European Journal of STEM Education
Research Article
2025, 10(1), Article No: 37

Prospective elementary school teachers’ science PCK: An analysis of perceptions and implicit knowledge

Atika Dwi Evitasari 1 * , Insih Wilujeng 2, Entoh Tohani 3, Anita Dewi Astuti 4, Merti Triyanti 5, Faridl Musyadad 6
1 Doctoral Program in Elementary Education, Universitas Negeri Yogyakarta, INDONESIA2 Faculty of Mathematics and Natural Sciences, Universitas Negeri Yogyakarta, INDONESIA3 Faculty of Education, Universitas Negeri Yogyakarta, INDONESIA4 Doctoral Program in Guidance and Counseling Education, Universitas Negeri Semarang, INDONESIA5 Doctoral Study Program in Mathematics and Natural Sciences Education, Universitas Jambi, INDONESIA6 Faculty of Education, IKIP PGRI Wates, INDONESIA
* Corresponding Author
https://doi.org/10.20897/ejsteme/17652
Published in Volume 10 Issue 1: 28 Dec 2025
Download: 6
View: 25
OPEN ACCESS FULL TEXT (PDF)

Abstract

PCK is crucial for prospective elementary school teachers to deliver effective science instruction. However, research on how they understand and implement PCK, especially in developing countries, remains limited. This qualitative study explored prospective teachers' perceptions and implementation of key PCK components in science instruction through in-depth interviews and narrative frameworks, followed by thematic analysis. The results showed a fairly comprehensive understanding of five core PCK elements: pedagogical orientation, student characteristics, curriculum content, instructional strategies, and assessment methods. Participants demonstrated awareness of inquiry-based and student-centered approaches, the need to diagnose students’ prior knowledge, and the use of diverse instructional and assessment strategies. However, practice remained dominated by teacher-centered methods with limited hands-on science activities. Internal and external barriers hindered effective PCK implementation. This study highlights the need for holistic PCK development integrating content mastery, pedagogical skills, student understanding, and authentic assessment. Teacher education programs are encouraged to strengthen contextual teaching experiences through microteaching, inquiry-based field practice, and reflective supervision. Longitudinal research is recommended to track PCK development from university training to early teaching careers, as well as involving prospective teachers from non-science backgrounds to identify gaps in content knowledge and pedagogical approaches.
  • Abd-El-Khalick, F. (2012). Teaching with and about nature of science, and science teacher knowledge domains. Science and Education, 22(9), 2087–2107. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11191-012-9520-2
  • Aidoo, B. (2024). A reflective study on adopting inquiry-based science teaching methods. Disciplinary and Interdisciplinary Science Education Research, 6(29), 1–18. https://doi.org/10.1186/s43031-024-00119-3
  • Aktaş, İ., & Özmen, H. (2020). Investigating the impact of TPACK development course on pre‑service science teachers’ performances. Asia Pacific Education Review, 21, 667–682. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12564-020-09653-x
  • André, S., Maulana, R., Helms-Lorenz, M., Telli, S., Chun, S., Fernández-García, C.-M., Jager, T. de, Irnidayanti, Y., Inda-Caro, M., Lee, O., Safrina, R., Coetzee, T., & Jeon, M. (2020). Student perceptions in measuring teaching behavior across six countries: A multi-group confirmatory factor analysis approach to measurement invariance. Front Psychol, 11(273), 1–10. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2020.00273
  • Ansyari, M. F., & HUI, S. K. F. (2018). Developing a rubric for assessing pre-service English teacher struggles with instructional planning. Cogent Education, 5(1), 1–17. https://doi.org/10.1080/2331186X.2018.1507175
  • Barkhuizen, G. (2014). Revisiting narrative frames: An instrument for investigating language teaching and learning. System, 47, 12–27. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2014.09.014
