Next Article in Journal
Reliability and Construct Validity of a Self-Report Measure of SEL Capacities Among K-12 Educational Leaders
Previous Article in Journal
Embedding AI Ethics in Technical Training: A Multi-Stakeholder Pilot Module Emphasizing Co-Design and Interdisciplinary Collaboration at Rome Technopole
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Education Sciences
Volume 15
Issue 11
10.3390/educsci15111417
education-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Systematic Review

A Systematic Review of Studies Using the Topic-Specific Pedagogical Content Knowledge Framework in Science Education

by
Thumah Mapulanga
* and
Loyiso Currell Jita
Department of Mathematics, Science and Technology Education, University of the Free State, Bloemfontein 9300, South Africa
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Educ. Sci. 2025, 15(11), 1417; https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci15111417
Submission received: 26 July 2025 / Revised: 13 October 2025 / Accepted: 15 October 2025 / Published: 22 October 2025
Browse Figures
Versions Notes

Abstract

The development and use of teachers’ pedagogical content knowledge (PCK) can enhance students’ understanding of specific content. PCK occurs at three grain sizes: discipline-, topic-, and concept-specific levels. In 2013, Mavhunga and Rollnick proposed the topic-specific PCK (TSPCK) framework to describe how teachers transform topic-specific content in chemistry lessons. This systematic review brings together worldwide research on TSPCK, offering a thorough summary of the use of topic-specific knowledge in science instruction and identifying areas that most require teacher development. This review, conducted on 29 June 2025 in the Scopus database, identified 34 studies that used the TSPCK framework to investigate teachers’ TSPCK in science in the period from 2013 to 2025. An in-depth analysis of each study’s context, methodological approach, and focus was conducted. Findings revealed that studies mostly measure or improve secondary pre-service and in-service teachers’ PCK, use qualitative or mixed-methods approaches, utilise chemistry and biology topics, and are conducted in the (South) African context. Furthermore, the findings suggest that the use of the TSPCK is highly contextualised. The results also indicate a tendency for research to integrate the TSPCK framework into the Consensus Models of PCK. The review has also highlighted several gaps in PCK research, such as the limited research on pre-school, primary school, and university levels. Furthermore, there is limited research on interventions to improve in-service teachers’ PCK. Implications and opportunities of these findings for research on science teachers’ knowledge (TSPCK) are discussed. We recommend the application of the TSPCK framework to develop and evaluate teachers’ TSPCK through interventions such as workshops, lesson studies, micro-teaching and training modules. Furthermore, research may involve comparative studies with teachers having different degrees of teaching experience, including pre-service teachers, in-service teachers, and teacher educators.

1. Introduction

Teachers’ professional knowledge is considered the most cardinal factor influencing the outcome of teaching and learning (Carlson et al., 2019). Research in this area has mainly been informed by Shulman’s seminal work on pedagogical content knowledge (PCK), which he described as teachers’ special knowledge that facilitates effective delivery of content to learners (Shulman, 1986, 1987). According to Shulman, PCK is a unique combination of pedagogy and content that empowers educators to make subjects more approachable and interesting for students.
This transformation of knowledge often involves a comprehension of learners’ preconceptions, instructional representations, and conceptual support. Since its conceptualisation, PCK has influenced research in science education, where it has been used as a framing and/or analytical framework (Chan & Hume, 2019). It is generally accepted that PCK can influence the instructional quality and students’ academic achievement (Mapulanga et al., 2023). Furthermore, the literature supports the assertion that teachers/educators employ their topic-specific pedagogical content knowledge to make topics more accessible to learners (Chan, 2022; Deng et al., 2025). Extending Shulman’s (1986) notion of PCK, Mavhunga and Rollnick (2013) emphasised that teachers use topic-specific PCK (TSPCK) to assist students to understand difficult concepts in a topic. They proposed a TSPCK framework that is topic-dependent and thus more responsive to actual teaching practices. The TSPCK framework comprises five components needed to transform content in a specific topic: what is difficult to teach, curricular saliency, representations and analogies, conceptual teaching strategies, and students’ prior knowledge. Although teachers use all five components to transform content, conceptual teaching strategies consist of teaching strategies that draw from the other components.
The concept of topic-specific PCK is reflected in the refined consensus model (RCM) of PCK through one of its three grain sizes, i.e., topic-specific level (Chan, 2022). In later works (e.g., Mavhunga & van der Merwe, 2020), the TSPCK framework was integrated into the RCM. Since the conception of Mavhunga and Rollnick’s (2013) TSPCK framework, several studies have been conducted at the topic-specific level drawing on the model. However, not much is known about the nature of TSPCK research in science education, and our literature search did not reveal any existing synthesis of research utilising the TSPCK framework in science education. Previous reviews have investigated PCK and have focused on researching science teachers’ PCK (Chan & Hume, 2019), the mapping approach (Chan, 2022), the RCM (Mientus et al., 2022), PCK in higher education (Sarkar et al., 2024), and chemistry teachers’ PCK (Deng et al., 2025). The present review aimed to bridge this gap by addressing the question: What is the nature of science education research that draws on the topic-specific pedagogical content knowledge framework?
This review is significant as it brings together worldwide research on TSPCK, offering a thorough summary of the use of topic-specific knowledge in science instruction and identifying the areas that most require teacher development. Therefore, the review summarises contexts, methods, foci, and gaps in the included studies. Readers will learn how TSPCK has been used primarily in science education in African contexts, insights into methodological trends, and proof of the framework’s integration with more general PCK models. The study shows how the topic-specific framework can guide curriculum design, teacher preparation, and research methodologies in a variety of educational contexts, providing researchers and educators who are not yet utilising the TSPCK framework with transferable ideas for enhancing science instruction around the world.

