Cited by 8Science Education and PedagogyMathematics Education and Teaching TechniquesEvaluation of Teaching Practices

Developing science teachers’ enacted pedagogical content knowledge through integration of student feedback into the Refined Consensus Model of pedagogical content knowledge

Open access
Hartmuth, Daniel, Amin, Rifat Mehreen, Schlichting, Daniel, Schött, Svenja, Haudenschild, Jonathan, Küchenhoff, Helmut, Neuhaus, Birgit J.·2025·Cogent Education

Abstract

Developing Pedagogical Content Knowledge (PCK) is a facet of teachers′ professional competence. The Refined Consensus Model of PCK (RCM) emphasises a cyclical process structure to develop an individual’s enacted PCK (ePCK) and the plan-teach-reflect cycle must be systematically adjusted by means of feedback loops. Simple graphic visualisation of student feedback over time provide the information for teachers to improve ePCK. The research gap lies in providing teachers with an actionable cyclic feedback process and evaluating its effectiveness. In an intervention study with 28 in-service science teachers and 137 lessons at secondary schools in Bavaria, Germany, we analysed the effect of student feedback for developing ePCK. We compared two types of visual feedback for how they influenced the teacher’s ability in the classroom, indirectly measured as a change in the students’ assessment of lesson quality. Lesson ratings improved slightly but not significantly when teachers used the feedback tool. The high intra-class correlation of consecutive lesson assessments supported the use of rolling average curves in the graphics. We conclude that science teachers can foster ePCK with the help of student feedback, which empowers teachers in practice and serves as a valuable tool in research to investigate the development of ePCK in greater detail.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1080/2331186x.2025.2470563

Cites

92 of 92 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • SoTL advocates for innovative, reflective, and inclusive pedagogies, encouraging teacher educators to move beyond traditional content delivery toward approaches that emphasise professional learning communities, collaborative inquiry, and ongoing mentorship.

    “SoTL advocates for innovative, reflective, and inclusive pedagogies, encouraging teacher educators to move beyond traditional content delivery toward approaches that emphasise professional learning communities, collaborative inquiry, and ongoing mentorship.”
  • When such opportunities are absent, PSTs frequently report anxiety, low self-efficacy, and reluctance to teach science, particularly in under-resourced schools.

    “When such opportunities are absent, PSTs frequently report anxiety, low self-efficacy, 29 and reluctance to teach science, particularly in under-resourced schools.”

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Hartmuth, D., Amin, R. M., Schlichting, D., Schött, S., Haudenschild, J., Küchenhoff, H., & Neuhaus, B. J.
Affiliations
Ludwig-Maximilians-Universität München (DE)
Corresponding author
Hartmuth, Daniel
Venue
Cogent Education
Published
2025-03
Volume
12
Issue
1
ISSN
2331-186X (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W4408069616
Cited by
7
References
92
Citations by year
2026: 6 · 2025: 1
FWCI
21.88
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Cogent Education (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Education › Science Education and Pedagogy
  • Social Sciences › Education › Mathematics Education and Teaching Techniques
  • Social Sciences › Education › Evaluation of Teaching Practices
Keywords
student feedback, science teachers, in-service teacher professional development, visual feedback, feedback loops, secondary school science teaching

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review