The development of teachers’ professional knowledge

Background. This article is the second in the author’s three-part series devoted to the analysis of teacher thinking in different research paradigms. Objective. Whereas the first article in this series, published in Cultural-Historical Psychology (No. 1, 2026), examined process–outcome models of teaching activity and research on pedagogical decision-making, the present article shifts the focus from the study of pedagogical decisions to an analysis of the structure of teachers’ professional knowledge. Results. The article gives central attention to L. Shulman’s concept of pedagogical content knowledge, which describes a type of knowledge specific to the teaching profession and associated with transforming subject content into forms accessible to students’ understanding. The development of this line of research is considered through integrative, transformative and consensus models of teachers’ professional knowledge. It is shown that the concept of pedagogical content knowledge made it possible to clarify substantially the specificity of the teaching profession and to describe the distinctive character of the knowledge required for teaching a particular school subject. At the same time, as the research focus shifted from pedagogical action to professional knowledge, the problem of the relationship between such knowledge and real teaching activity was partly lost. Conclusion. The article argues for the need to supplement the concept of pedagogical content knowledge with the notion of psycho-pedagogical content knowledge, which makes it possible to describe not only the teaching of subject content, but also the development of students’ thinking through the means of a particular school subject.

1. Ball, D.L., Thames, M.H., Phelps, G. (2005). Articulating domains of mathematical knowledge for teaching. In: American Education Research Association Conference. Montreal: American Education Research Association.
2. Bishop, A.J. (1976). Decision-making, the intervening variable. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 7(1/2), 41—47. URL: https://www.jstor.org/stable/3481810 (viewed: 15.01.2026).
3. Borko, H. (2004). Professional development and teacher learning: Mapping the terrain. Educational Researcher, 33(8), 3—15. https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X033008003
4. Carlsen, W. (1999). Domains of teacher knowledge. In: J. Gess-Newsome, N.G. Lederman, (Eds), Pedagogical Content Knowledge: The Construct and Its Implications for Science Education (pp. 133—144). Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers. (CTISE, Vol. 6). https://doi.org/10.1007/0-306-47217-1_5
5. Cochran-Smith, M. (1991). Learning to teach against the grain. Harvard Educational Review, 61(3), 279—311. https://doi.org/10.17763/haer.61.3.q671413614502746
6. Fernandez, C. (2014). Knowledge base for teaching and pedagogical content knowledge (PCK): some useful models and implications for teachers’ training. Problems of Education in the 21st Century, 60(1), 79—100. URL: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/282330568 (viewed: 15.01.2026).
7. Gess-Newsome, J. (1999). Pedagogical content knowledge: An introduction and orientation. In: J. Gess-Newsome, G.L. Norman (Eds.), Examining Pedagogical Content Knowledge: The Construct and Its Implications for Science Education (pp. 3—17). Dordrecht: Springer.
8. Grossman, P. (1990). The making of a teacher: Teacher knowledge and teacher education. New York: Teachers College Press.
9. Hargreaves, A. (2001). Changing teachers, changing times. London: A&C Black.
10. Hashweh, M.Z. (1985). An exploratory study of teacher knowledge and teaching: the effects of science teachers' knowledge of subject-matter and their conceptions of learning on their teaching (research, conceptual change, secondary): Diss. Dr. Sci. (Philosophy). Stanford University. Stanford.
11. Hashweh, M.Z. (1987). Effects of subject-matter knowledge in the teaching of biology and physics. Teaching and Teacher Education, 3(2), 109—120. https://doi.org/10.1016/0742-051X(87)90012-6
12. 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: The Construct and Its Implications for Science Education (pp. 95—132). Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers. (CTISE, Vol. 6). https://doi.org/10.1007/0-306-47217-1_4
13. Morine-Dershimer, G., Kent, T. (1999). The complex nature and sources of teachers’ pedagogical knowledge. In: J. Gess-Newsome, G.L. Norman (Eds.), Examining Pedagogical Content Knowledge: The construct and Its Implications for Science Education (pp. 21—50). Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers. (CTISE, Vol. 6). https://doi.org/10.1007/0-306-47217-1_2
14. Park, S., Oliver, J.S. (2008). Revisiting the conceptualization of pedagogical content knowledge (PCK): PCK as a conceptual tool to understand teachers as professionals. Research in Science Education, 38, 261—284. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11165-007-9049-6
15. Shulman, L.S. (1986). Paradigms and research programs in the study of teaching: A contemporary perspective. In M.C. Wittrock (Ed.), Handbook of Research on Teaching (3rd ed., pp. 3—36). Washington: American Educational Research Association.
16. Shulman, L. (1987). Knowledge and teaching: Foundations of the new reform. Harvard Educational Review, 57(1), 1—23. https://doi.org/10.17763/haer.57.1.j463w79r56455411