Int J Technol Des Educ https://doi.org/10.1007/s10798-018-9456-1 Reconceptualising PCK research in D&T education: proposing a methodological framework to investigate enacted practice 1 1,2 1 3 Andrew Doyle · Niall Seery · Lena Gumaelius · Donal Canty · Eva Hartell Accepted: 24 May 2018 © The Author(s) 2018 Abstract Since first conceived, the concept of pedagogical content knowledge (PCK) has attracted much attention. Despite being lauded by educationalists as the unique knowledge base of teachers, research on the concept over the past 30 years has yet to result in a univer- sally accepted definition being presented. Much of the contentions surrounding the lack of an agreed upon conception appear to have stemmed from difficulties in understanding the relationship between PCK, other areas of teacher knowledge, teacher beliefs, and enacted practice. This paper considers the application of PCK frameworks to design and technology (D&T) education, through an analysis of the nature of the discipline from an ontological and epistemological perspective and contemporary perspectives on the construct of PCK. It is theorised that the volition afforded to teachers in D&T through weakly framed subject boundaries negates the effective application of PCK frameworks, as teachers’ beliefs have a greater impact on enacted practices. In an attempt to better understanding enacted practice in D&T education, the paper proposes a methodological framework centred on the interac- tions between teachers’ beliefs and knowledge in the discipline, through synthesising the concept of amplifiers and filters of practice with the nature of D&T education. The pro - posed framework outlines the need to recognise individual teachers’ conception of capabil- ity as a critical influence on enacted practice. Keywords Enacted practice · Design and technology education · Amplifiers and filters of practice · Pedagogical content knowledge · Conception of capability * Andrew Doyle firstname.lastname@example.org KTH Royal Institute of Technology, Stockholm, Sweden Athlone Institute of Technology, Athlone, Ireland University of Limerick, Limerick, Ireland 1 3 A. Doyle et al. Introduction Since its inception in the mid-1980’s (Shulman 1986, 1987) the concept of pedagogi- cal content knowledge (PCK) has attracted much attention. Despite being lauded as the unique knowledge base of teachers (Borowski et al. 2012), PCK has proven difficult to define and several conceptions have been put forward over the past 30 years (c.f. Cochran et al. 1993; Gess-Newsome 2015; Grossman 1990; Loughran et al. 2008; Mag- nusson et al. 1999; Park and Chen 2012; Park and Oliver 2008). Many of the difficulties in defining the concept appear to have stemmed from the complex relationships that PCK shares with teachers’ beliefs, and other areas of teacher knowledge, such as general pedagogical knowledge or subject-matter knowledge. In the absence of a universally accepted conception, researchers have begun to question the nature of PCK (Gess-New- some 1999) and have subsequently outlined the need to shift from descriptive concep- tions and utilise more explanative models of the concept (Abell 2008). Following such calls to action there have been attempts in both science (Gess-Newsome et al. 2017) and mathematics (Baumert et al. 2010) education to explore the relationship between PCK and practice. However, the results of such studies have been far from conclusive, as researchers have noted that the relationship between PCK and enacted practice is inher- ently complex as their interplay involves both knowledge-on-action and knowledge-in- action, and teacher knowledge is in part tacit and therefore difficult to elicit (Barendsen and Henze 2017). The allure of a concept with the potential to depict expertise in teaching (Abell 2008) and aid in understanding enacted practices (Park and Oliver 2008) has resulted in many calls for PCK research in design and technology (D&T) education (de Vries 2003, 2015; Engelbrecht and Ankiewicz 2016; Jones et al. 2013; Mioduser 2015; Ritz and Martin 2012). Despite theoretical approaches to conceptualising a model for enactment (Jones and Moreland 2003, 2004), and applied approaches to measuring PCK through multiple choice questionnaires (Rohaan et al. 2009, 2012), the relationship between PCK and practice in the discipline is not necessarily understood. Williams, Lockley, and Man- gan (2016) suggested that the degree of international diversity regarding the content of D&T may have served as an impediment to the development of research in the area, as the implicit nature of knowledge (Kimbell 2011; Williams 2009) is theorised to have a significant impact on enacted practice. Cognisant of the difficulties in understanding the relationship between PCK, teacher beliefs, and practice in science and mathematics education, and the complex nature of knowledge in D&T education, it is theorised that the application of current frameworks to D&T may be premature as the potential for variability in application is increased. In an attempt to better understand enacted prac- tice in D&T education this article considers contemporary research on PCK and teacher beliefs, subsequently framing a methodological approach to explore their relationship with and influences on enacted practice in D&T. First however, it is important to explore D&T education from an ontological perspective and discuss how contemporary under- standings of the nature of D&T education distinguish it from other disciplines. 1 3 Reconceptualising PCK research in D&T education: proposing… The nature of D&T education With rare exception D&T education internationally has evolved from a vocational back- ground, which traditionally sought to meet culturally specific economic needs. Over the past 30 years, the philosophy of D&T in various cultures has begun to somewhat align, and with a shift towards a shared agenda for D&T internationally came new understand- ings of what is of importance to student learning. Whereas vocational subjects were primarily concerned with the transmission of specific content knowledge and develop- ment of specific skills (Banks 2000; Owen-Jackson 2015), D&T education is broadly characterised by its potential to develop transferrable knowledge, skills, and attitudes (Dow 2014). In spite of the clear distinctions between the nature of vocational and D&T education, it is debated whether or not practices in D&T have shifted in alignment with international discourse and policy changes (Banks and Barlex 1999; Dakers 2005a; Doyle et al. 2017; Mittell and Penny 1997). Much of the contentions in understanding the evolution of practice from vocational to D&T education appear to have stemmed from the difficulties in explicating goals for D&T, as researchers in the discipline appear to broadly converge on either the concept of technological capability (Black and Har- rison 1985; Gibson 2008; Kelly et al. 1987; Kimbell 2011) or technological literacy (Dakers 2014a, b; Gagel 2004; Ingerman and Collier-Reed 2011; Petrina 2000, 2007; Williams 2009). In discussing the differences between technological capability and tech- nological literacy, Kimbell and Stables describe the contention between the terms as the “transatlantic dissonance” (2007, p. 22) in D&T education. Kimbell and Stables (2007) state that the emphasis placed on capability in England and Wales was predicated on the learner’s ability to operate as a design and technologist, situating the learner at the centre of design and technological activity. This aligns with initial conceptions of tech- nological capability, where the focus was on one’s capacity to combine designing and making skills, ensuring cognisance is taken of the processes and content required (Black and Harrison 1985). Gibson (2008) highlighted that the interactions between problem- solving, value-laden decision making and relevant skills, all housed within a conceptual knowledge base are fundamental to the espousal of technological capability. Apparent from such conceptions is that the development of technological capability necessitates engagement with task-centred activities which facilitate interactions between knowl- edge, skills and values (Kimbell 2011). On the other hand, the term ‘technological lit- eracy’ is primarily used in the United States. Kimbell and Stables (2007) noted that the primary emphasis within the development of technological literacy is the learner’s understanding and use of technology. Although this statement may have been true of initial conceptions of technological literacy, more recently the discourse around tech- nological literacy appears to have surpassed this. For example, Williams (2017) dis- cussed the concept of technological literacy and suggests that it is arguably the most significant goal of D&T education programmes, noting that it is generally constituted of an ability/use dimension, a knowledge