2. Theoretical Framing

2.1. Conceptualisation of PCK

Shulman’s (1986, 1987) early works on PCK presented seven categories of teacher knowledge: general pedagogical knowledge, knowledge of curriculum and curriculum materials, content knowledge, knowledge of students, knowledge of contexts, and knowledge of ends, purposes, values, and pedagogical content knowledge (Shulman, 1987). Of these categories, PCK has proven to be influential in understanding what makes teaching specific topics easy or difficult and how best knowledge can be presented to facilitate understanding (Carlson et al., 2019). Therefore, several researchers have modified or rearranged Shulman’s ideas, resulting in various PCK models. For instance, Magnusson et al. (1999) presented a PCK model comprising five components: a science teaching orientation that reflects the beliefs and objectives of the teachers; knowledge of science curricula; knowledge of students’ science comprehension, including common misconceptions; knowledge of instructional strategies; and knowledge of science assessment. The relationships between a teacher’s knowledge and their teaching methods are highlighted by this model, which breaks down the PCK components within particular contexts of science education.
The prevalence of different PCK models in science education studies presents some difficulties in defining and measuring PCK, as well as comparing results across subjects, topics, and contexts (Carlson et al., 2019). PCK researchers arranged two PCK summits to share their understanding and conceptualisation of PCK and develop a common PCK model. The first summit in 2012 culminated in the development of the consensus model, as shown in Figure 1 (Gess-Newsome, 2015). Neumann et al. (2019) assert that the Consensus Model (CM) is not a PCK model but a representation of teacher professional knowledge domains, including PCK. They argue that the CM lacks an explicit illustration of components/aspects of PCK but instead describes PCK as teachers’ knowledge that informs their planning, teaching, and reflection on teaching. It acknowledges that PCK is activated and developed during classroom practice, when teaching a particular topic to particular students. Furthermore, the CM views PCK as neither static nor universally transferable.
The CM views PCK as the knowledge that is applied while organising, instructing, and evaluating the teaching of specific subjects to specific students. It presents PCK as dynamic and context-specific while differentiating between teachers’ general pedagogical knowledge, topic knowledge, and PCK. The TSPCK framework relates to the CM as it outlines the fine structure of topic-level PCK and operationalises the transformation process of the teacher professional knowledge bases through the five interconnected components—students’ prior knowledge, curriculum saliency, what makes the topic simple or difficult to learn, representations and analogies, and conceptual teaching strategies.
Later, the CM was refined at the second summit in 2015, resulting in the Refined Consensus Model (RCM) of PCK. According to Carlson et al. (2019), the RCM depicts PCK in three interrelated realms: enacted PCK (ePCK), personal PCK (pPCK), and collective PCK (cPCK). Collective PCK describes the professional knowledge that is available to all in academic discourse, textbooks, and curricula. Personal PCK is the knowledge that each teacher has gained by experience and professional development. Enacted PCK, represents the teaching choices and methods used in the classroom. In the RCM, the development and use of PCK are mediated by teacher beliefs and contextual circumstances that highlight the dynamic interplay between different realms in the model. The model illustrates the cyclical process that informs (ePCK) and shapes personal and collective PCK (Figure 2).
The TSPCK framework can be integrated into the RCM, where it aligns with the domains of pPCK and ePCK within this structure, as illustrated in Figure 3. As an analytical framework, TSPCK describes the content and quality of a teacher’s personal PCK for a certain topic (e.g., understanding student misconceptions about respiration). It captures enacted PCK and demonstrates how personal subject knowledge is employed in authentic teaching scenarios when used in classroom observation or lesson enactment (e.g., Mapulanga et al., 2023; Mazibe et al., 2025). The integration of the TSPCK framework into the RCM has been identified as important for recent and future PCK research, as it may provide practical tools for assessing and developing PCK in teacher education and classroom practice. Empirical studies using the TSPCK framework demonstrate improvements in (pre-service and in-service) teachers’ competency to transform content knowledge through the TSPCK components.

2.2. Trends in Previous PCK Reviews

Several researchers have conducted literature reviews to synthesise research on specific aspects of PCK. For instance, Chan and Hume (2019) assessed the literature on science education with an interest in the methods employed by researchers to investigate the PCK of science teachers. Disparities in the conceptualisation and operationalisation of PCK by researchers (e.g., Grossman, 1990; Magnusson et al., 1999; Park & Oliver, 2008; Mavhunga & Rollnick, 2013; Gess-Newsome, 2015; Carlson et al., 2019) have been identified. Furthermore, differences in how researchers use a variety of data sources and methodologies to acquire and assess teachers’ PCK were observed. It was concluded by identifying gaps in the literature on PCK regarding varying perspectives on the PCK concept among science education researchers. In another review, Chan (2022) examined studies that investigated the integration of science teachers’ PCK components using the PCK mapping approach. A thorough examination of how the PCK mapping technique has been applied, modified, and improved in these investigations was carried out. They noted that research on science teachers’ knowledge yielded some contradictory conclusions regarding the nature of the connections between PCK components.
Meanwhile, Mientus et al. (2022) interrogated the body of research on PCK in STEM education using the RCM of PCK. The results indicate that the research primarily used qualitative case-study methods, applying specific PCK models and tools. They determined that more emphasis is placed on quantitative approaches, and the RCM can be a useful theoretical lens for understanding the connections between PCK development and instructional practice.
Sarkar et al.’s (2024) systematic review examined the conceptualisation of PCK in empirical investigations in higher education. They discovered that PCK research was inconsistent and varied depending on the focus areas, disciplines, and nations. They noted difficulties in comparing studies due to the notable differences in the PCK constituents and interpretations. A recent review by Deng et al. (2025) explored chemistry teachers’ PCK and discovered that qualitative approaches predominated, but with little use of standardised rubrics and quantitative instruments. They also reported that despite its geographic focus, PCK research tends to emphasise topic-specificity and the blending of insights from pre-service and in-service teachers.
Generally, the cited reviews illustrate interesting trends in PCK research. Firstly, the reviews suggest a prevalence of varied research approaches, such as qualitative and quantitative approaches. They also reveal that studies use specific PCK models that focus on specific PCK components. The discussion also highlights that literature reviews tend to focus on specific contexts and aspects of PCK. However, although most PCK research focuses on teaching specific topics, to our knowledge, no literature synthesis on PCK has documented the nature of research using the topic-specific PCK framework. Therefore, the present study contributes to filling the gap by exploring the nature of research using the TSPCK framework in science education.

3. Materials and Methods

This review was informed by guidelines on effective systematic reviews (Moher et al., 2015; Page et al., 2021) and thus followed four main stages: searching the literature, identifying relevant records, screening records, and extracting and analysing data. The article selection process is illustrated in the PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses) diagram in Figure 4. The systematic review is appropriate for this study because it provides a methodical, evidence-based, and unbiased way to map, evaluate, and interpret the diverse and complex research landscape on TSPCK, thereby revealing how field’s evolution, strengths, and areas for further investigation.

3.1. Identifying Records

The Scopus database was searched using the query: Title-Abs-Key “topic-specific pedagogical content knowledge” OR “TSPCK” AND NOT “technological pedagogical content knowledge” AND NOT “TPACK” AND Pubyear > 2012 AND Limit-to Document type “article” AND Language “English” on 29 June 2025, resulting in 85 records/articles. The Scopus database was preferred because of its academic rigor, robustness, and extensive (global) coverage of peer-reviewed science education journals (Samaniego López et al., 2025).

3.2. Screening Records

The retrieved articles were exported into a Microsoft Excel File for easy analysis and initial screening by title and abstract. Each of the 85 records was screened (title and abstract), resulting in the retrieval and assessment of 40 articles for eligibility using the inclusion and exclusion criteria in Table 1. Where the information in the title and abstract was not sufficient, the record was retained for full-text screening. Six articles were excluded after full-text review, resulting in the inclusion of 34 articles (Figure 4). The screening was performed by the first author and checked by a second researcher to enhance the validity of the process.

