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
Eunmi Leea* and Julie A. Luftb
aDominican University, River Forest, IL, USA; bArizona State University, Tempe, AZ,
USA
EunmiLee
00000013
10
30
lee@northwestern.edu
International
10.1080/09500690802187058
TSED_A_318872.sgm
0950-0693
Research
Taylor
2008 August
andReport
& Francis
(print)/1464-5289
Francis2008
Journal of Science
(online)
Education

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
 Table 1. Different conceptualisations of PCK

Knowledge of

Subject Representations and Student learning General Curriculum

Reference matter instructional strategies and conceptions pedagogy and media Context Purpose Assessment
1346 E. Lee and J. A. Luft

Shulman (1987) a PCK PCK a a a a b

Tamir (1988) a PCK PCK a PCK b b PCK
Grossman (1990) a PCK PCK a PCK a PCK b
Marks (1990) PCK PCK PCK b PCK b b b
Cochran et al. (1993) PCKg b PCKg PCKg b PCKg b b
Fernandez-Balboa and Stiehl (1995) PCK PCK PCK b b PCK PCK b
Magnusson et al. (1999) a PCK PCK a PCK a PCK PCK
Carlsen (1999) a PCK PCK a PCK a PCK b
Loughran et al. (2001) b PCK PCK b PCK b PCK PCK

Notes: a, distinct category in the knowledge base for teaching; b, not discussed explicitly; PCK, pedagogical content knowledge; PCKg,
pedagogical content knowing.
 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 Topics of observed

Participant Years of experience Degree assignment lessons

Wendy 28 years of teaching Bachelor’s in 10th–12th grade - Chemical reactions

in high school Kinesiology (Chemistry, - Projectile motion
(Biology, Physical and Biology Physics,
Science, Chemistry) Master’s in Advanced
Biology and Placement
Integrated Biology)
Science
Shawna 33 years of teaching Bachelor’s in 6th grade - Energy transfer
(25 years: 1–6th Elementary (General Science) - Water cycle
grade; 8 years: Education
middle school, Master’s in
General Science) Education
Administration
Roger 10 years of teaching Bachelor’s in 9th–10th grade - Newton’s laws
in High School Biology (Integrated - Electromagnetism
(Biology, Physics, Master’s in Physics and and electricity
Chemistry) Education Chemistry)
11th–12th grade
(Geology,
Meteorology and
Oceanography)
Emily 18 years of teaching Bachelor’s in 10th–11th grade - Levers and pulleys
experience (11 Biology and (Chemistry) - Systems in the
years: Middle Chemistry 6th grade human body
School; 2 years: Master’s in (General Science)
High School; 5 Integrated 7th grade
years: Special Science (General Science)
Education)

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
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
Figure 1. Wendy’s conceptualisation of PCK

each other in 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.
The three components mentioned above, as a group, guided Roger’s teaching
Figure 2. Roger’s conceptualisation of PCK

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.




 
 
  




  

   

    
  


 
   

 
    "

 





 
 

  
 


 

  
&

 #


  

   
   !
     
 
 $   

  
! 
 "
' 
  
 
% "

 
  # 


 



 

 

 


   
    
   
   
 
 

#


 $ 







   
 

  

Figure 1. Wendy’s conceptualisation of PCK

PCK from the Perspective of Teachers 1355
 
  
 




   



 
  

 
   


  
    


 
 
     
       




   
1356 E. Lee and J. A. Luft




 
 
 
  
  
   



 !  

  "!  
   


  
 


    

 
  
  


  
"
   
 #
 



 readjusts  
'
$   )
  
 produces
%
 * 

+  +
&

' ! links to   , -
(   !
       
"
   

 ! 
 

   
 &  ! 

Figure 2. Roger’s conceptualisation of PCK

 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.
According to Emily, knowledge of science and knowledge of goals were attached,
Figure 3. Emily’s conceptualisation of PCK

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.
Shawna placed the knowledge of students, knowledge of curriculum organisation,
Figure 4. Shawna’s conceptualisation of PCK

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

       

     



   
  
 
 

  


    
             
(  
 
 

  

   
  $ 
 

 
    !


" #
        

"
 
    " # 

 

 
%
     ! 
&'    "

 $


Figure 3. Emily’s conceptualisation of PCK

 PCK from the Perspective of Teachers 1359



     










 

     




  



  
         




    
     
        

    

 


 
    

    
   

  
 
   
 
     
 
  
!"  
# 
      



 
$

  
 
  

#
 
 %  
+     & 
$
,
  %    
$
    '  (
   
)   &  
*  


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.