research on teaching (3rd ed., pp. 3–36). New York:
Macmillan. Shulman, L.S. (1986b). Those who understand: Knowledge growth in teaching. Educational
Researcher, 15(2), 4–14. Shulman, L.S. (1987). Knowledge and teaching: Foundations of the new reform. Harvard
 Educational Review, 57, 1–22. Strauss, A., & Corbin, J. (1998). Basics of qualitative research: Techniques and procedures for
developing
grounded theory (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
PCK from the Perspective of Teachers 1363

Tamir, P. (1988). Subject matter and related pedagogical knowledge in teacher education. Teaching
and Teacher Education, 4(2), 99–110. van Driel, J.H., Beijaard, D., & Verloop, N. (2001). Professional development and reform
in science education: The role of teachers’ practical knowledge. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 38(2), 137–158. van Driel, J.H.,
Verloop, N., & de Vos, W. (1998). Developing science teachers’ pedagogical
content knowledge. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 35(6), 673–695. Veal, W.R., & Kubasko, W.R. (2003). Biology and
geology teachers’ domain-specific pedagogical
content knowledge of evolution. Journal of Curriculum and Supervision, 18(4), 344–352. Veal, W.R., & MaKinster, J. (1999).
Pedagogical content knowledge taxonomies. Electronic Journal of Science Education, 3(4). Retrieved March 7, 2007, from
www.unr.edu/homepage/crowther/ ejse/vealmak.html. Yin, R.K. (2003). Case study research: Design and methods (3rd ed.). Thousand
Oaks, CA: Sage.
View publication stats View publication stats