3.3. Extracting and Analysing Data

The 34 included studies (see Appendix A) were analysed systematically. Firstly, data were extracted using three criteria: (a) context-study location/country, subject area, participants’ teaching level, publication source/journal, (b) methodological approach-research approach, methods, data sources/instruments, and participants, (c) focus-exploration or development of TSPCK and how the TSPCK framework was applied. Tallies and percentages were computed in a Microsoft Excel sheet. The data (included articles) were then analysed in-depth, following the steps outlined by Braun et al. (2019), which include familiarising with the data and coding it, identifying and reviewing themes, and aligning the themes with the study’s aim. The first author and an independent researcher analysed the studies against the above criteria, while the second author validated the findings. When necessary, the analysis was discussed and negotiated until a consensus was reached. This close collaboration ensured the study’s rigour.

3.4. Methodological Limitations

The main limitations of this review include the use of only one database (Scopus) and publication type, empirical studies written in the English language, which may have excluded some potentially good publications, e.g., books/book chapters, and dissertations. However, we acknowledge that the Scopus database provides an extensive global coverage of science education sources/journal publications that meet high standards (Deng et al., 2025; Samaniego López et al., 2025). Furthermore, the review is suited for an English language-dominated audience. Lastly, empirical studies in the Scopus database can provide sufficient evidence on the effect of applying the TSPCK framework in science education.

4. Results

The aim of this study was to explore studies that use the TSPCK framework developed by Mavhunga and Rollnick (2013). Firstly, we present the publication trend and sources of the included studies, and then the findings related to the study’s research question.

4.1. Publication Trend and Sources

Figure 5 shows fluctuations in the number of studies that used the TSPCK framework. The highest number of publications was in 2022 (n = 6) and 2024 (n = 5). However, it should be noted that the number of publications in 2025 (n = 3) represents publications up to June 2025. It can be seen that there have been more studies in the last six years (n = 21) compared to the first six years after the conception of the framework (n = 10), suggesting an increase in recognition of the model’s significance and use in the field.
Table 2 shows that the TSPCK framework has been widely published in both local (African) and international journals, although most papers (n = 15) have been published in local journals.
The next section presents the findings according to the above-stated criteria for all the 34 included articles, cited in the results section.

4.2. Nature of Studies Using the TSPCK Framework

(a)
Context
The context of the studies included is summarised in Table 3. The results show that studies using the TSPCK framework were conducted in five countries, with most of them being conducted in South Africa (n = 27). Only one study (Fantone et al., 2024), outside Africa (in the USA), has used the TSPCK framework. Regarding subjects investigated, Table 3 shows that chemistry (n = 15) and biology/life sciences (n = 9) are the most studied subjects, while physics is the least studied subject. Although the framework was developed and widely used in chemistry topics, the results show that it has been effectively used in other science subjects. Regarding participants’ teaching level, Table 3 shows that most studies (n = 30) involve secondary school teaching, and only three involve university teaching.
(b)
Methodological Approach
The results of the methodological approach in the studies are presented in Table 4, which shows that most studies (n = 24) used the qualitative approach, while 10 studies used the mixed approach. In terms of the research methods, the results indicate that interviews were the dominantly used method (n = 16), followed by lesson observations (n = 14). However, some studies (n = 13) did not explicitly mention the methods used and therefore were not assigned to any of the two methods considered in this review (e.g., Buma et al., 2024; Davidowitz & Potgieter, 2016; Makhechane & Mavhunga, 2021; Mavhunga & Rollnick, 2016; Ndlovu, 2024).
An analysis of the studies shows that many (n = 12) mostly used the rubric as an analytical tool to interpret participants’ TSPCK (e.g., Mazibe et al., 2020) while those using qualitative analytical approaches provided narratives and evidence of TSPCK (e.g., Shinana et al., 2021), and/or established relationships between TSPCK components through PCK maps (e.g., Akinyemi & Mavhunga, 2021; Ndlovu et al., 2025).
(c)
Data Sources/instruments and Participants
Table 5 shows the results relating to data sources and participants. The results revealed that most studies frequently used the interview guide (n = 16), Content representation, CoRe (n = 12), observation schedules (n = 12), and TSPCK tests (n = 10). Lesson plans were least used (n = 5). Regarding data sources usage, 15 studies used a single instrument for data collection, while 18 studies used more than two instruments as a data source. For studies that used a single instrument, the TSPCK test was the most frequently used source (n = 7), while the interview guide and observation guides were each solely used in one study each.
Regarding participants, the review found that there were almost equal numbers of studies that involved pre-service (n = 15) and in-service (n = 16) teachers. There are a few studies (e.g., Buma & Nyamupangedengu, 2023; Fantone et al., 2024) that involve university teaching. A closer look at the studies revealed that the studies used relatively smaller samples ranging from one participant (e.g., Buma & Nyamupangedengu, 2023) to 89 participants (e.g., Davidowitz & Potgieter, 2016). Also, although there is a good number of studies exploring in-service teachers’ PCK (n = 16), the majority of them (n = 11) focus on measurement of TSPCK (Table 5). There are a few studies (n = 3) that involve university teaching (e.g., Fantone et al., 2024).
(d)
Focus of the Studies
Concerning the focus of the studies, the results reveal that most studies (n = 19) focused on measuring TSPCK, while 15 studies focused on developing TSPCK (Table 6). Only four studies focused on developing practicing/in-service teachers’ TSPCK (e.g., Mapulanga et al., 2023; Ndlovu et al., 2025), indicating the potential of using TSPCK-based professional development. These studies used lesson study-based interventions to develop teachers’ PCK. The 11 studies involving pre-service teachers were mostly conducted in the context of methodology courses (e.g., Mavhunga & van der Merwe, 2020; Ndlovu & Malcolm, 2022).
Concerning the TSPCK components investigated, most studies (n = 33) focused on all five components, except 1 (Mdleleni & Ngcoza, 2025), which focused on only four components. Regarding how the TSPCK framework was used, Table 6 shows that 16 studies used the TSPCK model on its own, another 16 integrated it into the RCM, while two integrated it into the CM.

