IndexCriticisms of PCK-based PCK models.PCK/MKT and student learningCommons of PCK in researchGaps in PCK researchThis article is written with the intention of shedding light on the idea and conception of pedagogical content knowledge (PCK). Lee Shulman introduced this concept in 1986 to represent the “special” knowledge of the teacher's needs of the subject. It also represents the teacher's ability to address and recognize students' misconceptions and how to appropriately address them. Many articles have examined and reviewed the concept of PCK, but few have brought together the plethora of research on PCK across educational settings. The purpose of this article is to have a systematic review of the conceptualization of PCK, the impact that PCK has had on educational research, and the criticisms that PCK has had. Finally, the paper addresses open questions that have yet to be addressed in the academic community. This review is not expected to be an exhaustive search of the literature, as over 1200 articles have cited the idea of ​​PCK, but it is hoped that it will serve as a basis for future research and development of Shulman's (1987,1987) framework. Say no to plagiarism. Get a tailor-made essay on "Why Violent Video Games Shouldn't Be Banned"? Get an Original Essay As a first-year pre-service teacher going through my first internship, it quickly became apparent that there was a difference in teaching ability between me and my mentor teacher. I thought this was due to the years of experience and knowledge he had on me. This idea that knowledge and experience had a great impact on teaching led me to consider the idea of ​​“teacher knowledge” as a research topic. When I began my research, I came across the concept of pedagogical content knowledge (PCK). The questions I asked at the beginning of the article were: (1) What is PCK and is the concept still useful (2) How has PCK influenced research and teacher education? (3) PCK affects student learning. PCK was first introduced by Lee Shulman in 1986. He described it as the “missing” paradigm in research. In his article, he commented on the apparent lack of research on effective teaching and training protocols for in-service teachers. By introducing PCK Shulman hoped to highlight the role of teacher education and create a distinction between content knowledge (CK) and content knowledge. knowledge of the pedagogical content. He criticized that research at the time focused too much on classroom management and task structure, and too little on actual lesson content. It has prompted scholars to research questions such as “where do teachers' explanations come from.” (Shulman, 1986. p. 8) In his original article, Shulman (1986) addresses the issue that many student teachers are asked to teach new subjects when they enter the teaching profession. For example, how an English learner may be asked to teach a novel or play that he or she has never seen before. Shulman (1986) distinguishes 3 categories of knowledge: (1) subject knowledge, (2) content knowledge, (3) pedagogical content knowledge. According to Shulman (1986), PCK represents knowledge to represent and formulate arguments to make them understandable to others. Additionally, it represented the teacher's knowledge of common conceptions and misconceptions students may have about the topic; more importantly, the knowledge to address misconceptions in a way that is “fruitful” in reorganizing understandingof the student. In his later article Shulman (1987), redefines the 3 categories and includes PCK as part of the teacher's knowledge base. Defining it as “the special amalgam of content and pedagogy, which is solely the responsibility of teachers. Their particular form of professional understanding” (p.8). The 3 original groupings have been divided into 7 new knowledge categories for teachers: (1) content knowledge, (2) general pedagogical knowledge, (3) curriculum knowledge, (4) pedagogical content knowledge, (5) knowledge of students and their characteristics, (6) knowledge of the educational context, (7) knowledge of educational goals. Among the categories, PCK was of particular interest because it “represents the fusion of content and pedagogy in understanding how particular topics, issues, or problems are organized, represented, and adapted to students' diverse interests and abilities... PCK is the category most likely distinguishes the content specialist's understanding from that of the pedagogue” (Shulman, 1986 p.8) In summary, PCK represented the application of content knowledge during teaching and aimed to encapsulate the dynamic and unique interaction between teacher and student. It also represents the teacher's ability to adequately address student misconceptions and effectively engage the class in a meaningful way. Criticisms of the PCKSince its conception, the PCK has triggered a plethora of research in the field of educational research. However, it is not without its flaws, PCK as a concept is difficult to measure as it is not an explicit tool used by teachers (Kind, 2009). For example, teachers do not consciously think about using PCK when planning a lesson, rather PCK is applied unconsciously and integrated throughout the planning and implementation of the lesson itself (Kind, 2009). Another criticism of PCK is that it cannot be distinguished empirically from CK, because teaching is dynamic in nature. There are often multiple dimensions that interact and it becomes extremely difficult to measure as a separate concept (Depaeppe, Vershaffel, & Kelchtermans, 2013). Similarly, McEwan and Bull (1991) reject that PCK and CK are separate concepts and argue that “all topics are pedagogical”. (p.331) Shulman's model has also been criticized for holding too static a view on PCK. Bednarz & Proulx (2009), demonstrates the interaction a teacher has with his or her students, highlighting the dynamic and complex interactions an educator has while teaching. As a result of this dynamic relationship, PCK has been criticized for not encapsulating the full scope of knowledge needed by teachers in the classroom (Depaeppe, Vershaffel & Kelchtermans, 2013). Ball, Thames, and Phelps (2008) also criticized the lack of empirical and theoretical basis for the existence of PCK. They claim that Shulman's concept of PCK is too vaguely defined and was formulated without much empirical research, thus limiting its usefulness. PCK-based models. Following the conception of PCK, many models have been introduced in response to criticism and to better understand and apply PCK in various educational subjects. Cochran et al. (1993), used the term pedagogical content knowledge (PCKg), rather than PCK, to highlight the dynamic nature of teaching. PCKg addresses the importance of teacher-student interaction and the environmental context in which teaching occurs (Cochran et al., 1993). The authors explain that knowledge as a term was too static and, using knowledge, they are able to distinguish between training, (as an in-service teacher) and