  • Bird, E. B., Ballard, H. L., & Harte, M. (2023). Data to decision‑making: how elementary students use their community and citizen science project to reimagine their school campus. Instructional Science, 51, 763–791. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11251-022-09612-6
  • Black, H. D. (1983). Introducing diagnostic assessment. Innovations in Education and Teaching International, 20(1), 58–63. https://doi.org/10.1080/0033039830200109
  • Blank, R. K. (2013). Science instructional time is declining in elementary schools: what are the implications for student achievement and closing the gap? Science Education, 97(6), 830–847. https://doi.org/10.1002/ sce.21078
  • Bonyadi, A. (2023). Phenomenology as a research methodology in teaching English as a foreign language. Asian-Pacific Journal of Second and Foreign Language Education, 8(11), 1–12. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40862-022-00184-z
  • Botes, W. (2024). Demonstrating pedagogical content knowledge through the development of educational science board games. European Journal of STEM Education, 9(1), 1–16. https://doi.org/10.20897/ejsteme/14136
  • Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 3(2), 77–101. https://doi.org/10.1191/1478088706qp063oa
  • Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2021). One size fits all? What counts as quality practice in (reflexive) thematic analysis? Qualitative Research in Psychology, 18(3), 328–352. https://doi.org/10.1080/14780887.2020.1769238
  • Bullough, R. V. (2001). Pedagogical content knowledge circa 1907 and 1987: A studyin the historyof an idea. Teaching and Teacher Education, 17, 655–666. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0742-051X(01)00022-1
  • Castro, J. F., Glewwe, P., & Montero, R. (2019). Work with what you’ve got: Improving teachers’ pedagogical skills at scale in rural Peru. http://perueconomics.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/12/WP-158.pdf
  • Creswell, J. W. (2013). Qualitative inquiry and research design : choosing among five approaches (3rd ed.). United Kingdom: SAGE Publications.
  • Davis, E. A., Petish, D., & Smithey, J. (2006). Challenges new science teachers face. Review of Educational Research, 76(4), 607–651. https://doi.org/0.3102/00346543076004607
  • Demirdöğen, B., Hanuscin, D. L., Uzuntiryaki-Kondakci, E., & Köseoğlu, F. (2015). Development and nature of preservice chemistry teachers’ pedagogical content knowledge for nature of science. Research in Science Education, 46(4), 575–612. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11165-015-9472-z
  • Deng, Z. (2018). Pedagogical content knowledge reconceived: Bringing curriculum thinking into the conversation on teachers’ content knowledge. Teaching and Teacher Education, 72, 155–164. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2017.11.021
  • Diab, H., Daher, W., Rayan, B., Issa, N., & Rayan, A. (2024). Transforming science education in elementary schools: the power of phet simulations in enhancing student learning. Multimodal Technologies and Interaction, 8, 105. https://doi.org/10.3390/mti8110105
  • Fakhriyah, F., Masfuah, S., Hilyana, F. S., & Mamat, N. (2022). Analysis of technological pedagogical content knowledge (tpack) ability based on science literacy for pre-service primary school teachers in learning science concepts. Jurnal Pendidikan IPA Indonesia, 11(3), 399–411. https://doi.org/10.15294/jpii.v11i3.37305
  • Fitzgerald, A., & Smith, K. (2016). Science that matters: Exploring science learning and teaching in primary schools. Journal of Teacher Education, 41(4), 63–78. http://ro.ecu.edu.au/ajte/vol41/iss4/4
  • Friedrichsen, P., & Dana, T. M. (2005). Substantive-level theory of highly regarded secondary biology teachers’ science teaching orientations. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 42(2), 218–244. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.20046
  • Frost, J. (2010). Learning to teach science in the secondary school (J. Frost (ed.); 3rd editio). New York: The Taylor & Francis e-Library.
  • Ghiasvand, F., & Sharifpour, P. (2024). An L2 education without love is not education at all": a phenomenographic study of undergraduate EFL students’ perceptions of pedagogical love. Asian-Pacific Journal of Second and Foreign Language Education, 9(14), 1–24. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40862-023-00233-1