and understanding dimension and an aware- ness or appreciation of the relationships between technology, society, and the environ- ment. Williams views these as the foundational categories of technological literacy and acknowledges that curricula then “elaborate on the specific abilities or outcomes related to these dimensions that are to be achieved in order to reach a school-based level of technological literacy” (2017, p. 139). Critical here is the notion of a school-based level of technological literacy. Dakers compellingly argues the non-definable, non-certifiable, and non-examinable nature of technological literacy, stating that “one can only ever be 1 3 A. Doyle et al. in a state of becoming technologically literate” (2014b, p. 20), suggesting the need to identify levels of attainment for particular grade levels. Efforts to this end have been attempted (ITEA 2000, 2002, 2007), however as the subtitle of these publications sug- gests, they are ultimately concerned with depicting the “content for the study of technol- ogy”. Ingerman and Collier-Reed (2011) subsequently noted the importance of under- standing the function of technological literacy, which is less articulated in the literature. However, a more pertinent issue is the negative implications of defining the content and functions of technological literacy. In spite of the apparent logic of atomising specific elements of technological capability or technological literacy to specific attainment tar - gets, the inherent complexity which emerges from such an approach is the need to define the specific content, knowledge base, skills, outcomes and outputs for enactment. In doing so, a unique characteristic of D&T education may be lost, as it is arguable that the level of diversity afforded in D&T is the defining characteristic of design and technolog- ical activity, as activity with no purpose beyond teaching a skill or internalising a piece of knowledge would more appropriately be called craft, science or history, dependant on the knowledge or skill involved (Kimbell 1994). Kimbell and Stables describe this phenomenon as “the importance of uncertainty” (2007, p. 24), and cite Hicks (1983) in articulating the intricacies of learning in D&T; Teaching facts is one thing; teaching pupils in such a way that they can apply facts is another, but providing learning opportunities which encourage pupils to use informa- tion naturally when handling uncertainty, in a manner which results in capability, is a challenge of a different kind. (Hicks 1983, p. 1) In light of the difficulties in articulating the specific content knowledge that is of impor - tance to student learning in D&T education, there have been efforts to depict the overarch- ing concepts in the discipline through the development of an ontology of goals for K-12 engineering technology education. The approach taken by Rossouw, Hacker, and de Vries (2011) to explore and identify elements of the concept-context relationship in engineering technology education is particularly useful in bridging the gap between abstract concepts in the discipline and the applicability to different contexts. A modified Delphi approach with participants from the international research community identified five main concepts for use in curriculum development; (1) designing (‘design as a verb’), (2) systems, (3) modelling, (4) resources, and (5) values. It is important to note that the concepts identified are context independent (although suggestions are offered in the paper), suggesting the far reaching applicability of such findings. The difficulties in articulating explicit goals for D&T and describing activity in the dis- cipline as operating in a place of “half-knowing” (Kimbell 2011, p. 9) relates to philo- sophical explanations of technological knowledge. As in alignment with the tacit nature of the goals of D&T, the classical philosophical notion of knowledge as justified true belief does not necessarily apply to technological knowledge (de Vries 2005, 2016). Norström (2014) suggests that the main reason for this stems from technological knowledge’s inher- ent action orientation, as the discipline is less concerned with whether knowledge is true or not, as it is instead focused on whether the knowledge is successful in guiding actions towards certain goals. This goal-oriented agenda to the application of appropriate knowl- edge in part highlights the difficulties in the development of an epistemology of D&T education, as the variability in ‘relevant’ knowledge is dependent on specific goals which negate the construction of commonly agreed networks, or schema of knowledge. Further 1 3 Reconceptualising PCK research in D&T education: proposing… to this, there is no defined schema of technological knowledge as design and technological activity requires the learner to borrow knowledge from other disciplines (de Vries 2016, p. 36). In alignment with this, and in an attempt to describe the nature of the discipline from a content perspective, McGarr and Lynch (2017) identified the weakly classified nature of knowledge in D&T, situating it in the weakly classified and weakly framed quadrant of Bernstein’s (1975) curriculum code framework. Irrespective of the content knowledge or organisation of knowledge in a discipline, aligning enacted practices and thus student learning with the educational objectives prescribed in curricula must be of critical impor- tance. If D&T is characterised by the nature of activity recognised as evidencing techno- logical capability or technological literacy, and if the discipline is further characterised by its boundary-crossing nature relative to content knowledge, this poses significant chal- lenges for the application of PCK frameworks. As by definition, the concept of PCK is predicated on teachers’ ability to amalgamate content knowledge and pedagogical knowl- edge in a way to enhance student learning. From a pedagogical perspective, D&T is said to be characterised by a pedagogy where there is no ‘right answer’ but rather different responses to the same problem are valued, some more than others (Banks et al. 2004). Spendlove (2012) highlighted that working in a space bereft of explicitly defined content knowledge as a unique advantage of D&T educa- tion, in that ownership lies with the teacher, who can in turn draw upon their own interests, their students’ interests, and recent developments in the field to engage learners with rel- evant concepts when required. If there is consensus between the goals of D&T as espoused in curricula and conceptions of capability implicitly held by teachers, then this is true. On the other hand, the possible variability in practices afforded through autonomy of this nature may be problematic, as teachers’ implicit conceptions of capability have a greater influence on the nature of activity students engage with, particularly if these implicitly held conceptions do not align with intended learning outcomes. In D&T education therefore, understanding teachers’ implicitly held beliefs about the nature of D&T and the nature of activity in D&T is of interest in understanding enacted practices. There are three elements from the review of the nature of D&T education that should be taken as point to note. Firstly, it is important to outline the commonality between the goals of D&T as depicted in the extant literature and studies. Each identified that educational goals in the discipline are not exclusively knowledge based and that there are a variety of problem-solving aptitudes, value-oriented perspectives, as well as manipulative skills that are necessary to be considered technologically capable or literate. Secondly, the implicit and variable nature of knowledge in D&T suggests that defining specific knowledge for D&T curricula may not be appropriate, as design and technological activity is defined by its application of “provisional knowledge” (Kimbell 2011, p. 7). Williams argues that “the domain of knowledge as a separate entity is irrelevant; the relevance of knowledge is deter- mined by its application to the technological issue at hand. So the skill does not lie in the recall and application of knowledge, but in the decisions about, and sourcing of, what knowledge is relevant” (2009, pp. 248–249). Lastly, from the precarious nature and sub- sequent application of D&T concepts to various contexts, the level of autonomy afforded to teachers in the discipline needs to be understood in terms of individual teachers’ peda- gogical aspirations for learning in D&T. This approach may provide useful insight on the assimilation of goals from reformed curricula to enacted practices. From this, pedago- gies which align with specific goals may be identified or developed, as although teachers’ beliefs and value system will have a profound effect on the nature of teaching in any disci- pline, the dynamic nature of goals in D&T increases