teaching (in-service teacher). Cochran et al, (1993) define PCKg as “the teacher's integrated understanding of fourcomponents of pedagogy, subject content, student characteristics and learning environment” (p.266). Applying this framework in a more practical sense, the authors argue that teacher education programs educate student teachers differently than subject matter experts. For example, a science teacher must learn and understand science so that he or she can help students understand concepts and distinguish between similar concepts, rather than strictly learning scientific facts. Surprisingly, the term PCKg has not been used by many researchers, and PCK, despite its limitations, is still the dominant framework that researchers and scholars gravitate towards. Veal and Makinseter (1999), suggested that PCK should be part of a knowledge taxonomy. With general PCK at the bottom of the pyramid, encompassing a broad range of topics, and building up to the top which represented topic-specific PCK. This subject-specific PCK represents how you teach depending on your background. For example, a chemistry major will explain a concept differently than a physics major (Kind, 2009). More recently, the concept of technological pedagogical content knowledge (TPACK) was created. Building on the work of Shulman and others, TPACK was conceptualized in response to the new challenges of teaching with technologies (Koehler and Mishra, 2009). The idea was that integrating technology into the educational context would benefit from an alignment of content, pedagogy, and use of technology (Voogt et al., 2013). More simply, teachers who wish to successfully integrate technology into their curriculum would require a level of expertise in the new domain of technology in addition to content knowledge and pedagogy. Like other PCK off-based frameworks, TPACK includes both CK and PCK in the structure. However, there is the addition of technological knowledge. Technological knowledge (TK) is defined as the acquisition of knowledge about technology that is broad enough to apply to work and daily life (Koehler and Mishra, 2009). The overlapping areas of the three domains give rise to the formation of new categories, PK and TK form technological pedagogy. knowledge, CK and TK form technological content knowledge, and CK and PK form PCK. Ultimately, the TPACK concept emerges when the three domains (PK, CK, TK) overlap. Koehler and Mishra (2009) define it as “the basis for effective teaching with technology, which requires an understanding of the representation of concepts using technologies; pedagogical techniques that use technologies in constructive ways to teach content; knowledge of what makes concepts difficult or easy to learn and how technology can help solve some of the problems students face.” (p.66) Another framework created in response to Shulman's original work was in the realm of mathematics. Authors such as Ball et al. (2008), Hill et al. (2004, 2008), Hill, Rowan & Ball (2005) refer to the concept of mathematical knowledge of teaching (MKT). Ball, Thames, and Phelps (2008) explained MKT as the mathematical knowledge needed by teachers to carry out the recurring tasks of teaching mathematics to students. Like TPACK, MKT combines both content knowledge and pedagogy knowledge, however, in the MKT framework, PCK is conceptualized as a combination of multiple components rather than a single idea. The MKT framework has 6 domains, 3 of which are related to the teacher's CK, while 3 are related to the PCK. The three related to CK are (1) common content knowledge (CCK, i.e. mathematical knowledge and skills for solving problems outside(2) specialized content knowledge (SCK, i.e. knowledge of mathematics specific to teaching) (3) content horizon knowledge (HCK, i.e. knowledge of what students need to know for subsequent grades and of what they should know going into class). The next 3 domains are related to PCK: (1) Content and Student Knowledge (KCS, which is the knowledge needed to select appropriate mathematical material for students that is motivating and interesting) (2) Content and Teaching Knowledge ( KCT, or knowing mathematics and how to teach it effectively.) (3) Content and curriculum knowledge (KCC, or knowing what needs to be taught at specific grade levels) (Ball, Thames, & Phelps, 2008). After the introduction of MKT, a test called “Mathematical Knowledge for Teaching” (Hill et al.,2004 2005) was created to determine teachers' MKT. It is a multiple-choice test that focuses on math-related concepts that the teacher should know. (Hill et al. 2004,2005) By creating the test, researchers were able to epically compare whether better test scores resulted in increased student learning. PCK/MKT and Student Learning Due to the nature of MKT built on empirical research and in response to some of the deficits of Shulman's original work, it provides a unique way to view the effect of PCK and the effects it may have on students. Hill et al. (2005), found that teachers' knowledge in mathematics was related to student improvement. Teachers who scored higher on the Mathematical Knowledge for Teaching test were able to teach their students more effectively. However, this study is not without limitations as the majority of students were from lower socioeconomic status backgrounds and the results may not have been the same, had the sample been more normative. Based on this study, Hill et al. (2008) were able to demonstrate that teachers who had higher MKT scores, had fewer errors when teaching, were better able to respond to their students and choose examples that helped students construct meaning. Along the same lines, Izsak (2008) compared two sixth grade teachers. The author concluded that the teacher with a deeper understanding of the subject was able to explain concepts better, generate better examples, and was better at identifying their students' misconceptions. Charalambous (2010) was also able to demonstrate that a teacher's knowledge of mathematics influenced his or her classroom decision-making, which in part influenced students' experience and learning. Teachers in the study who had higher MKT were able to keep tasks more cognitively challenging for their students while creating a more dynamic and meaningful lesson. Although the research seems promising, MKT represents many aspects of knowledge; it is not yet certain that PCK is the main contributor to the improvements in student learning that we see. Commonalities of PCK in Research Although much controversy exists regarding PCK, and many authors have updated and developed the framework, most authors agree that it bridges two domains of knowledge. Content knowledge and pedagogical knowledge. According to Sibbald (2009), “The intersection of pedagogy and content is pedagogical content knowledge, which combines specific content objectives with particular teaching techniques” (p.454). PCK is also seen as the superposition of the two domains in multiple structures. Meaning what.