4.3. Application of the TSPCK Framework

The findings reveal that studies have applied the TSPCK framework to investigate how teachers modify content for certain science topics in various ways. The five components of TSPCK—teaching strategies, curricular saliency, topic difficulty, representations and analogies, and students’ preexisting knowledge and misconceptions—offer a comprehensive framework for examining pedagogical reasoning in lesson planning and implementation (Mavhunga, 2016; Mavhunga & Rollnick, 2013). Research in chemistry and biology demonstrates that collective planning and reflection improve enacted TSPCK (Mapulanga et al., 2023, 2024), while practicum interventions (Ndlovu & Malcolm, 2022; Miheso & Mavhunga, 2020) support retention into early teaching practice and growth in planned TSPCK, albeit with individual and component variation that may exist. Gaps have been highlighted by research on the differences between intended and implemented TSPCK, especially in terms of representations and responsiveness to student suggestions (Mazibe et al., 2025; Buma & Sibanda, 2022). The importance of TSPCK as a domain-specific scaffold for teacher development is demonstrated by these studies, which also help to close theory-practice gaps and enable focused attention on conceptual bottlenecks. The intricacy of quantifying enacted TSPCK, context specificity that restricts generalisation, brief interventions that impact sustainability, and early attempts to include technology (“digital-TSPCK”) are among the obstacles that still need to be overcome (Mavhunga & Zondi, 2022). When taken as a whole, these studies highlight the value of TSPCK in directing professional growth and point to important avenues for further research to improve methodology and applications.

5. Discussion

This review aimed to highlight the nature of science education research that utilise the TSPCK framework. Findings reveal four salient themes about the nature of science education: studies (a) mostly use qualitative or mixed-methods approaches; (b) studies generally focus on secondary school pre-service and in-service teachers’ PCK; (c) geographical and subject wise contextualisation; and (d) integration of TSPCK into the Consensus Models of PCK. This section discusses the implications of these findings.

5.1. Studies Mostly Use Qualitative or Mixed-Methods Approaches

The dominant adoption of qualitative and mixed-methods approaches, respectively, supports previous findings (Deng et al., 2025; Mientus et al., 2022; Sarkar et al., 2024), and the use of interviews and classroom observations allows detailed insights into how teachers’ PCK develops (Creswell, 2014). Our findings also follow global trends, as most PCK studies employ data triangulation (using more than one data source/tool) to enhance the rigor of their findings. Contrary to previous reviews (Chan & Hume, 2019; Sarkar et al., 2024), our review did not identify any studies using the quantitative approach. This result supports Deng et al. (2025), who reported little use of quantitative instruments in chemistry teachers’ PCK research. This may explain the finding that most of the studies used relatively smaller samples and therefore focused on the depth of the cases studied. In line with Deng et al. (2025), who found little use of quantitative rubrics, our study established that only 38% of the studies used a rubric to analyse the data. Although mixed–methods research has the advantage of providing balanced data through method and instrument triangulation (Creswell, 2014), few studies on TSPCK use the mixed-methods research approach. The lack of quantitative research found may suggest that teacher expertise is context-dependent and difficult to quantify. However, the use of qualitative methods limits the generalisability of the findings, preventing policymakers from making large-scale evidence-based educational decisions.