potential variances between teachers. Furthermore, the disciplines legacy issues which have traditionally stifled the development 1 3 A. Doyle et al. of practice in aligning with reformed policy (Dakers 2005b) highlight the need to under- stand the relationship between conceptions of capability espoused in reformed syllabi and conceptions of capability held by teachers, thus informing understandings of enacted practice. Contemporary understandings of PCK In categorising the multitude of conceptions of PCK in the science education community, Gess-Newsome (1999) highlighted researchers’ tendency to view the construct as either an integrative or transformative knowledge category. The integrative category aligns with the concept as first introduced (Shulman 1986), in that PCK is viewed as the ‘amalga- mation’ of other knowledge categories [e.g. general pedagogical knowledge and content knowledge (Shulman 1987)]. On the other hand, a transformative conception views PCK as a separate knowledge base with its own unique identifiers. Models based on the trans- formative category view PCK as the result of the transformation of knowledge from other knowledge categories [e.g. knowledge of curriculum, assessment and instructional strate- gies (Magnusson et al. 1999)]. More recently, criticisms have emerged of such fields of thought, and questions have been raised about the relevance of debate between transforma- tive and integrative models of PCK (Kind 2009, 2015). Central to the concerns raised is the apparent disjunction between PCK research and understandings of enacted practice, a trend that has seen researchers call for PCK research that is more predictive of enacted practice (Abd-El-Khalick 2006). With this, concerns pertaining to the nature of PCK are often related to the foundational or applied methods by which PCK has been studied, as many of the methods developed have undergone scrutiny; either due to their inability to capture PCK in an ecologically valid manner, or criticisms have been founded on a lack of topic-specificity in the instrument design. Thus, resulting in the capture of both pedagogi- cal and content knowledge (as well as several other professional knowledge bases) how- ever, the intricacies of PCK are often believed to have been misinterpreted (Friedrichsen et al. 2010) or not captured at all (Kirschner et al. 2015). Further to this, the difficulties in validly and reliably capturing PCK appear to have stemmed from the assertions that PCK is topic-specific (Mavhunga 2012). Veal and MaKinster (1999) first introduced the concept of topic-specificity through establishing a PCK taxonomy which centred on three different levels; general PCK, at a disciplinary level; domain-specific PCK at the level of sub-discipline; and, topic-specific PCK. However, the tiered description of PCK based on topic-specificity leads to more pragmatic questions about the nature of PCK itself and how to capture it validly. Firstly, it is unclear the degree to which ‘general PCK’ can in fact be generalised amongst teachers as it is not clear if an instrument that does not necessitate the engagement of topic-specific knowledge has the capacity to capture PCK (Schneider and Plasman 2011). Secondly, if a topic-specific instrument situated in teachers’ practices is utilised, for example, using the content representations (CoRe) instrument developed by Loughran, Berry and Mulhall (2006), the degree to which topic-PCK is representative of a teacher’s everyday practices is difficult to ascertain, as a topic-specific depiction is specific to that educational context. In an effort to synthesise understandings of the concept of PCK and address the emerging contentions presented above, attendees at the summit on PCK research in sci- ence education (BSCS 2012) developed the consensus model of teacher professional knowledge and skill (Gess-Newsome and Carlson 2013). The model (Fig. 1) categorises 1 3 Reconceptualising PCK research in D&T education: proposing… Fig. 1 Model of teacher professional knowledge and skill including PCK (Gess-Newsome and Carlson 2013) three different types of teacher knowledge; teacher professional knowledge bases (TPKB), topic-specific professional knowledge (TSPK), and PCK. TPKB are defined as general (not content specific) knowledge bases for teaching, such as knowledge of assessment or general pedagogical knowledge. As knowledge bases, these are norma- tive and can be used to construct assessments to quantify what teachers know. TSPK on the other hand, is knowledge that has been codified by experts in a discipline as being important to student learning; a public understanding held by a teaching community. Gess-Newsome (2015) asserts that an example of this type of knowledge would be the content of a CoRe (Loughran et al. 2006), as the CoRe instruments represents how a community of teachers think about how to teach a particular topic to a particular grade level. In contrast to TPKB and TSPK, which are both canonical in nature and held in the profession itself, PCK is recognised as being personal knowledge held by individual teachers. Attendees at the summit define PCK as “the knowledge of, reasoning behind, and planning for teaching a particular topic in a particular way for a particular purpose to particular students for enhanced student outcomes” (Gess-Newsome 2015, p. 36). The dichotomous implications of defining PCK to a level of context and topic-specificity is noted by Garritz: On one hand, it means that PCK must be reconstructed specifically each time a given teacher, within set objectives, has to present a certain topic to a specific set of stu- dents with a distinctive background and learning characteristics. On the other hand, it represents a superb challenge, being that PCK is an academic construct that repre- sents an intriguing idea, rooted in the belief that teaching requires much more than delivering content knowledge to students, involving designed purposes and the best ways to represent and evaluate that knowledge. (2014, p. 733) 1 3 A. Doyle et al. From this definition it becomes clear that PCK is no longer considered as a general knowl- edge base of teachers, nor an individual teachers knowledge, PCK is situated in a specific teacher’s experiences. This is supported by the consensus that PCK and associated class- room instruction vary by topic, particularly across topics with different levels of content knowledge (Carlsen 1993) and for topics within and outside areas of content expertise (Hashweh 1987, 2005). In introducing this model of PCK, Gess-Newsome (2015) noted that PCK can be found in the instructional plans that teachers create and in the reasons behind their instructional decisions. This is the knowledge that teachers bring forward to design and reflect on instruction. From this, the relationship between teachers’ PCK and practice is theorized to be inherently complex as the interplay involves both knowledge-on- action and knowledge in-action (Park and Oliver 2008). Although knowledge-on-action is relatively easy to explicate as it can be elicited directly from teachers, knowledge-in-action is both enacted and developed during teaching by reflection-in-action (Schön 1983), illus- trating the reciprocal dependency between PCK development and PCK enactment (Barend- sen and Henze 2017). The implications of situating PCK in practice highlight difficulties in measuring PCK in a normative form, as quantitatively representing the subtle and fine distinction between different forms of teacher knowledge has lead researchers to question whether or not this is a valid enterprise (Gunstone 2015). In considering the application of the consensus model of teacher professional knowledge and skill in the context in D&T education, an additional degree of complexity emerges. As previously noted, defining specific context for D&T negates engagement with the higher order cognitive and attitudinal abilities which the discipline now seeks to develop. The conceptually oriented agenda therefore affords teachers greater influence regarding deci- sions around ‘what’ to teach in every day learning activities. This is supported by previous attempts to apply the CoRe tool (Loughran et al. 2006) to D&T education (Williams et al. 2012; Williams and Lockley 2012). In a comparison to a partnership between researchers, practitioners and content experts in science education, a D&T team of the same composi- tion found it challenging to identify specific ‘key ideas’ for lessons in D&T. The additional negotiation and justification of principles in D&T was theorised to have stemmed from the fact that there was no schema that was familiar to all D&T participants. As in compari- son to science education, which has a well-established epistemology, leading to an estab- lished organization of knowledge into accepted topics of inquiry, which in turn facilitates common teacher interpretations and representations of content, concepts and appropriate pedagogies (Williams et al. 2016). This study highlights a fundamental difference between the nature of scientific and technological knowledge, and it confirms that methods used to study PCK cannot be universally transferred between disciplines (De Miranda 2018). Therefore, perhaps one of the most significant challenges facing D&T research is then in understanding the pedagogical transmission from intended learning outcomes depicted in syllabi to teachers’ enacted practice. With this, vocational education had a commonly understood practice, often being compared to the master apprentice model of the medieval guild (Banks 2000), however, with the emergence of a new agenda for D&T education it is “inappropriate for orthodoxy to become uniformity” (Barlex 2015, pp. 158–159). There- fore, and as the concept of PCK in itself may not be sufficient in exploring the factors which affect D&T teachers’ enacted practice, the following section proposes a model cen- tred on enacted practice in D&T education. 