Interviews and PCK

The question “How do learners respond to aspects of digital accessibility awareness being integrated into lessons at Upper Key Stage 2?” is methodologically significant in its capacity to elicit teacher insights that directly inform and expand understandings of pedagogical content knowledge (PCK)(Shulman, 1987). When explored through semi-structured interviews, particularly those grounded in teacher reflection and learner feedback, the question provides a valuable window into how teachers interpret the success, relevance, and accessibility of novel curriculum content in real classroom contexts. It not only reveals how content is taught, but critically, how it is experienced and responded to by learners.

Shulman (1987) defined PCK as the knowledge that allows teachers to transform subject matter into forms that are pedagogically effective and meaningful for specific learners. This includes understanding which instructional strategies work best for particular topics, anticipating student misconceptions, and selecting appropriate representations to support conceptual understanding. In this context, teachers' reflections on learner responses to digital accessibility content offer insights into how successfully they have navigated this pedagogical transformation.

Semi-structured interviews, by design, provide a flexible but focused frameworkfor teachers to articulate their reasoning, classroom decisions, and interpretations of learner engagement (Kvale & Brinkmann, 2015). They enable researchers to probe teachers’ professional judgments about what aspects of digital accessibility resonate with learners, where confusion arises, and which instructional choices were most effective—core aspects of PCK development (Ball, Thames, & Phelps, 2008).

Moreover, the inclusion of learner feedbackin these reflective interviews amplifies the importance of responsive pedagogy—teaching that adapts based on learner voice and evidence of understanding (Black & Wiliam, 2009; Hattie, 2012). Teachers’ accounts of how pupils engage with content such as assistive technologies, inclusive digital design, or equitable online participation illustrate their evolving capacity to gauge and respond to student learning in the context of a complex and values-based subject. This reflects an integrated form of PCK that incorporates knowledge of students, subject matter, and pedagogyin real time (Grossman, 1990; Park & Oliver, 2008).

Furthermore, this question encourages teachers to critically evaluate their own practice, aligning with views of teacher learning as reflective and situated (Schön, 1983; Loughran, 2006). Reflection on learner response positions teachers not as passive transmitters of curriculum, but as active curriculum developers who co-construct knowledge through a continuous feedback loop of planning, teaching, observing, and adapting (Clandinin & Connelly, 1995). This is especially important for emerging content areas like digital accessibility, where formal curriculum structures and tested pedagogical scripts are often lacking.

Theoretically, the question also aligns with sociocultural conceptions of knowledgethat view teaching as relational, dialogic, and context-sensitive (Vygotsky, 1978; Lave & Wenger, 1991). Understanding how learners respond to accessibility content helps uncover how values of inclusion, empathy, and equity are internalised or challenged in the classroom—thereby extending the scope of PCK to include moral and civic dimensions of teaching (Sockett, 2009).

In summary, the question serves as a critical lever for uncovering how teachers mediate new knowledge domains—like digital accessibility—through their practice, how they interpret learner engagement and response, and how this, in turn, refines their pedagogical content knowledge. When examined through semi-structured interviews that are rooted in actual teaching experiences and informed by learner voice, the data generated offer rich, practice-based insights into the dynamic interplay between curriculum innovation, pedagogical decision-making, and pupil experience.

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

Black, P., & Wiliam, D. (2009). Developing the theory of formative assessment. Educational Assessment, Evaluation and Accountability, 21(1), 5–31. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11092-008-9068-5

Clandinin, D. J., & Connelly, F. M. (1995). Teachers' professional knowledge landscapes. Teachers College Press.

Grossman, P. (1990). The making of a teacher: Teacher knowledge and teacher education. Teachers College Press.

Hattie, J. (2012). Visible learning for teachers: Maximizing impact on learning. Routledge.

Kvale, S., & Brinkmann, S. (2015). Interviews: Learning the craft of qualitative research interviewing (3rd ed.). Sage.

Lave, J., & Wenger, E. (1991). Situated learning: Legitimate peripheral participation. Cambridge University Press.

Loughran, J. (2006). Developing a pedagogy of teacher education: Understanding teaching and learning about teaching. Routledge.

Park, S., & Oliver, J. S. (2008). Revisiting the conceptualisation of pedagogical content knowledge (PCK): PCK as a conceptual tool to understand teachers as professionals. Research in Science Education, 38(3), 261–284. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11165-007-9049-6

Schön, D. A. (1983). The reflective practitioner: How professionals think in action. Basic Books.