5.2. Studies Mostly Focus on Secondary School Pre-Service and In-Service Teachers’ PCK

The finding that the reviewed studies focus on measuring and improving teachers’ TSPCK reflects its perceived importance in successful science education (Mavhunga & Rollnick, 2013). The revelation that targeted interventions for developing practising teachers’ TSPCK have implications for professional development within science education. Two studies (Mapulanga et al., 2023; Ndlovu et al., 2025) used the lesson studies as vehicles for improving teachers’ PCK. However, few studies focus on enhancing in-service teachers’ PCK, although there are many challenges that teachers face in teaching specific topics at the secondary school level. This under-exploited area needs more attention through targeted interventions. The use of pre-service and in-service teachers is consistent with previous research that highlights the need for consistent PCK growth throughout one’s career stages (Chan & Hume, 2019). Nevertheless, the finding that most studies used pre-service teachers contradicts Chan and Hume (2019). Although Deng et al. (2025) report a tendency of research to blend perspectives of in-service and pre-service teachers, our study found very little evidence of this effort in two studies (Buma & Sibanda, 2022; Mazibe et al., 2025). This presents an under-explored area that may require comparative studies focusing on pre-service and in-service teachers’ perspectives. An interesting observation is that although secondary school science students’ academic performance is low, most studies focus on measuring PCK rather than developing it. We argue that since teachers with quality PCK are likely to help students understand science concepts (Carlson et al., 2019), research should concentrate on developing teachers’ PCK to improve students’ academic performance. Furthermore, despite research showing that lecturers’ PCK may influence students’ learning and that students face challenges learning some science subjects, few studies involve university teaching. One way to resolve the issue of learning difficulties in universities is to explore and develop lecturers’ TSPCK in difficult topics. Another gap identified in the review is a lack of research at the foundation/pre-school and primary school levels using the TSPCK framework. The limited application at pre-school and primary levels may be due to its content’s depth and subject-specificity, which may be less valued at those levels. Its limited adoption there may be due to differences in pedagogical focus, teacher preparation approaches, and curricular structures. Also, its conceptual complexity and emphasis on integrating disciplinary knowledge may make it less easily adaptable for pre-school and primary levels.

5.3. Studies Are Mostly Contextualised Geographically and Subject-Wise

The study’s finding that secondary school chemistry dominates in the studies agrees with previous findings (Chan, 2022) and could be explained by the abstract nature of the subject and the difficulties it presents for educators (Mavhunga & Rollnick, 2013). Biology/life science topics were the second most researched topics in the reviewed studies. There were very few studies focusing on physics topics. The under-representation of physics education may be explained by low enrolment and shortages of qualified physics teachers. This gap narrows the evidence basis for effective physics teaching methods, and may have negative effects on physics education and curriculum development. However, the TSPCK framework is effective for use in other subjects’ topics, such as physics and mathematics. Geographically, the focus of research on (South) African contexts suggests an interest in enhancing instruction and teacher calibre in science education in the region. Nonetheless, it seems that the use of the TSPCK framework is geographically limited as most studies using the framework come from the African context. The framework’s limited application to African contexts may be a result of its creation within certain African educational, curricular, and cultural contexts

5.4. Integration of TSPCK into the Consensus Models of PCK

The findings suggest an increasing tendency of researchers to integrate the TSPCK model into the CM and RCM. This may indicate that the TSPCK model may be seamlessly integrated with other frameworks and thus become useful in answering specific research questions. This successful integration proposes that the TSPCK framework could be useful for PCK research focusing on specific topics at any of the PCK realms. The result that most studies investigated multiple components concurs with previous reviews and the idea that effective teaching draws on several components (Chan & Hume, 2019; Chan, 2022).