  • Hanuscin, D. L. (2013). Critical incidents in the development of pedagogical content knowledge for teaching the nature of science: a prospective elementary teacher’s journey. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 24(6), 933–956. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10972-013-9341-4
  • Huang, C.-H., Chen, Y.-L., & Haas, H. (2024). Investigating pre-service teachers’ satisfaction of integrating drama-based activities into practical science teaching. European Journal of STEM Education, 9(1), 05. https://doi.org/10.20897/ejsteme/14373
  • Huang, Y.-M., Lin, Y.-T., & Cheng, S.-C. (2010). Effectiveness of a Mobile Plant Learning System in a science curriculum in Taiwanese elementary education. Computers & Education, 54(1), 47–58. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2009.07.006
  • Huhta, A. (2008). Diagnostic and Formative Assessment. In The Handbook of Educational Linguistics (pp. 469–482). https://doi.org/10.1002/9780470694138.ch33
  • Hwang, G.-J., Chu, H.-C., Lin, Y.-S., & Tsai, C.-C. (2011). A knowledge acquisition approach to developing Mindtools for organizing and sharing differentiating knowledge in a ubiquitous learning environment. Computers & Education, 57(1), 1368–1377. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2010.12.013
  • Irmita, L., & Atun, S. (2018). The influence of technological pedagogical and content knowledge (TPACK) approach on science literacy and social skills. Journal of Turkish Science Education, 15(3), 27–40. https://doi.org/10.12973/tused.10235a
  • Koh, J. H. L., Chai, C. S., & Tsai, C. C. (2010). Examining the technological pedagogical content knowledge of Singapore pre-service teachers with a large-scale survey. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 26, 563–573. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2729.2010.00372.x
  • Koh, J. H. L., Chai, C. S., & Tsai, C. C. (2013). Ex amining practicing teachers’ perceptions of technological pedagogical content knowledge (TPACK) pathways: A structural equation modeling approach. Instructional Science, 41(4), 793–809. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11251-012-9249-y
  • Kraft, M. A., Blazar, D., & Hogan, D. (2018). The effect of teacher coaching on instruction and achievement: A Meta-analysis of the causal evidence. Review of Educational Research, 88(4), 547–588. https://doi.org/10.3102/0034654318759268
  • Krajcik, J. S., & Czerniak, C. M. (2018). Teaching science in elementary and middle school a project-based learning approach fifth edition. New York: Taylor & Francis.
  • Krishnaswamy, K. N., Sivakumar, A. I., & Mathirajan, M. (2012). Management research methodology integration of principles, methods and techniques. New Delhi: Pearson Education, Inc.
  • Lavidas, K., Papadakis, S., Manesis, D., Grigoriadou, A. S., & Gialamas, V. (2022). The effects of social desirability on students’ self-reports in two social contexts: Lectures vs. lectures and lab classes. Information, 13, 491, 2–10. https://doi.org/10.3390/info13100491
  • Lavidas, K., Petropoulou, A., Papadakis, S., Apostolou, Z., Komis, V., Jimoyiannis, A., & Gialamas, V. (2022). Factors affecting response rates of theWeb survey with teachers. Computers, 11(127), 1–15. https://doi.org/10.3390/computers11090127
  • Lederman, N. G., & Lederman, J. S. (2011). Nature of scientific knowledge and scientific inquiry: Building instructional capacity through professional development. In B. Fraser, K. Tobin, & C. McRobbie (Eds.), Second International Handbook of Science Education. Springe, Dordrecht. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4020-9041-7_24
  • Lee, Y.-A., & Takahashi, A. (2011). Lesson plans and the contingency of classroom interactions. Human Studies, 34(2), 209–227. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10746-011-9181-1
  • Levy, A. R., & Mensah, F. M. (2021). Learning through the experience of water in elementary school science. Water (Switzerland), 13(43), 1–31. https://doi.org/10.3390/w13010043
