Modelling STEM Teachers’ Pedagogical Content Knowledge in the Framework of the Refined Consensus Model: A Systematic Literature Review

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Thank you very much for the opportunity to review the manuscript. The manuscript details a systematic review study on the theoretical and methodological considerations as well as the results from studies focusing on the relationship between practical experiences STEM teachers’ PCK development. The authors use the recently introduced Refined Consensus Model (RCM) both as an inflection point and as an analytical model to interpret the findings of the review process. The results show that there is a recent increase in quantitative studies and also an increase in the use of the RCM for different research topics. With its inclusion of science and mathematics teachers, the paper goes beyond the scope of the special issue on physics teacher education which should be considered from the editors and the authors as well. Besides the fit to the special issue, the manuscript provides an interesting extension to the review of Chan and Hume (2019) with its focus on practical experiences. Still, this focus is not sufficiently justified in the introduction section, and additional revisions in the results section are necessary. Furthermore, I strongly recommend a thorough language editing of the paper to increase its overall quality.

1. One of the main claims in the introduction section is that “the potential of practical teaching experiences for facilitating science teachers’ PCK development were not being pursued by researchers” (p. 1). This claim is simply not true as evidenced by the review itself. Practical teaching experiences were a focal point of PCK research from early on. If this would not have been the case, the review should not have produced any results prior to introducing the RCM. It is, thus, necessary to revise the introduction and motivation of this study in general. It could be helpful to focus early on on the actual processes during the plan-teach-reflect cycle. However, this shift in focus would also mean that the results should further uncover what we know as a field about this cycle.
2. In the current theoretical background, the manuscript points out to different research gaps in the literature to motivate a need for this systematic review. However, the final four focal points and research questions are not sufficiently prepared in the background. For example, the relationship of PCK with other variables is not addressed at all in the theoretical background. I am also not sure, why the focus was set on changes during professional development rather than teaching experiences. Furthermore, some of the formulated research questions remain rather vague. For example, in RQ1 it is not clear, what the term “circumstances” means. The same can be concluded for the term “useful” in RQ2. A close alignment between the theoretical argumentation and the research questions is needed.
3. The decision to choose 2020 as a cut-off to compare publications prior and after the publication of the RCM needs to be justified in more detail. One could argue that if a paper / chapter is published in 2019, other researchers can only reference this work in either late 2020 or early 2021 due to the review und publication process.
4. In the discussion section, the authors summarize their findings and point out to possible next steps for research on science teachers’ PCK. While the presented ideas are certainly important, the authors could further stress, what new insights arose from this review compared to the review of Chan & Hume. Right now, it only states that this review here confirms previous findings. In addition to that, while I do agree that the RCM has great potential to serve as a common theoretical framework, I am just not sure, if we already can see this impact in the current reviews study. The authors state that “Within the years 2020 and 2021 this changed.” (p. 15) without further explanation. Yet, still about 30% of the papers did not use a theoretical framework at all in 2020. A critical approach to the own results and possibly the RCM could help to round up the presented discussion.

 

Besides these general concerns, I would suggest the authors to address the following points:

• I do not agree that Shulman conceptualized PCK as an amalgam of two forms of knowledge (p. 2). Shulman only stated that PCK is an amalgam of pedagogy and content rather than an amalgam of the knowledge domains. PCK was introduced as a unique knowledge base, which is why I am not sure about Shulman’s model being an integrative one.
• The result section starts with an introduction to the papers in the review. However, the first few paragraphs are not related to the RQ1. I wonder, if it would be worthwhile to provide an overview on the sample (i.e., research papers) in the method section before outlining the following analysis strategies. In addition to that, there is currently no reference to Figure 2 and no reference to the full list of publications.  
• Do you have also coded if elementary or secondary teachers were the focus of the studies? I think this is also an interesting feature of the sample under investigation.
• The structure of Table 5 is not clear. Different column headings could be helpful here.
• I am also not sure why simulated situations were used as a separate column in Table 7. This column is not motivated nor interpreted properly.
• For Figure 3, I wondered why both SMK and CK were used here. Are those similar constructs or different constructs? I am also missing possible direct effects from CK to teaching as well as specific PCK components to teaching as mentioned in the respective paragraph.
• Why is it “remarkable” (p. 15) that personal factors influence PCK? A more neutral wording would be more appropriate here.
• The RCM is also not a “construct” (p. 15) but rather a model.
• What is the evidence that self-influencing factors are as effective as external factors? A comparison of effects was not discussed so far.
• The IJSE Special Issue with Gess-Newsome et al. and Sorge et al. was published in 2019 not in 2017. On page 5, it should be Gess-Newsome and not Gess-Newsome et al. In the last line of that page Authors, 2019b should be in brackets.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Study was well designed provided that it was a meta-analysis. Paper could have benefited from fewer research questions and a deeper dive into 1-2 of those questions. Felt cursory overall with respect to analysis and conclusions of the many works. 

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf