I'm not sure but I know that the research for TPACK has been aligned with content.  I suspect (based on a new Handbook that I am the editor for) is that there are many mathematics TPACK studies - perhaps more than other content areas.  Matt Koehler told me he thinks that is because of the work that I was doing.  I was the Technology Chair for AMTE around the launching time of TPACK which helped do this.  I think other content areas are catching up now though - but as for whether they are discipline specific pedagogy, I'm not sure they are saying so specifically.

I suspect you are right about the PCK research as being more generic pedagogy than discipline-specific pedagogy.  A lot of TPACK is also generic pedagogy - more related to the technology that is being considered.

I endorse both your points as recent research on TPACK highlights the need to take "context" into consideration in implementing the model. I hope the linked article can further describe this disconnect between context and TPACK.

Best regards,

Debra

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0360131514001134

Colleagues,

Thanks for your answers, and I can vouch that Maggie's instructional approach was always content specific. She, I, and others designed a program to do so. I am speaking more specifically to what has been going on in the science education community. The only time anything is steeped in subject matter is when assessments of PCK are developed. And in those cases, the measures are more of subject matter knowledge than PCK.

Based on my dissertation's result, My advisor said to me that we should concentrate on both generic pedagogy and discipline-specific pedagogy. Because many papers in science education also inform in generic pedagogy but in PCK framework we should go beyond subject specific to topic specific also. In other paper such as chemistry education research and practice, it is quite topic specific in chemistry. So I think we should 

Surayot,

I agree with you, but what I am saying is that most of the PCK research doesn;t even get to the discipline specific, let alone the topic specific pedagogy.

You might be interested in looking at a 'movement' that is being developed in geography education by the (international) GeoCapabilities project - which has developed the idea of PCK to emphasise the importance of the subject discipline and 'powerful disciplinary knowledge' (based on work by Michael Young) alongside knowledge of pedagogy and student experiences into what they they term 'curriculum making'  - by which teachers interpret and enact the curriculum in their teaching using what they term 'curriculum artefacts'. They are developing a series of professional development modules (available in late 2016) that help teachers explore these relationships and reclaim the value of the subject in their teaching - and ultimately in creating teaching and learning that enables and contributes to the 'capability set' of students (as espoused by Amartya Sen).  They argue that a capabilities approach could apply to the teaching of any subject. The website is at: www.geocapabilities.org

http://www.geocapabilities.org

Duncan,

This would argue in favir of genral pedagoy, a position that is not in line with any research in the last 20 years. basically, you are are saying good teaching is good teaching.

Are there any peer reviewed empirical research studies to support what you are are sayinf, or is this just your opinion?

Norm

Duncan,

I have looked at your website and there is nothing theoretical or emprical htat you are addressing PCK in geo

So, my question is what do you think yoiu are doing? It is not PCK? If you think it is, please defend your position and relate it to the literature of PCK.

Estimado Norman, con relación a tu pregunta quiero compartir mi perspectiva frente al tema:

Con relación a la propuesta del PCK hay una discusión frente al significado de lo que se entiende por pedagogía desde los planteamientos iniciales de Shulman y otros autores, porque para muchos de nosotros, lo que allí se plantea no se refiere a la pedagogía sino a la didáctica, en tanto, la pedagogía se ocupa de la formación y la didáctica de los procesos de enseñanza-aprendizaje.

La otra cuestión es que la pedagogía en efecto, es algo general, ya que en términos de enseñanza no se habla de pedagogía de las ciencias o pedagogía de las matemáticas, etc., lo que es específico es la didáctica. Con relación a esta cuestión, un artículo de Shulman del año 2005 hace un replanteamiento de las categorías del PCK donde ya no habla de la subcategoría de conocimiento pedagógico del contenido, sino conocimiento didáctico del contenido.

Dear Norman. I agree that lots of PCK research is quite generic. I published a paper recently in IJSE which I think has some quite nice content specific examples.

Nilsson, P. & Vikström, A. (2015). Making PCK explicit - Capturing science teachers´ changing Pedagogical Content Knowledge (PCK) in the science classroom, International Journal of Science Education. Published on line 19 Nov 2015 http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2015.1106614

Happy new year from Pernilla

Angelos,

There is no thing called "general PCK". I think you are confusing a research focus with what support you would give to a beginning teacher.

The decusion is NOT and either/or situation.

Norm

Yes research we do has pointed to knowledge about school, about inclusion, about the very condition of carrying out the work as demands of teachers.

This question is a part of a recent publication with many different contributions:

Grangeat, M. (2015), Understanding Science Teachers' Professional Knowledge Growth Rotterdam: Sense Publishers.

Dear Jean-Marie Boilevin,

I strongly agree with you, the book "'Understanding Science Teachers’ Professional Knowledge Growth'" ed. by Michel Grangeat is really useful, inspiring and attractive. Thank  you.

Thanks for the information. We have survey data that need analysis. It would be great to have access to books 'Understanding Science Teachers’ Professional Knowledge Growth.

Colleagues,

So after two years no one has been able to provide an example of pedagogcial knowledge is discipline specific. This just reinforces what I thought aboyut the current state of research on PCK.

Norm

In a graduate school project, I tried to explore PCK among science teachers based on their perspectives and experiences. I wondered if teachers who followed the alternate route to certification might develop stronger PCK because of their authentic experiences in science, as opposed to teachers who followed the traditional route to certification, which would feature more pedagogy and rare authentic practice. I would be happy to dig up this work and share it.

I am glad that at least now, programs such as Rowan University's are considered having students have real scientific research as part of their training. I would love to revisit this research in a more rigorous manner, especially since I would like to conduct research on teacher experiences and perspectives.