Unpacking the concept of pedagogical content knowledge: Implications for literacy education at different levels and in different contexts

The concept of pedagogical content knowledge (PCK) was first elaborated by Shulman (1986) as representing a distinct form of knowledge about how to teach a particular subject. Initially, the move to advocating and researching PCK was particularly directed to secondary teaching in content areas (Veal & MaKinster, 1999). Thus the field of PCK research developed with particular assumptions related to teaching that stemmed from the secondary context, for instance that teaching was always undertaken using a specific textbook and that the special contribution of pedagogy lay in translating theories and concepts into examples, metaphors and stories, to make them comprehensible to learners. The problematic nature of such assumptions was first highlighted by Segall (2004) who drew from critical literacy and cultural studies to question to division between content and pedagogy, arguing that all content is already pedagogic in the sense that it takes the form of representations that are designed to shape subjectivities. However, such critiques have been marginal and we are seeing increased emphasis on PCK, related to the drive to create ‘classroom ready’ teachers (TEMAG 2014). The project reported here is currently investigating PCK in literacy (Love 2009), with a particular focus on how this may be defined and enacted in particular contexts. It has three phases: 1) a literature review aimed at investigating how LPCK has been defined and enacted, with a particular focus on the presence or absence of contextual specificities; 2) focus groups of educators from early years, primary and secondary to generate practitioner perspectives on what is distinctive about the ‘how’ of literacy teaching at each level (n = 30); 3) a survey of practitioners, informed by the reading and focus groups. The project intends to inform curriculum development in literacy teacher education; the researchers are all members of the English curriculum team at their university. This paper will report findings of the first phase which identified problems of definition, particularly related to how PCK and LPCK are conceptualised in relation to context. Early childhood education was found to be an absence which, if incorporated, might challenge some of the key assumptions underpinning the PCK model.Love, K. (2009). Literacy pedagogical content knowledge in secondary teacher education: reflecting on oral language and learning across the disciplines. Language and Education, 23(6), 541-560.Shulman, L.S. (1986). Those who understand: Knowledge growth in teaching. Educational Researcher, 15(2): 4–14.Segall, A. (2004). Revisiting pedagogical content knowledge: The pedagogy of content/ the content of pedagogy. Teaching and Teacher Education, 20(5), 489-504.Teacher Education Ministerial Advisory Group (2014) Action Now: Classroom Ready Teachers Canberra: Government of Australia.Veal, W. R., & MaKinster, J. G. (1999). Pedagogical content knowledge taxonomies. Electronic Journal of Science Education 3(4).