1 3 Reconceptualising PCK research in D&T education: proposing… Reconceptualising PCK research in D&T: understanding enacted practice In considering the application of PCK frameworks to D&T education, several contentions emerge. Paramount amongst these contentions is the nature of activity in D&T, as the volition afforded by loosely classified and loosely framed content knowledge boundaries facilitates educational agendas that are specific to individual teachers. This freedom has been framed as a unique advantage of the discipline (Spendlove 2012) and although the conceptually focused composition of D&T curriculum will allow D&T teachers’ beliefs to have a greater influence on enacted practice, a significant challenge emerges if individual teacher’s educational agendas are not aligned with the outcomes prescribed in D&T curric- ula. In light of this, the following section presents a methodological framework to explore the relationship between teachers’ knowledge, teachers’ beliefs and amplifiers and filters of enacted practice in D&T education. PCK, teacher beliefs and enacted practice The relationship between PCK and teachers’ beliefs is much contended in the PCK research community (Friedrichsen et al. 2010). Despite the initial conceptualisations of PCK con- sidering the concept as exclusively a knowledge base (Shulman 1987), the consistent re- emergence of PCK models containing constructs related to teachers’ beliefs (Anderson and Smith 1987; Grossman 1990; Magnusson et al. 1999; Park and Chen 2012) suggests the importance of this construct in influencing teachers’ practices. Referring to teachers’ beliefs about the purposes and goals of teaching a subject, constructs related to teachers’ beliefs are perceived as being influential due to their regulatory relationship between teachers’ knowledge bases and PCK. Magnusson et al. (1999) indicate that teachers’ beliefs serve as the “conceptual map” (p. 97) that guide instructional decisions about issues such as daily objectives, the content of student assignments, the use of textbooks and other curricular materials, and the evaluation of student learning (Borko and Putnam 1996). However, simi- lar to research on the nature of PCK, research exploring teachers’ beliefs has been marred by different conceptualisations of the position of beliefs relative to PCK and enacted prac- tice. For example, researchers have used terms such as teaching orientations or concep- tions of teaching to describe teachers’ beliefs about teaching and learning. Anderson and Smith (1987) initially proposed the term orientations to describe teachers’ “general pat- terns of thought and behaviour related to science teaching and learning” (p. 99). Similarly, Hewson and Hewson (1987) describe conceptions of teaching science as a “set of ideas, understandings, and interpretations of experience concerning the teacher and teaching, the nature of content of science and the learners and learning which the teacher uses in making decision about teaching, both in planning and execution” (p. 194). Hewson and Hewson (1987) also suggested that prospective teachers’ conceptions of science teaching are reflec- tive of their experiences as students. With their model of PCK, Magnusson et al. (1999) used the term orientation to refer to “teachers’ knowledge and beliefs about the purposes and goals for teaching science at a particular grade level” (p. 97). Subsequent to these vary- ing conceptualisations, many researchers have noted the interchangeable use of terms such as orientations, dispositions and conceptions (Anderson et al. 2000; Koballa et al. 2005). Although researchers have used the terms conception, belief, disposition, and orientation interchangeably, common themes have emerged that are of importance to understanding 1 3 A. Doyle et al. enacted classroom practices and its relationship to PCK; prospective teachers enter teacher education programmes with strongly held beliefs about teaching and learning (Anderson et al. 2000; Koballa et al. 2005); these beliefs are resistant to change, although they can be changed and are perhaps most susceptible to change in teacher education or the earlier years of a teacher’s career (Magnusson et al. 1999; Simmons et al. 1999); and, experienced teacher beliefs consist of multiple central and peripheral goals which may shift based on the course, topic and grade-level of the student (Friedrichsen and Dana 2003). In an effort to synthesise current understandings of the terms, Friedrichsen et al. (2010) conducted a literature review of uses of the term ‘orientations’ in the PCK research com- munity. In their paper, they highlighted four methodological issues with the use of the term: (a) using orientations in different or unclear ways, (b) unclear or absent relationship between orientations and other PCK model components, (c) simply assigning teachers to one of the nine categories of orientations theorised by Magnusson et al. (1999), and (d) ignoring the overarching orientations component. In an effort to progress the orientations agenda, Friedrichsen et al. (2010) summarised their review in presenting a model for future research in science education (Fig. 2). The presentation of the model was perceived as the first stage in developing conceptual and methodological clarity regarding orientations. In introducing the model of teacher professional knowledge and skill (Fig. 1), Gess-Newsome (2015) detailed that the knowledge held in both the TPKB and TSPK components of the model are canonical in nature and held by the profession itself, and although this knowl- edge is accessed by individual teachers in order for it to be personalised, “it must pass through the lens of the teacher” (Gess-Newsome 2015, p. 34). The autonomy afforded to teachers in their selection and implementation of pedagogical approaches is described as being mediated by teacher’s beliefs and orientations. Situating beliefs in the intermediary between teachers’ knowledge bases and enacted practices, or as an amplifier or filter of practice, affords the opportunity to better understand enacted practices, as this organisation of teacher knowledge is cognisant that teachers’ beliefs have the potential to affect practice in a variety of ways. In acknowledgement of Settlages’ critique of PCK as traditionally being bound to its knowledge-as-commodity construct and the relatively little regard given to what teachers actually do (2013), the authors propose that a model concerned with better understand- ing enacted practice must centre on exploring enacted practice, cognisant of both teacher knowledge and beliefs. In contrast to the model presented at the PCK summit (Fig. 1), it is theorised that teachers’ beliefs will have a greater influence than the mediation between Fig. 2 Model of orientations towards teaching from Friedrichsen et al. (2010) adapted for D&T education 1 3 Reconceptualising PCK research in D&T education: proposing… Fig. 3 Theoretical model of enacted practice, teachers’ beliefs and teacher knowledge teachers’ knowledge bases and enacted practice. In particular when considering the nature of D&T education as presented earlier, the freedom afforded to teachers is increased through the lack of a commonly agreed upon epistemology in the discipline. In other words, before a teachers’ knowledge in D&T is mediated by how to teach and why, they must decide what to teach. The framework proposed by Friedrichsen et al. (2010) is per- ceived to be of particular use here as it not only considers pedagogical and epistemological elements of teachers’ beliefs, but also their ontological beliefs specific to the nature of the subject. The theoretical model presented in Fig. 3 helps to represents the interactions that occur between teachers’ beliefs and knowledge in D&T education, and the centrality of enacted practice. The