Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39813306›Full record

ArticleCBE life sciences education2025

How do Early-career Biology Faculty Develop Pedagogical Content Knowledge? Exploring Variation and Longitudinal Development.

Alex H Waugh, Kathryn E Green, Tessa C Andrews

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in CBE life sciences education, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

5 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors.

Alex H WaughDepartment of Genetics, University of Georgia, Athens, GA 30602.
Kathryn E GreenClarke County High School, Athens, GA 30605.
Tessa C AndrewsDepartment of Genetics, University of Georgia, Athens, GA 30602.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Active-learning instructors are more effective when they use pedagogical content knowledge (PCK) to anticipate, interpret, and respond to student thinking. PCK is topic-specific and includes knowledge of student thinking (e.g., common difficulties) and knowledge of instructional strategies (e.g., effective learning tasks). Currently, we know little about how instructors develop PCK. We documented how 11 early-career undergraduate life science instructors developed PCK over multiple semesters by eliciting knowledge as instructors planned, implemented, and reflected on instruction. Qualitative content analysis indicated that instructors' PCK about student thinking was not necessarily grounded in evidence from students and their PCK about instructional strategies varied in whether and how it considered student thinking. We adapted a rubric to test hypotheses about PCK development trajectories. Participants' PCK about student thinking tended to become more grounded in evidence from students and their PCK about instructional strategies tended to focus more on student thinking over time. However, teaching experience did not necessarily lead to PCK development. Case study analysis revealed that pedagogical knowledge and specific practices supported PCK development. We propose a hypothetical model to explain how teaching knowledge and practices support PCK development. We also suggest reflections and actions for instructors who want to develop their PCK.

Indexed as

BiologyFacultyKnowledgeProblem-Based LearningTeachingFemaleHumansLongitudinal StudiesMaleStudentsThinking

Identifiers

PMID39813306
PMCPMC11974536

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.