The goal of science literacy for all underlies much of today’s K-12 science education (National Academies of Sciences [2016]. Science literacy: Concepts, contexts, and consequences. National Academies Press; Roberts, [2007]. Scientific literacy/science literacy. In S. K. Abell, & N. G. Lederman (Eds.), Handbook of research on science education (pp. 729–780). Lawrence Erlbaum). This goal assumes that the citizens of contemporary societies must be able to appreciate the relevance of and draw upon scientific knowledge and practices in a broad range of personal and social issues. Many national science education standards, which aim to promote science literacy for all, focus almost entirely on prescribing the conceptual knowledge and practices that underlie science literacy, with only little, if any, reference to the affective characteristics that need to be fostered in parallel to conceptual knowledge and skills. This position paper highlights why affect is so important for the development of science literacy by critiquing the arguments that underlie many national standards documents and by considering the crucial role affect plays in becoming and remaining a lifelong learner of science. We argue that there is a discrepancy between the science education research literature and many national science education standards in terms of the latter not acknowledging the affective domain as an important education outcome, and that this discrepancy is an obstacle to the attainment of science literacy for all.

This Special Issue aims to present evidence about the relationships between content knowledge (CK), pedagogical knowledge (PK) and pedagogical content knowledge (PCK); the development of these types of knowledge in novice and experienced secondary science teachers; and how CK, PK and/or PCK impact students’ learning. Since Shulman’s introduction of PCK as the feature that distinguishes the teacher from the content expert, researchers have attempted to understand, delineate, assess and/or develop the construct in pre- and in-service teachers. Accordingly, empirical findings are presented that permit further discussion. Outcomes permit post-hoc examination of a recent, collectively described, ‘consensus’ model of PCK, identifying strengths and potential issues. As we will illustrate, the relationship between CK, PK and PCK is central to this; that is, probing the hypothesis of pedagogical content knowledge as an ‘amalgam’ of content and pedagogical knowledge.

Teachers’ professional knowledge is considered one of the most important predictors of instructional quality. According to Shulman, such professional knowledge includes content, pedagogical content and pedagogical knowledge. Although recent research shed some light on the structure of the dimensions of professional knowledge, little is known how teacher education impacts pre-service physics teachers’ professional knowledge. In an effort to address this issue, we examined the content, pedagogical content and pedagogical knowledge of N = 200 pre-service physics teachers enrolled in different years of teacher education at 12 major teacher education universities in Germany. We used structural equation modelling (1) to examine the relations amongst pre-service physics teachers’ content, pedagogical content and pedagogical knowledge, (2) to explore how the three kinds of knowledge and their relations differ across different stages of teacher education and (3) to identify factors affecting the level of each component of professional knowledge. Our findings suggest that content, pedagogical content and pedagogical knowledge represent distinct types of knowledge. Furthermore, our findings show that in the first years of professional education, pedagogical content knowledge is more closely related with general pedagogical knowledge while in later years, it is more closely related with content knowledge, suggesting that it develops from a general knowledge about teaching and learning into knowledge about the teaching and learning of specific content. Finally, beyond school achievement and years of enrolment as predictors, we find in particular the amount of classroom observations to have a positive impact on the professional knowledge of pre-service physics teachers.