6. Conclusions and Future Directions

This study has revealed that research on science education that uses the TSPCK framework is developmental, discipline-specific, teacher-centred, and contextually grounded. Studies frequently use mixed or qualitative methodologies to investigate how teachers transform subject-matter expertise into teachable tactics. Although research exhibits theoretical integration of the framework with more comprehensive PCK models, its application is still limted to studies that are intervention-focused and at different educational levels. Overall, the results of this review support global trends in PCK research and offer unique insights into the use of the TSPCK in science education. This review has generated four key themes regarding trends in TSPCK-based studies, including the recent trend of integrating the TSPCK framework into the consensus model and the refined consensus model. Since the review was limited to the Scopus database and empirical studies published in the English language, future reviews may extend the scope to include other databases (e.g., Web of Science, ERIC, and Google Scholar) and document types (e.g., grey literature and non-English sources). We recommend that future research use longitudinal and cross-cultural methods to provide a deeper insight into changes in TSPCK over time and across varying contexts. Lastly, this review proposes the following specific recommendations;
  • Ministries and researchers may focus on developing in-service teachers’ TSPCK through targeted interventions such as workshops, lesson studies, micro-teaching and (pre-service teachers’) training modules.
  • Ministries and researchers may also focus on measuring and developing the TSPCK of pre-school and primary school teachers, who are currently under-represented.
  • Conducting professional development programmes and research involving educators in higher education, e.g., teacher educators in colleges and universities.
  • Researchers may conduct comparative studies involving educators with varying teaching experience, e.g., pre-service and in-service teachers, teacher educators, and pre-service teachers.
  • Researchers may also conduct comparative studies involving research conducted in different contexts, such as cross-country studies, inter-institutional studies, and resource-rich versus research-poor institutions. This would allow testing the generalisability of the framework in different contexts, e.g., beyond the African contexts.

Author Contributions

Conceptualisation, T.M. and L.C.J.; methodology, T.M.; validation, T.M. and L.C.J.; formal analysis, T.M.; investigation, T.M.; resources, T.M. and L.C.J.; data curation, T.M.; writing—original draft preparation, T.M.; writing—review and editing, T.M. and L.C.J.; visualisation, T.M. and L.C.J.; supervision, L.C.J. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research received no external funding.

Institutional Review Board Statement

Not applicable. All sources were acknowledged and properly cited.

Informed Consent Statement

Not applicable.

Data Availability Statement

All data used in this work are cited and referenced.

Acknowledgments

Authors appreciate the SANRAL Chair in Mathematics, Science, and Technology Education (University of the Free State) for the technical support and covering the APC for this manuscript. During the preparation of this manuscript, the authors used Grammarly to improve the language and readability of the text. After use, the authors reviewed and edited the output and take full responsibility for the content of this publication.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare that they have no conflicts of interest.

Abbreviations

The following abbreviations are used in this manuscript:
PCKPedagogical content knowledge
TSPCKTechnological pedagogical content knowledge
CMConsensus model
RCMRefined Consensus model

Appendix A. Overview of the Studies Included

ContextApproachMethodsInstruments/ToolsParticipantFocus
AuthorsYearSubjectTeaching LevelQualitativeQuantitativeMixedInterviewsLesson ObservationWritten Work/TestingLesson PlanCoReTSPCK TestObservation ScheduleInterview ScheduleField NotesIn-Service TeachersPre-Service TeachersLecturerMeasuring TSPCKDeveloping TSPCKHow TSPCK is Used
1. Akinyemi O.S.; Mavhunga E.2021CS XXX X XX X X So
2. Buma A.; Nyamupangedengu E.2023BSX XX X XX XX So
3. Buma A.; Sibanda D.2022NSU X X XX X I
4. Buma A.M.; Sibanda D.; Rollnick M.2024NSS X XX X XI
5. Chani F.; Ngcoza K.M.; Chikunda C.; Sewry J.2018CSX XX XX X X So
6. Coetzee C.; Rollnick M.; Gaigher E.2022PSX XX X XX X X I
7. Davidowitz B.; Potgieter M.2016CSX X X X So
8. Fantone R.C.; Geragosian E.; Connor M.; Shultz G.V.2024CUX X X X XX I
9. Kahn R.R.; Nyamupangedengu E.2022BSX X XX XXX I
10. Khoza H.C.2024BSX X X X XI
11. Makhechane M.; Mavhunga E.2021CSX XX X XI
12. Malcolm S.A.; Mavhunga E.; Rollnick M.2019CS X X X X So
13. Mapulanga T.; Ameyaw Y.; Nshogoza G.; Bwalya A.2024BSX XX XX X X I
14. Mapulanga T.; Ameyaw Y.; Nshogoza G.; Sinyangwe E.2023BSX X X X XI
15. Mapulanga T.; Nshogoza G.; Yaw A.2022BSX X X X X X So
16. Mavhunga E.2016CS X XX X XSo
17. Mavhunga E.2020CSX XX X X XSo
18. Mavhunga E.; Ibrahim B.; Qhobela M.; Rollnick M.2016PSX X X XSo
19. Mavhunga E.; Rollnick M.2013CS X X X XSo
20. Mavhunga E.; Rollnick M.2016CSX X X X XSo
21. Mavhunga E.; van der Merwe D.2020CSX X X X XI
22. Mazibe E.N.; Gaigher E.; Coetzee C.2020PSX X X X X I
23. Mazibe E.N.; Gaigher E.; Coetzee C.2025PSX XX XX XX X I
24. Mdleleni S.; Ngcoza K.M.2025PSX X X X X So
25. Mdolo M.M.; Mundalamo F.J.2015BSX XX XX X X So
26. Miheso J.M.; Mavhunga E.2020CSX X X X X XI
27. Ndlovu B.P. 2024CS X X X X I
28. Ndlovu B.P.; Malcolm S.A.2022CS X X X XI
29. Ndlovu B.P.; Nsele S.W.; Khoza H.C.2025CSX X X XSo
30. Nyamupangedengu E.; Lelliott A.2018CUX X X XX So
31. Pitjeng-Mosabala P.; Rollnick M.2018NSS XXX XXXXX X XI
32. Poti J.G.; Dudu W.T.; Sebatana M.J.2022PSX XX XX X X I
33. Rollnick M.; Mavhunga E.2014CS X X X X So
34. Shinana E.; Ngcoza K.M.; Mavhunga E.2021BSX XX X X XSo
Subjects: B = Biology/life science, C = Chemistry, P = Physics; Teaching level: S = Secondary, U = University; How TSPCK is used: So = Solo, I = Integrated.