framework synthesises the three knowledge bases proposed at the PCK summit (Gess-Newsome 2015) with the orientations framework proposed by Frie- drichsen et al. (2010). Critically, as opposed to being a model of PCK, the researchers view this as a model of enacted practice in D&T and utilise the concept of PCK for its explana- tory power in depicting the intricacies of everyday practice. Paramount amongst beliefs in the model are teachers’ beliefs about the nature of D&T. These beliefs, which may be described as teachers’ conception of capability, are of criti- cal importance in understanding enacted practice in the discipline. The need to understand these beliefs stems from both the recent reformations in the discipline internationally, and the freedom afforded to teachers through loosely defined content knowledge boundaries. The influence that individual conceptions of capability may have on practice is supported by the work of Dow (2004, 2006, 2014), where it was identified that D&T teachers’ intrin- sic conceptions of what is important to learning in the discipline are generally accepted as being difficult to change and strongly influences by their own educational experiences. Fur - thermore, from a curriculum perspective, Porter (2006) discussed the various influences on teachers’ pedagogical decisions, identifying that teachers may choose to teach content for a variety of reasons, such as what they believe to be most important, what they think students are ready to learn, or what is most enjoyable for them to teach. On a similar note, the traditionally vocational nature of D&T education may be problematic from the perspec- tive of the recent reformations of the discipline as such reformations may necessitate a shift in teachers’ conception of capability to align with reformed syllabi. Investigating the degree of alignment between conceptions of capability held by teachers in the discipline 1 3 A. Doyle et al. and capability as espoused in syllabi may offer an explanation of the disjunction between rhetoric and reality in D&T (Barlex 2000; Kimbell 2006). From the perspective of research concerned with understanding enacted practice, identifying D&T teachers’ conceptions of capability may be seen as the first step in a methodological approach to understanding enacted practice, as this approach remedies extant issues with the perceived lack of explan- atory power with existing theoretical conceptualisations of PCK. It is of interest then to understand the formulation of teachers’ conceptions of capability, and a valid and reliable manner by which conceptions may be captured. It is also important to note that a teacher’s beliefs are not necessarily a static entity, and although one’s beliefs may evolve, the media- tion of actions by teachers’ beliefs in different educational contexts offers an explanation of apparently contrasting depictions of an individual teachers’ PCK. Relative conceptions may be ascertained through the application of tools such as the CoRe (Loughran et al. 2006) or the application of a learning study approach (Nilsson and Vikström 2015). Ascer- taining true conceptions may be more difficult, and somewhat counterintuitively it may be appropriate to separate the instrument from teachers’ everyday practices. From proposing a conception of capability approach to exploring enacted practice, two pertinent issues emerge. Firstly, and as evidenced earlier, D&T as a discipline has tradi- tionally struggled for identity in the curriculum, based on the lack of a common agenda. Achieving consensus on or determining the reasons for differing conceptions of capability in the research community appears to be the logical first step in understanding practice. Such findings may then be used as a barometer by which individual teachers’ conceptions may be compared. The ontology of goals developed by Rossouw et al. (2011) may provide a useful starting point for research to this end. Secondly, it is important to note that teach- ers’ conceptions of capability are inherently a dynamic entity, much like the disciplinary goals from which they are optimally derived. In a discipline predicated on its adaptability and continual evolution, identifying conceptions of capability at a particular point in time will undoubtedly be of use. However, understanding how evolving conceptions manifest themselves in policy and in turn practice should also be of particular interest for future research. Situational amplifiers and filters of practice Situating the amplifiers and filters component of teacher professional knowledge and skill (Gess-Newsome 2015) in the intermediary between teachers’ knowledge bases and enacted practice offers an explanation to inconclusive findings between teacher PCK, enacted prac- tice and student achievement (Baumert et al. 2010; Gess-Newsome et al. 2017), as the construct identifies the need to understand the various factors which may affect utopian classroom intentions. In considering factors which have the potential to mediate teachers’ actions and choices in the classroom, some elements are immediately apparent. For exam- ple, Gess-Newsome (2015) highlighted the potential of; teachers’ views about the societal goals for schooling, their orientation toward preferred instructional strategies, or their pre- ferred organization of the content of their discipline, all as potential amplifiers or filters of practice. Within this however, there is an important distinction to make between fac- tors which have the potential to affect teachers’ practice holistically, such as expectations placed on the teacher in a particular school culture, and more day-to-day factors such as availability of resources. The need for such a categorisation stems from Kennedy’s (2010) proposal that the educational research community may be guilty of attributional error, as researchers overestimate the power and influence of teacher personal characteristics and 1 3 Reconceptualising PCK research in D&T education: proposing… practices. Instead, she proposes that situational forces such as; teachers’ work (time, mate- rials, and work assignments), students, school interruptions into the classroom, and the dif- ficulty of attending to multiple reform efforts simultaneously may have a stronger relation- ship to student learning than teacher quality. This problem of enactment (Kennedy 1999) in teaching practice highlights the need to understand the different frames of reference in which teachers’ practices are being discussed. Without an explicit frame of reference for observations of enacted practice, the degree to which generalisations can be made of obser- vations is unclear. This is perhaps more appropriate when exploring enacted practice in D&T education, as the additional variance of increased volition is facilitated by the nature of the subject. This situational frame of reference is depicted in Fig. 4 by means of depict- ing the importance of understanding the various factors which load on a teacher’s practice in a particular instance. The importance in understanding situational amplifiers and filters of practice is predicated on the concept of ecological validity. Exploring enacted practice through situating data collection instruments in the learning context, where data about the context itself may be gathered provides greater opportunities to generalise findings in the discipline. Systemic amplifiers and filters of practice Further to this, systemic amplifiers or filters can be characterised by the educational context and subsequent expectations which may be placed on teachers. Here any factor which has the potential to affect teachers’ utopian aspirations for classroom practice should be considered. Examples of such may be; a misalignment between intended learning outcomes prescribed in syllabi and a highly performative assessment culture (Porter 2006) which may require teachers to truncate syllabi at the expense of student learning (Hyland 2011). School or departmental ethos or ‘standard practices’ may also have an impact on teachers’ pedagogical aspirations. These cultural factors are important due to their perceived effect on teachers’ knowledge and beliefs over a sustained period of time. As with situational amplifiers and filters, the contribu- tion of detailing (or controlling) systemic factors which load on a teacher’s practices is essen- tially that of content validity. Further to this however, it is theorised that systemic amplifiers Fig. 4 Ecologically situated model of enacted practice, teachers’ beliefs and teacher knowledge 1 3 A. Doyle et al. and filters may be of critical importance due to their position as a confounding variable, as work on teacher enculturation (Goodson 1991; Tishman et al. 1993) suggests that expecta- tions of the teaching context may influence teachers’ beliefs as more teaching time is spent in a particular context. The framework identifies the