  • Loughran, J., Berry, A., & Mulhall, P. (2012). Pedagogical Content Knowledge. In J. Loughran, A. Berry, & P. Mulhall (Eds.), Understanding and Developing Science Teachers’ Pedagogical Content Knowledge. Sense Publishers, Rotterdam. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-6091-821-6_2
  • Luik, P., Taimalu, M., & Suviste, R. (2018). Perceptions of technological, pedagogical and content knowledge (TPACK) among pre-service teachers in Estonia. Education and Information Technologies, 23, 741–755. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-017-9633-y
  • Magnusson, S., Krajcik, J., & Borko, H. (1999). Nature, sources, and development of pedagogical content knowledge for science teaching. In J. Gess-Newsome & N. G. Lederman (Eds.), Examining Pedagogical Content Knowledge. Springer, Dordrecht. https://doi.org/10.1007/0-306-47217-1_4
  • Marshall, S. L., Forrester, J., & Tilsen, J. (2024). Science for our children: Other mothering leadership within an elementary science network. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 61(3), 533–555. https://doi.org/ 10.1002/tea.21927
  • Monteira, S. F., & Jimenez-Aleixandre, M. P. (2015). The practice of using evidence in kindergarten: The role of purposeful observation. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 53(8), 1232–1258. https://doi.org/10.1002/ tea.21259 10.1002/tea.21259
  • Noble, H., & Heale, R. (2019). Triangulation in research, with examples. Evid Based Nurs, 22(3), 67–68. https://doi.org/10.1136/ebnurs-2019-103145
  • OECD. (2022). Indonesia student performance (PISA 2022). https://gpseducation.oecd.org/CountryProfile? primaryCountry=IDN&treshold=10&topic=PI
  • Osborne, J. (2007). Science education for the twenty first century. Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science & Technology Education, 3(3), 173–184. https://doi.org/10.12973/ejmste/75396
  • Osborne, J., Simon, S., & Collins, S. (2003). Attitudes towards science: A review of the literature and its implications. International Journal of Science Education, 25(9), 1049–1079. https://doi.org/10.1080/ 0950069032000032199
  • Pedaste, M., Mäeots, M., Siiman, L. A., Jong, T. de, Riesen, S. A. N. van, Kamp, E. T., Manoli, C. C., Zacharia, Z. C., & Tsourlidaki, E. (2015). Phases of inquiry-based learning: Definitions and the inquiry cycle. Educational Research Review, 14, 47–61. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.edurev.2015.02.003
  • Prince, M. (2004). Does active learning work? A review of the research. Journal of Engineering Education, 93(3), 223–231. https://doi.org/10.1002/j.2168-9830.2004.tb00809.x
  • Pringle, R. M., Dawson, K., & Ritzhaupt, A. . (2015). Integrating science and technology: using technological pedagogical content knowl edge as a framework to study the practices of science teachers. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 24, 648–662. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10956-015-9553-9
  • Santrock, J. W. (2018). Educational psychology : theory and application to fitness and performance. New York: McGraw-Hill Education.
  • Sar, H. R. S. K., Sabet, M. K., Zafarghandi, A. M., & Hassaskhah, J. (2024). Iranian teachers’ and learners’ attitudes towards the use of e-portfolio in second language speaking assessment. Language Testing in Asia, 14(61), 1–27. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40468-024-00335-8
  • Shafie, H., Majid, F. A., & Ismail, I. S. (2019). Technological pedagogical content knowledge (tpack) in teaching 21st century skills in the 21st century classroom. Asian Journal of University Education, 15(3), 24–33. https://doi.org/10.24191/ajue.v15i3.7818
  • Shulman, L. S. (1986). Those who understand: Knowledge growth in teaching. Educational Researcher, 15(2), 4–14. https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X015002004
  • Subramaniam, K. (2021). Prospective teachers’ pedagogical content knowledge development in an elementary science methods course. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 33(4), 345–367. https://doi.org/10.1080/ 1046560X.2021.1939944
  • Suryanti, Nursalim, M., Choirunnisa, N. L., & Yuliana, I. (2024). STEAM-project-based learning: a catalyst for elementary school students’ scientific literacy skills. European Journal of Educational Research, 13(1), 1–14. https://doi.org/10.12973/eu-jer.13.1.1
