On Acknowledging PCK’s Shortcomings
On Acknowledging PCK’s Shortcomings
复制标题
关于承认 PCK 的缺点
DOI：
--
复制
发表时间：
2013
期刊：
影响因子：
--
通讯作者：
John Settlage
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
John Settlage
在过去的几个月里，当我回顾期刊手稿、会议提案和工作申请时，我被频繁提到的教学内容知识（PCK）所震惊。在科学教师教育中，PCK作为一个奇怪的持续存在但无法实现的概念而潜伏。25年前，当我第一次听说PCK时，我就很感兴趣;今天，PCK是一个相当大的挫折的来源，因为它闪闪发光，但没有提供什么实质内容。例如，PCK帮助我作为一名科学教师教育家解释了如何既不掌握学科内容，也不掌握管理技能，是不够的课堂成功。另一方面，对于那些可能将其视为研究议程基础的人来说，PCK潜伏着一个知识上的死胡同。在我的科学方法课上如此有用的东西，作为一种研究范式，怎么会如此无效呢？这么多年后，我认识到PCK相当于沙漠中的海市蜃楼或沿着海岸的神话般的海妖。愚蠢的激情使我们想象我们的渴望的实现：一个波光粼粼的水池，一个美丽的女巫，或者对教师专业知识的模糊性的解释。虽然这些诱惑本身无害，但它们会导致我们迷失、船难或陷入困境。我在这篇文章中的目的是深入研究PCK，以解开它的许多问题，同时也考虑它可能提供什么。通过研究对PCK的停滞不前的进展和历史上的矛盾心理，我为那些可能陷入困境的人提供了一个警示故事。我并不是唯一一个对PCK感到沮丧的人。在研究文献中，关于PCK存在不稳定性。这种结构很少能在很长一段时间内捕捉和维持任何一位学者的工作，尽管也有例外（例如，阿贝尔2008）。当在K-12科学教育国家框架草案（NRC 2012）中搜索PCK时，我的担忧升级。此外，术语“PCK "没有出现在为科学教师指定示范性工具和实践的文件中（例如，Wilson 2011; Windschitl等人2012）。
While reviewing journal manuscripts, conference proposals, and job applications over the past several months, I have been struck by the frequent mention of pedagogical content knowledge (PCK). Within science teacher education, PCK skulks about as a strangely persistent yet unfulfilling notion. PCK intrigued me when I first heard of it 25 years ago; today PCK is a source of considerable frustration because it sparkles, but offers little substance. For example, PCK helps me as a science teacher educator to explain how neither a strong grasp of subject matter nor the mastery of management skills is sufficient for classroom success. On the other hand, PCK lurks as an intellectual dead-end for those who might contemplate it as the foundation for a research agenda. How can something so useful in my science methods classes also be so ineffectual as a research paradigm? After all these years, I recognize that PCK is equivalent to a mirage in the desert or a mythical siren along the shore. Foolish passions cause us to imagine the fulfillment of our longings: a shimmering pool of water, a beautiful enchantress, or an explanation for the ambiguity of teacher expertise. And while not harmful in and of themselves, pursuing these seductions can lead us to becoming lost, shipwrecked, or stuck. My purpose in this essay is to delve into PCK to unpack its many problems while also considering what it might provide. By examining the stalled progress and historical ambivalence toward PCK, I offer a cautionary tale for those who might otherwise become ensnared. I am not alone in being disheartened by PCK. There is unsteadiness about PCK within the research literature. Rarely does the construct capture and sustain any single scholar’s work for an extended period of time, although there are exceptions (e.g., Abell 2008). My concerns escalate when a search for PCK in drafts of the national Framework for K-12 Science Education (NRC 2012) comes up empty. Furthermore, the term ‘‘PCK’’ does not appear in documents specifying exemplary tools and practices for science teachers (e.g., Wilson 2011; Windschitl et al. 2012).