Focus groups and PCK
The focus group question—“How can the learning components of digital accessibility awareness be integrated into the Upper Key Stage 2 classroom and what type of support resources would be needed?”—is methodologically and conceptually well-positioned to explore the nuanced dimensions of pedagogical content knowledge (PCK) as introduced by Shulman (1987). Shulman's framework distinguishes PCK as the unique form of knowledge that teachers develop to transform subject content into teachable and learnable formats, grounded in an understanding of learners, curriculum, and pedagogy. In the context of this study, the subject content in question—digital accessibility awareness—is relatively unfamiliar or emerging for most primary teachers, making the exploration of PCK particularly pertinent.
Where the preceding survey identified broad indicators of teacher readiness, such as time constraints, confidence levels, and perceived relevance, this focus group question seeks to move beyond attitudinal data to uncover how teachers conceptualise and envision teaching digital accessibility within the real constraints and pedagogical routines of the classroom. It interrogates teachers’ practical and theoretical reasoning in relation to content transformation—key aspects of PCK.
Specifically, the focus group facilitates the co-construction of knowledge around three core dimensions of Shulman’s PCK:
Knowledge of representations of subject matter: Teachers are prompted to articulate how digital accessibility awareness can be broken down into teachable “learning components.” This includes decisions about scope, sequencing, and representation—how concepts like inclusive design, assistive technology, or digital barriers might be explained in age-appropriate, engaging ways for upper Key Stage 2 pupils.
Knowledge of instructional strategies and contexts: By asking how this content could be integratedinto existing lessons, the question encourages teachers to identify pedagogical strategies, curriculum touchpoints, and opportunities for cross-curricular connections (e.g. linking accessibility with computing, PSHE, or design and technology). This opens up rich insights into teachers’ curricular thinking, a key aspect of PCK.
Knowledge of learners and their characteristics: Teachers’ reflections on necessary support resources speak directly to their understanding of learner needs, differentiation, and the kinds of scaffolding required to make unfamiliar content meaningful and accessible. This includes not just material resources, but also professional learning needs, thereby connecting PCK with wider notions of teacher professional development.
Furthermore, the dialogic nature of the focus group offers opportunities for collaborative sense-making, where teachers can collectively surface and refine pedagogical ideas. This is particularly valuable in relation to an emergent topic like digital accessibility, where teachers may not yet feel confident as individual experts but can contribute to and benefit from shared professional discourse.
In sum, this focus group question builds on the survey by shifting from barriers and perceptions to pedagogical reasoning and possibilities. It serves as a generative space to probe how teachers might transform digital accessibility awareness from a policy or abstract concept into meaningful classroom practice—thereby operationalising the core tenets of Shulman’s pedagogical content knowledge within a 21st-century digital inclusion agenda.
Rewritten with references:
Certainly. Below is your revised explanation with an academic tone and integrated references, suitable for inclusion in a methodology or rationale section of a thesis or research article. It draws on Shulman’s (1987) concept of pedagogical content knowledge (PCK) and includes supporting references from curriculum theory, teacher knowledge, and professional learning literature.
The focus group question—“How can the learning components of digital accessibility awareness be integrated into the Upper Key Stage 2 classroom and what type of support resources would be needed?”—has been carefully designed to uncover deeper professional knowledge beyond general attitudes, specifically targeting the domain of pedagogical content knowledge (PCK)as conceptualised by Shulman (1987). Shulman argued that effective teaching relies not solely on subject matter knowledge or general pedagogical skill, but on a specialised form of knowledge that enables teachers to transform disciplinary content into forms that are pedagogically powerful and sensitive to diverse learners (Shulman, 1986, 1987).
While the preceding survey instrument provided important insights into teacher readiness, such as time pressures, confidence gaps, and perceived curricular fit, it remained largely diagnostic in nature. The focus group question extends this work by interrogating how teachers make practical and pedagogical sense of a relatively unfamiliar topic—digital accessibility—through the lens of their curricular knowledge, teaching experience, and understanding of learner needs.
