In the study of PCK, an array of methodologies and techniques have been used by researchers to measure PCK ranging from interviews, multi-method evaluations and paper and pencil tests including multiple choice tests. However, measuring a teacher’s PCK directly is considered challenging since this type of knowledge is tacit, or difficult to transfer to another through both written and verbal communication, and teachers often are not always able to verbalise their thoughts and beliefs. In addition, since the definition of PCK incorporates what a teacher knows, what a teacher does and the reasons behind a teachers’ actions PCK cannot be observed directly due to the fact that it is an internal construct. Therefore PCK is often not expressed through behaviour only and hence observations alone are unable to reveal why teachers act the way they do in particular teaching and learning situations in imparting particular subject matter to learners. Quantitative studies, which utilise paper-and-pencil tests without interview protocols or observations are time and labour efficient, and can be used to collect data from larger sample sizes but the use of instruments alone might not provide a completely accurate measure that captures the essence of PCK.  It is my opinion that neither purely qualitative nor quantitative studies provide a full picture of PCK and that a mixed methods approach is the best route for measuring PCK. 

Teacher Profiles for Teaching Stoichiometry Based on Teachers’ Quality of Topic Specific PCK, Content Knowledge and Conceptions of the Mole

(SAARMSTE 2018, NARST 2018 for AJRMSTE) .

Not Measuring Up: Two Cases of TSPCK Measurement in Chemistry Topics. 

(ICCE in Cape Town, July 2020) .