need to understand individual teachers’ agendas for D&T education before factors which may act on these agenda can be identified. Triangulating teach- ers’ conceptions of capability for D&T learning, their beliefs about the nature of teaching and learning in the discipline, and their perspective on their enacted practices affords the unique opportunity of a self-reflective depiction of practice in D&T, in the context of student perfor - mance relative to a particular context. To affect practices, a conceptual change of teachers’ beliefs about the nature of teaching and learning in the discipline may be necessitated. This resonates with the earlier discussion exploring the relationship between PCK as a knowledge base and enacted practice, and offers an explanation as to why a teacher may be reluctant to utilise a particular pedagogical approach. Furthermore, research housed within the framework presented may also provide insight into previous findings in the discipline. For example, Jones and Compton (1998) identified a disjunction between a teacher’s understanding of technologi- cal capability and enacted practices, as teachers focused on the production of a product rather than the thinking skills, creativity, processes, issues, and key learning involved, where an underdeveloped conception of capability was identified. As the amplifier or filter framework emphasises the importance of identifying and understanding how actors influence conceptions of capability and thus practices, supplementary studies identifying what is deemed by teachers to be of importance may determine the degree of alignment between practices and capability as prescribed by syllabi. This approach frames the dependant, independent and confounding variables to consider the exploration of enacted practice in D&T education. As the framework presented in Fig. 4 is ultimately concerned with better understanding enacted practice in the discipline, it is important that the framework is read and applied in this way, from the centre out. From this perspective, observations of classroom practice have the potential to elicit teachers’ PCK, specific to that educational context. It is important to note that this PCK is not necessarily representative of this teacher’s entire PCK. Similarly, observa- tions of or reflections on teachers’ practice potentiate the elicitation of teachers’ ontological beliefs about the nature of the subject. Although these beliefs may not be fully representa- tive of their beliefs about the nature of D&T, their interdependency on enacted practice is the unique contribution of this approach. The amplifiers and filters elements reinforce this contri- bution as they highlight the need to understand practice from an ecological perspective. Thus, in an effort to investigate practice in the discipline from an ecological perspective, cognisant of the need to simultaneously consider the cognitive and affective factors which affect teach- ers’ actions (Charalambous 2015), the contribution of this research is in proposing a meth- odological framework to facilitate this investigation. That is not to say that research concerned with individual elements of teachers’ knowledge or beliefs will not be of use. However, the nexus of the argument put forward here, is that if generalisations are to be made about the nature of practice in the discipline, researchers must consider all of the factors which have the potential to affect findings. 1 3 Reconceptualising PCK research in D&T education: proposing… Conclusion This article set out to consider the appropriateness of applying PCK frameworks to D&T education, with the ultimate goal of better understanding enacted practice in the discipline. Through an analysis of contemporary understandings of the nature and goals of D&T education, it appears as though the affordances offered by weakly classified and weakly framed discipline boundaries are greater in D&T than many other areas. Although these affordances may have stymied the development of an epistemology of D&T, they are con- sidered an integral element, as a utilitarian agenda governs the use of knowledge in the discipline. It is therefore important to note that defining clear subject boundaries is not considered to be an appropriate solution to understanding the nature of practice, as pre- scribing content for D&T negates the broader aims of syllabi such as the development of technological capability and technological literacy. The difficulties in applying PCK frame- works to D&T may stem from this contention, as contemporary understandings of PCK view the construct as topic-specific. And as relevant knowledge for D&T only becomes apparent through engagement with D&T tasks, this raises questions as to the validity of current approaches in generalising findings from outside the classroom. Furthermore, the relationship between prescribed curricula and enacted practice is not necessarily under- stood in D&T, and the freedom afforded to teachers highlights the need to understand the influences of teacher beliefs on enacted practice. The methodological framework presented herein attempts to frame the various elements which influence enacted practice, through recognising the magnitude of teachers’ beliefs and distinguishing between situational and systemic amplifiers and filters of practice. First, the relationship between PCK and teachers’ beliefs has shared a marred past, as many researchers have debated whether or not beliefs should be considered an element of PCK. The stance taken in this article is that beliefs are not an element of PCK, although their influences on its development and enactment through planning and enacted practice are recognised. Secondly, a recent objective in PCK research has been to explore amplifiers and filters of practice, this article progresses this agenda through arguing the need to under - stand both situational and systemic amplifiers and filters of practice in D&T. The need for this also stems from the nature of D&T as a discipline and thus, the variances which may impede teachers’ intended practices need to be understood. From this, the article argues the need to comprehensively understand the interactions between teachers’ knowledge and beliefs, cognisant of both situational and systemic amplifiers and filters, to truly understand the reality of classroom practice. Only then can we comprehensively understand the influ- ences on pedagogical practice and in turn, strategically affect change. Open Access This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 Inter- national License (http://creat iveco mmons .org/licen ses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. References Abd-El-Khalick, F. (2006). Preservice and experienced biology teachers’ global and specific subject matter structures: Implications for conceptions of pedagogical content knowledge. Eurasia Journal of Math- ematics, Science and Technology Education, 2(1), 1–29. 1 3 A. Doyle et al. Abell, S. K. (2008). Twenty years later: Does pedagogical content knowledge remain a useful idea? Interna- tional Journal of Science Education, 30(10), 1405–1416. Anderson, C. W., & Smith, E. L. (1987). Teaching science. In V. Richardson-Koehler (Ed.), Educators’ handbook—A research perspective (pp. 84–111). New York: Longman. Anderson, L. M., Smith, D. C., & Peasley, K. (2000). Integrating learner and learning concerns: Prospective elementary science teachers’ paths and progress. Teaching and Teacher Education, 16(5), 547–574. Banks, F. (2000). Teaching design and technology. In G. Owen-Jackson (Ed.), Learning to teach design and technology in the secondary school (pp. 150–196). London: Routledge Falmer. Banks, F., & Barlex, D. (1999). “No one forgets a good teacher!”: What do “good” technology teachers know? Journal of Design and Technology Education, 4(3), 223–229. Banks, F., Barlex, D., Jarvinen, E. M., O’Sullivan, G., Owen-Jackson, G., & Rutland, M. (2004). DEPTH—Developing professional thinking for technology teachers: An international study. Inter- national Journal of Technology and Design Education, 14(2), 141–157. Barendsen, E., & Henze, I. (2017). Relating teacher PCK and teacher practice using classroom observa- tion. Research in Science Education. https ://doi.org/10.1007/s1116 5-017-9637-z. Barlex, D. (2000). Preparing D&T for 2005—Moving beyond the rhetoric: The DATA lecture. Journal of Design and Technology Education, 5(1), 5–15. Barlex, D. (2015). Developing a technology curriculum. In P. J. Williams, A. Jones, & C. Buntting (Eds.), The future of technology education (pp. 143–167). Singapore: Springer. Baumert, J., Kunter, M., Blum, W., Brunner, M., Voss, T., Jordan, A., et al. (2010). Teachers’ mathemat- ical knowledge, cognitive activation in the classroom, and student progress. American Educational Research Journal, 47(1), 133–180. Bernstein, B. (1975). Class, codes and control: Towards a theory of educational transmission (Vol. 3) (3rd ed.). London: Routledge and Kegan Paul Ltd. Black, P., & Harrison, M. (1985). In place of confusion: Technology and science in the school cur- riculum. Nuffield-Chelsea Curriculum Trust/National Centre for School Technology. Nottingham: Trent Polytechnic. Borko, H., & Putnam, R. T. (1996). Learning to teach. In D. C. Berliner & R. C. Calfee (Eds.), Hand- book of educational psychology (pp. 273–708). New York: MacMillan. Borowski, A., Carlson, J., Fischer, H. E., Henze, I., Gess-Newsome, J., Kirschner, S., et al. (2012). Dif- ferent models and methods to measure teachers’ pedagogical content knowledge. In C. Bruguière, A. Tiberghien, & P. Clément (Eds.), Science learning and citizenship. European Science Educa- tion Research Association (ESERA): Lyon. BSCS. (2012). PCK summit. Retrieved December 1, 2017, from http://pcksu mmit.bscs.org. 