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

Sockett, H. (2009). Dispositions as virtues: The complexity of the construct. Journal of Teacher Education, 60(3), 291–303. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022487109335189

Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. Harvard University Press.

Updated question:

The question “How do teachers interpret the learner response to aspects of digital accessibility awareness being integrated into lessons at Upper Key Stage 2?” is methodologically and theoretically positioned to illuminate the complex interplay between content, pedagogy, and learner engagement—central to Shulman’s (1987) notion of pedagogical content knowledge (PCK). Through semi-structured interviews informed by teacher reflection and pupil feedback, the question enables the exploration of how teachers assess, respond to, and interpret pupils’ cognitive, emotional, and behavioural engagement with new and socially meaningful curricular content.

Shulman’s (1986, 1987) conceptualisation of PCK emphasises the knowledge teachers possess to effectively transform disciplinary content into forms that are accessible and engaging for specific learners. This includes an understanding of what makes particular concepts difficult or easy to learn, which teaching strategies are most appropriate for different topics, and how students typically respond to the material. When teachers reflect on and interpret learner response to digital accessibility topics—such as inclusive digital design, assistive technologies, or equity in online participation—they reveal their own evolving understanding of how this content connects to learners' prior knowledge, interests, and values. These reflections offer insight into how teachers are building a new form of PCK in a domain that is emergent and underrepresented in traditional curricula.

Semi-structured interviews are particularly suited to eliciting such reflective professional knowledge. As Kvale and Brinkmann (2015) argue, interviews that blend structure with flexibility support the emergence of rich, contextually situated accounts of teaching. They allow researchers to probe how teachers make sense of learners' verbal and non-verbal feedback, levels of engagement, misconceptions, or moments of insight during lessons. These interpretations form a crucial feedback loop, allowing teachers to refine their instructional approaches—a process central to the development of responsive PCK (Park & Oliver, 2008).

By attending to learner response, this question also foregrounds what Ball, Thames, and Phelps (2008) identify as knowledge of content and students, a key subdomain of PCK. This involves knowing how students interact with specific content areas—in this case, the ethical, social, and technical dimensions of digital accessibility—and using that understanding to shape instruction. Teachers’ interpretations of learner reactions help researchers trace the pedagogical decisions made in response to those reactions, such as whether to adapt a task, use a different example, or connect accessibility to other areas of the curriculum like computing or PSHE.

Moreover, the question supports an understanding of PCK as situated and reflective, rather than fixed or decontextualised (Loughran, 2006). Teachers’ interpretations of learner response are shaped by their classroom context, professional identity, and values, and are thus embedded within a broader ecology of practice (van Driel, Verloop, & de Vos, 1998). When teachers reflect on learner feedback—whether formal (e.g., student comments) or informal (e.g., observed engagement)—they not only draw on their PCK but also contribute to its ongoing construction and refinement.

Importantly, the question encourages an inquiry into the affective and values-based dimensions of learning, which are especially pertinent in topics like digital accessibility. Learner responses might include empathy, interest, resistance, or confusion—each of which provides teachers with cues about how to scaffold understanding and make the content meaningful. This aligns with Sockett’s (2009) view of teaching as a moral endeavour, where pedagogical decisions are informed not only by cognitive goals but also by a commitment to equity and inclusion.

Finally, teacher interpretations of learner response, when analysed collectively, can offer insights into how digital accessibility content can be more effectively integrated into the curriculum. This serves both a practical and theoretical function: informing curriculum design while deepening our understanding of how PCK evolves in response to contemporary educational demands.

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

Kvale, S., & Brinkmann, S. (2015). InterViews: Learning the craft of qualitative research interviewing (3rd ed.). Sage.

Loughran, J. (2006). Developing a pedagogy of teacher education: Understanding teaching and learning about teaching. Routledge.

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

Sockett, H. (2009). Dispositions as virtues: The complexity of the construct. Journal of Teacher Education, 60(3), 291–303. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022487109335189

van Driel, J. H., Verloop, N., & de Vos, W. (1998). Developing science teachers' pedagogical content knowledge. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 35(6), 673–695. https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1098-2736(199808)35:6<673::AID-TEA5>3.0.CO;2-J

Search This Blog

Time for digital inclusion at scale