  • UNICEF. (2020). The state of children in Indonesia – trends, opportunities and challenges for realizing children’s rights.
  • Vieira, R. M., & Tenreiro-Vieira, C. (2016). Fostering scientific literacy and critical thinking in elementary science education. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 14(4), 659–680. https://doi.org/10.1007/ S10763-014-9605-2/TABLES/7
  • Ward, P., Kim, I., Ko, B., & Li, W. (2015). Effects of improv ing teachers’ content knowledge on teaching and student learning in physical education. Research Quarterly for Exer Cise and Sport, 82(6), 130–139. https://doi.org/10.1080/02701367.2014.987908
  • Worldtop20. (2024). International Education Database. https://worldtop20.org/education-database/
  • Zourmpakis, A.-I., Kalogiannakis, M., & Papadakis, S. (2024). The effects of adaptive gamification in science learning: a comparison between traditional inquiry-based learning and gender differences. Computers, 13(324), 1–14. https://doi.org/10.3390/computers13120324
  • Zydney, J. M., & Warner, Z. (2016). Mobile apps for science learning: Review of research. Computers & Education, 94, 1–17. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2015.11.001
APA 7th edition
In-text citation: (Evitasari et al., 2025)
Reference: Evitasari, A. D., Wilujeng, I., Tohani, E., Astuti, A. D., Triyanti, M., & Musyadad, F. (2025). Prospective elementary school teachers’ science PCK: An analysis of perceptions and implicit knowledge. European Journal of STEM Education, 10(1), Article 37. https://doi.org/10.20897/ejsteme/17652
AMA 10th edition
In-text citation: (1), (2), (3), etc.
Reference: Evitasari AD, Wilujeng I, Tohani E, Astuti AD, Triyanti M, Musyadad F. Prospective elementary school teachers’ science PCK: An analysis of perceptions and implicit knowledge. European Journal of STEM Education. 2025;10(1), 37. https://doi.org/10.20897/ejsteme/17652
Chicago
In-text citation: (Evitasari et al., 2025)
Reference: Evitasari, Atika Dwi, Insih Wilujeng, Entoh Tohani, Anita Dewi Astuti, Merti Triyanti, and Faridl Musyadad. "Prospective elementary school teachers’ science PCK: An analysis of perceptions and implicit knowledge". European Journal of STEM Education 2025 10 no. 1 (2025): 37. https://doi.org/10.20897/ejsteme/17652
Harvard
In-text citation: (Evitasari et al., 2025)
Reference: Evitasari, A. D., Wilujeng, I., Tohani, E., Astuti, A. D., Triyanti, M., and Musyadad, F. (2025). Prospective elementary school teachers’ science PCK: An analysis of perceptions and implicit knowledge. European Journal of STEM Education, 10(1), 37. https://doi.org/10.20897/ejsteme/17652
MLA
In-text citation: (Evitasari et al., 2025)
Reference: Evitasari, Atika Dwi et al. "Prospective elementary school teachers’ science PCK: An analysis of perceptions and implicit knowledge". European Journal of STEM Education, vol. 10, no. 1, 2025, 37. https://doi.org/10.20897/ejsteme/17652
Vancouver
In-text citation: (1), (2), (3), etc.
Reference: Evitasari AD, Wilujeng I, Tohani E, Astuti AD, Triyanti M, Musyadad F. Prospective elementary school teachers’ science PCK: An analysis of perceptions and implicit knowledge. European Journal of STEM Education. 2025;10(1):37. https://doi.org/10.20897/ejsteme/17652
Keywords
descriptive phenomenology, inductive thematic, science PCK, teacher competence
This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
Submit My Manuscript



Phone: +31 (0)70 2190600 | E-Mail: info@lectitojournals.com

Address: Cultura Building (3rd Floor) Wassenaarseweg 20 2596CH The Hague THE NETHERLANDS

Menu

Disclaimer

This site is protected by copyright law. This site is destined for the personal or internal use of our clients and business associates, whereby it is not permitted to copy the site in any other way than by downloading it and looking at it on a single computer, and/or by printing a single hard-copy. Without previous written permission from Lectito BV, this site may not be copied, passed on, or made available on a network in any other manner.

Content Alert

Copyright © 2015-2025 LEUKOS BV All rights reserved.