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. Charalambous, C. Y. (2015). Working at the intersection of teacher knowledge, teacher beliefs, and teaching practice: A multiple-case study. Journal of Mathematics Teacher Education, 18(5), 427–445. 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. Dakers, J. R. (2005a). Technology education as solo activity or socially constructed learning. Interna- tional Journal of Technology and Design Education, 15(2), 73–89. Dakers, J. R. (2005b). The hegemonic behaviorist cycle. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 15(2), 111–126. Dakers, J. R. (2014a). Defining technological literacy: Towards an epistemological framework (2nd ed.). New York: Palgrave MacMillan. Dakers, J. R. (2014b). New frontiers in technological literacy: Breaking with the past. New York, NY: Palgrave Macmillan. De Miranda, M. A. (2018). Pedagogical content knowledge for technology education. In M. J. de Vries (Ed.), Handbook of technology education (pp. 685–698). Dordrecht: Springer. de Vries, M. J. (2003). Book reviews. [Review of the book Examining pedagogical content knowledge, by J. Gess-Newsome & N.G. Lederman (Eds.)]. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 13(2), 196–198. de Vries, M. J. (2005). Technological knowledge. Teaching about technology: An introduction to the phi- losophy of technology for non-philosophers (pp. 29–48). Dordrecht: Springer. de Vries, M. J. (2015). Research challenges for the future. In P. J. Williams, A. Jones, & C. Buntting (Eds.), The future of technology education (pp. 253–269). Dordrecht: Springer. de Vries, M. J. (2016). Teaching about technology: An introduction to the philosophy of technology for non-philosophers (2nd ed.). Dordrecht: Springer. 1 3 Reconceptualising PCK research in D&T education: proposing… Dow, W. (2004). The role of implicit theories in the development of creative classrooms. In E. Norman, D. Spendlove, P. Grover, & A. Mitchell (Eds.), DATA international research conference 2004— Creativity and innovation (pp. 61–66). Wellesbourne: Design and Technology Association. Dow, W. (2006). The need to change pedagogies in science and technology subjects: A European per- spective. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 16(3), 307–321. Dow, W. (2014). Implicit theories: Their impact on technology education. In J. R. Dakers (Ed.), Defining technological literacy: Towards an epistemological framework (2nd ed., pp. 149–164). New York: Palgrave MacMillan. Doyle, A., Seery, N., Canty, D., & Buckley, J. (2017). Agendas, influences and capability: Perspectives on practice in design and technology education. International Journal of Technology and Design Educa- tion. https ://doi.org/10.1007/s1079 8-017-9433-0. Engelbrecht, W., & Ankiewicz, P. (2016). Criteria for continuing professional development of technology teachers’ professional knowledge: A theoretical perspective. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 26(2), 259–284. Friedrichsen, P. M., & Dana, T. M. (2003). Using a card-sorting task to elicit and clarify science-teaching orientations. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 14(4), 291–309. Friedrichsen, P. M., van Driel, J., & Abell, S. K. (2010). Taking a closer look at science teaching orienta- tions. Science Education, 95(2), 358–376. Gagel, C. W. (2004). Technology profile: An assessment strategy for technological literacy. Journal of Tech- nology Studies, 30(4), 38–45. Garritz, A. (2014). Pedagogical content knowledge. In R. Gunstone (Ed.), Encyclopedia of science educa- tion (pp. 733–736). Dordrecht: Springer. Gess-Newsome, J. (1999). Secondary teachers’ knowledge and beliefs about subject matter and their impact on instruction. In J. Gess-Newsome & N. G. Lederman (Eds.), Examining pedagogical content knowledge: The construct and its implications for science education (pp. 51–94). Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers. Gess-Newsome, J. (2015). Model of teacher professional knowledge and skill including PCK. In A. Berry, P. Friedrichsen, & J. Loughran (Eds.), Re-examining pedagogical content knowledge in science educa- tion (pp. 28–42). London: Routledge. Gess-Newsome, J., & Carlson, J. (2013). A report on the PCK summit: Current and future research direc- tions. In Symposium at the annual meeting of the National Association for Research in Science Teach- ing (NARST). Puerto Rico. Gess-Newsome, J., Taylor, J. A., Carlson, J., Gardner, A. L., Wilson, C. D., & Stuhlsatz, M. A. M. (2017). Teacher pedagogical content knowledge, practice, and student achievement. International Journal of Science Education. https ://doi.org/10.1080/09500 693.2016.12651 58. Gibson, K. (2008). Technology and technological knowledge: A challenge for school curricula. Teachers and Teaching: Theory and Practice, 14(1), 3–15. Goodson, I. F. (1991). Sponsoring the teacher’s voice: Teachers’ lives and teacher development. Cambridge journal of education, 21(1), 35–45. Grossman, P. L. (1990). The making of a teacher: Teacher knowledge and teacher education. New York: Teachers College Press. Gunstone, R. F. (2015). Re-examining PCK: A personal commentary. In A. Berry, P. Friedrichsen, & J. Loughran (Eds.), Re-examining pedagogical content knowledge in science education (pp. 245–255). Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers. Hashweh, M. Z. (1987). Effects of subject-matter knowledge in the teaching of biology and physics. Teach- ing and Teacher Education, 3(2), 109–120. Hashweh, M. Z. (2005). Teacher pedagogical constructions: A reconfiguration of pedagogical content knowledge. Teachers and Teaching, 11(3), 273–292. Hewson, P. W., & Hewson, M. G. A. (1987). Science teachers’ conceptions of teaching: Implications for teacher education. International Journal of Science Education, 9(4), 425–440. Hicks, G. (1983). Another step forward for design and technology. London: DES. Hyland, Á. (2011). Entry to higher education in Ireland in the 21st century. Dublin: National Council for Curriculum and Assessment and the Higher Education Authority. Ingerman, Å., & Collier-Reed, B. (2011). Technological literacy reconsidered: A model for enactment. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 21(2), 137–148. ITEA. (2000). Standards for technological literacy: Content for the study of technology. Reston: Interna- tional Technology Education Association. ITEA. (2002). Standards for technological literacy: Content for the study of technology. Reston: Interna- tional Technology Education Association. 1 3 A. Doyle et al. ITEA. (2007). Standards for technological literacy: Content for the study of technology. Reston: Interna- tional Technology Education Association. Jones, A., Buntting, C., & De Vries, M. J. (2013). The developing field of technology education: A review to look forward. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 23(2), 191–212. Jones, A., & Compton, V. (1998). Towards a model for teacher development in technology education: From research to practice. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 8(1), 51–65. Jones, A., & Moreland, J. (2003). Considering pedagogical content knowledge in the context of research on teaching: An example from technology. Waikato Journal of Education, 9, 77–89. Jones, A., & Moreland, J. (2004). Enhancing practicing primary school teachers’ pedagogical content knowl- edge in technology. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 14(2), 121–140. Kelly, V., Kimbell, R., Paterson, V., Sexton, J., & Stables, K. (1987). Design and technology: A framework for assessment. London: HMSO. Kennedy, M. M. (1999). The role of preservice teacher education. In L. Darling-Hammond & G. Skyes (Eds.), Teaching as the learning profession: Handbook of policy and practice (pp. 54–86). San Fran- cisco: Jossey Bass. Kennedy, M. M. (2010). Attribution error and the quest for teacher quality. Educational Researcher, 39(8), 591–598. Kimbell, R. (1994). Tasks in technology: An analysis of their purposes and effects. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 4(3), 241–256. Kimbell, R. (2006). Innovative technological performance. In J. R. Dakers (Ed.), Defining technological literacy: Towards an epistemological framework (pp. 159–178). New York: Palgrave Macmillan US. Kimbell, R. (2011). Wrong … but right enough. Design and Technology Education: An International Jour- nal, 16(2), 6–7. Kimbell, R., & Stables, K. (2007). Researching design learning: Issues and findings from two decades of research and development. Dordrecht: Springer. Kind, V. (2009). Pedagogical content knowledge in science education: Perspectives and potential for pro- gress. Studies in Science Education, 45(2), 169–204. Kind, V. (2015). On the beauty of knowing then not knowing: Pinning down the elusive qualities of PCK. In A. Berry, P. Friedrichsen, & J. Loughran (Eds.), Re-examining pedagogical content knowledge in science education (pp. 178–196). New York: Routledge. Kirschner, S., Taylor, J., Rollnick, M., Borowski, A., & Mavhunga, E. (2015). Gathering evidence for the validity of PCK measures: Connecting ideas to analytic approaches. In A. Berry, P. Friedrichsen, & J. Loughran (Eds.), Re-examining pedagogical content knowledge in science education (pp. 229–242). New York: Routledge. Koballa, T. R., Glynn, S. N., Upson, L., & Coleman, D. C. (2005). Conceptions of teaching science held by novice teachers in an alternative certification program. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 16(4), 287–308. Loughran, J., Berry, A., & Mulhall, P. (2006). Understanding and developing science teachers’ pedagogical content knowledge. Rotterdam: Sense Publishers. Loughran, J., Mulhall, P., & Berry, A. (2008). Exploring pedagogical content knowledge in science teacher education. International Journal of Science Education, 30(10), 1301–1320. Magnusson, S., Krajcik, J., & Borko, H. (1999). Nature, sources and development of pedaogical content knowledge for science teaching. In J. Gess-Newsome & N. G. Lederman (Eds.), Examining peda- gogical content knowledge: The construct and its implications for science education (pp. 96–132). Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers. Mavhunga, E. (2012). Explicit inclusion of topic specific knowledge for teaching and the development of PCK in pre-service science teachers. PhD Thesis, University of the Witwatersrand, Johannesburg. McGarr, O., & Lynch, R. (2017). Monopolising the STEM agenda in second-level schools: Exploring power relations and subject subcultures. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 27(1), 51–62. Mioduser, D. (2015). The pedagogical ecology of technology education: An agenda for future research and development. In P. J. Williams, A. Jones, & C. Buntting (Eds.), The future of technology education (pp. 77–98). Dordrecht: Springer. Mittell, I., & Penny, A. (1997). Teacher perceptions of design and technology: A study of disjunction between policy and practice. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 7(3), 279–293. Nilsson, P., & Vikström, A. (2015). Making PCK explicit—Capturing science teachers’ pedagogical con- tent knowledge (PCK) in the science classroom. International Journal of Science Education, 37(17), 2836–2857. 1 3 Reconceptualising PCK research in D&T education: proposing… Norström, P. (2014). How technology teachers understand technological knowledge. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 24(1), 19–38. Owen-Jackson, G. (2015). Learning to teach design and technology in the secondary school: A companion to school experience (3rd ed.). Abingdon: Routledge. Park, S., & Chen, Y.-C. (2012). Mapping out the integration of the components of pedagogical content knowledge (PCK): Examples from high school biology classrooms. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 49(7), 922–941. Park, S., & Oliver, J. S. (2008). Revisiting the conceptualisation of pedagogical content knowledge (PCK): PCK as a conceptual tool to understand teachers as professionals. Research in Science Education, 38(3), 261–284. Petrina, S. (2000). The politics of technological literacy. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 10(2), 181–206. Petrina, S. (2007). Advanced teaching methods for the technology classroom. London: Information Science Publishing. Porter, A. (2006). Curriculum assessment. In J. L. Green, G. Camilli, & E. L. Elmore (Eds.), Handbook of complementary methods in education research (pp. 141–159). Washington, DC: American Educa- tional Research Association. Ritz, J. M., & Martin, G. (2012). Research needs for technology education: An international perspective. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 23(3), 767–783. Rohaan, E. J., Taconis, R., & Jochems, W. M. G. (2009). Measuring teachers’ pedagogical content knowl- edge in primary technology education. Research in Science and Technological Education, 27(3), 327–338. Rohaan, E. J., Taconis, R., & Jochems, W. M. G. (2012). Analysing teacher knowledge for technology education in primary schools. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 22(3), 271–280. Rossouw, A., Hacker, M., & de Vries, M. J. (2011). Concepts and contexts in engineering and technology education: An international and interdisciplinary Delphi study. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 21(4), 409–424. Schneider, R. M., & Plasman, K. (2011). Science teacher learning progressions. Review of Educational Research, 81(4), 530–565. Schön, D. A. (1983). The reflective practitioner: How professionals think in action. New York: Basic Books. Settlage, J. (2013). On acknowledging PCK’s shortcomings. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 24(1), 1–12. Shulman, L. S. (1986). 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), 1–23. Simmons, P. E., Emory, A., Carter, T., Coker, T., Finnegan, B., Crockett, D., et al. (1999). Beginning teach- ers: Beliefs and classroom actions. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 36(8), 930–954. Spendlove, D. (2012). Teaching technology. In P. J. Williams (Ed.), Technology education for teachers (pp. 35–54). Dordrecht: Sense Publishers. Tishman, S., Jay, E., & Perkins, D. N. (1993). Teaching thinking dispositions: From transmission to encul- turation. Theory into Practice, 32(3), 147–153. Veal, W. R., & MaKinster, J. G. (1999). Pedagogical content knowledge taxonomies. Electronic Journal of Science Education, 3(4). http://ejse.south weste rn.edu/artic le/view/7615/5382. Williams, P. J. (2009). Technological literacy: A multliteracies approach for democracy. International Jour- nal of Technology and Design Education, 19(3), 237–254. Williams, P. J. (2017). Critique as a disposition. In P. J. Williams & K. Stables (Eds.), Critique in design and technology education (pp. 135–152). Dordrecht: Springer. Williams, J., Eames, C., Hume, A., & Lockley, J. (2012). Promoting pedagogical content knowledge devel- opment for early career secondary teachers in science and technology using content representations. Research in Science and Technological Education, 30(3), 327–343. Williams, P. J., & Lockley, J. (2012). An analysis of PCK to elaborate the difference between scientific and technological knowledge. In T. Ginner, J. Halström, & M. Hultén (Eds.), PATT -26 proceedings: Tech- nology education in the 21st century (pp. 468–477). 26–30th June, Stockholm. Williams, P. J., Lockley, J., & Mangan, J. (2016). Technology teachers’ use of CoRe to develop their PCK. In M. J. de Vries, A. Bekker-Holtland, & G. van Dijk (Eds.), PATT- 32 proceedings: Technology edu- cation for 21st century skills (pp. 489–499). 23–26th August, Utrecht. 1 3
International Journal of Technology and Design Education – Springer Journals
Published: May 30, 2018
It’s your single place to instantly
discover and read the research
that matters to you.
Enjoy affordable access to
over 18 million articles from more than
15,000 peer-reviewed journals.
All for just $49/month
Query the DeepDyve database, plus search all of PubMed and Google Scholar seamlessly
Save any article or search result from DeepDyve, PubMed, and Google Scholar... all in one place.
Get unlimited, online access to over 18 million full-text articles from more than 15,000 scientific journals.
Read from thousands of the leading scholarly journals from SpringerNature, Elsevier, Wiley-Blackwell, Oxford University Press and more.
All the latest content is available, no embargo periods.
“Hi guys, I cannot tell you how much I love this resource. Incredible. I really believe you've hit the nail on the head with this site in regards to solving the research-purchase issue.”Daniel C.
“Whoa! It’s like Spotify but for academic articles.”@Phil_Robichaud
“I must say, @deepdyve is a fabulous solution to the independent researcher's problem of #access to #information.”@deepthiw
“My last article couldn't be possible without the platform @deepdyve that makes journal papers cheaper.”@JoseServera