More specifically, the focus group encourages engagement with several key components of PCK. First, it prompts teachers to identify and articulate the learning components of digital accessibility, thereby drawing on their knowledge of curricular design and how to sequence and represent subject matter for young learners (Ball, Thames, & Phelps, 2008; Grossman, 1990). In doing so, it invites teachers to consider the conceptual structure of digital accessibility, including themes such as assistive technology, inclusive design, and digital barriers, and how these can be meaningfully introduced to pupils aged 9–11.
Second, the emphasis on integration into existing lessons supports the exploration of teachers’ curricular thinking and knowledge of instructional strategies (Remillard, 2005; Penuel et al., 2017). It opens up discussion on how digital accessibility might be embedded across subjects—particularly computing, PSHE, or design and technology—rather than treated as a standalone unit. This aligns with contemporary understandings of curriculum-as-practice, where teachers act as active mediators of policy and content, making decisions based on local relevance, pupil interests, and pedagogical values (Priestley, Biesta, & Robinson, 2015).
Third, the question foregrounds teachers’ knowledge of learners and learning by asking what support resources would be needed. This encourages reflection on differentiation, learner diversity, and inclusive pedagogy—critical components of PCK, particularly in relation to accessibility and equity (Florian & Black-Hawkins, 2011). Additionally, responses may reveal the types of professional learning or collaborative support teachers perceive as necessary, connecting pedagogical content knowledge to wider conversations about teacher agency and capacity-building (Day & Gu, 2010; Kennedy, 2014).
The focus group, as a dialogic method, also aligns with sociocultural perspectives on teacher knowledge as socially constructed and collaboratively developed (Vygotsky, 1978; Lave & Wenger, 1991). By facilitating peer discussion, the method enables the co-construction of pedagogical strategies and shared professional reasoning, particularly valuable when exploring novel or under-represented topics like digital accessibility.
In sum, this focus group question is strategically designed to advance the research beyond surface-level indicators of readiness toward a richer understanding of the pedagogical reasoning that underpins curriculum integration. It engages with the multi-dimensional nature of teacher knowledge—especially pedagogical content knowledge—as it is enacted and negotiated in practice, thereby contributing to the development of both theoretical insight and actionable recommendations.
References
Ball, D. L., Thames, M. H., & Phelps, G. (2008). Content knowledge for teaching: What makes it special? Journal of Teacher Education, 59(5), 389–407. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022487108324554
Day, C., & Gu, Q. (2010). The new lives of teachers. Routledge.
Florian, L., & Black‐Hawkins, K. (2011). Exploring inclusive pedagogy. British Educational Research Journal, 37(5), 813–828. https://doi.org/10.1080/01411926.2010.501096
Grossman, P. (1990). The making of a teacher: Teacher knowledge and teacher education. Teachers College Press.
Kennedy, A. (2014). Understanding continuing professional development: The need for theory to impact on policy and practice. Professional Development in Education, 40(5), 688–697. https://doi.org/10.1080/19415257.2014.955122
Lave, J., & Wenger, E. (1991). Situated learning: Legitimate peripheral participation. Cambridge University Press.
Penuel, W. R., Phillips, R. S., & Harris, C. J. (2017). Analysing teachers’ curriculum implementation from integrity and actor-oriented perspectives. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 49(6), 848–872. https://doi.org/10.1080/00220272.2017.1321383
Priestley, M., Biesta, G. J. J., & Robinson, S. (2015). Teacher agency: An ecological approach. Bloomsbury.
Remillard, J. T. (2005). Examining key concepts in research on teachers’ use of mathematics curricula. Review of Educational Research, 75(2), 211–246. https://doi.org/10.3102/00346543075002211
Shulman, L. S. (1986). Those who understand: Knowledge growth in teaching. Educational Researcher, 15(2), 4–14. https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X015002004
Shulman, L. S. (1987). Knowledge and teaching: Foundations of the new reform. Harvard Educational Review, 57(1), 1–22. https://doi.org/10.17763/haer.57.1.j463w79r56455411
Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. Harvard University Press.
Comments
Post a Comment