References

  1. Akinyemi, O. S., & Mavhunga, E. (2021). Linking pre-service teachers’ enacted topic specific pedagogical content knowledge to learner achievement in organic chemistry. Chemistry Education Research and Practice, 22(2), 282–302. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  2. Braun, V., Clarke, V., Hayfield, N., & Terry, G. (2019). Thematic analysis. In Handbook of research methods in health social sciences (pp. 843–860). Springer. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. Buma, A. M., & Nyamupangedengu, E. (2023). Investigating the quality of enacted pedagogical content knowledge by mapping out component interactions: A case study of a teacher educator teaching basic genetics. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 34(8), 820–840. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. Buma, A. M., & Sibanda, D. (2022). In-service and pre-service science teachers’ enacted pedagogical content knowledge about the particulate nature of matter. Education Sciences, 12(9), 576. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Buma, A. M., Sibanda, D., & Rollnick, M. (2024). Exploring the development of the quality of topic specific pedagogical content knowledge in planning: The case of grade 8 natural sciences teachers. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 22(2), 399–418. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Carlson, J., Daehler, K. R., Alonzo, A. C., Barendsen, E., Berry, A., Borowski, A., Carpendale, J., Kam Ho Chan, K., Cooper, R., Friedrichsen, P., Gess-Newsome, J., Henze-Rietveld, I., Hume, A., Kirschner, S., Liepertz, S., Loughran, J., Mavhunga, E., Neumann, K., Nilsson, P., … Christopher, D. W. (2019). The refined consensus model of pedagogical content knowledge in science education. In Repositioning pedagogical content knowledge in teachers’ knowledge for teaching science (pp. 77–94). Springer. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Chan, K. K. H. (2022). A critical review of studies using the pedagogical content knowledge map approach. International Journal of Science Education, 44(3), 487–513. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Chan, K. K. H., & Hume, A. (2019). Towards a consenus model: Literature review of how science teachers’ pedagogical content knowledge is investigated. In A. Hume, R. Cooper, & A. Borowski (Eds.), Repositioning PCK in teachers’ professional knowledge (pp. 3–76). Springer. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Chani, F., Ngcoza, K. M., Chikunda, C., & Sewry, J. (2018). Exploring the mediation of learning of chemical equilibrium to high-achieving students in a selected senior secondary school in Namibia. African Journal of Research in Mathematics, Science and Technology Education, 22(3), 287–296. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Creswell, J. W. (2014). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches (4th ed.). SAGE. [Google Scholar]
  11. Davidowitz, B., & Potgieter, M. (2016). Use of the Rasch measurement model to explore the relationship between content knowledge and topic-specific pedagogical content knowledge for organic chemistry. International Journal of Science Education, 38(9), 1483–1503. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Deng, F., Zhang, L., Zhu, J., Dou, B., & Lan, W. (2025). Chemistry teachers’ pedagogical content knowledge: A review of empirical research published in SSCI Journals from 1986 to 2024. Teaching and Teacher Education, 165, 105109. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Fantone, R. C., Geragosian, E., Connor, M., & Shultz, G. V. (2024). Exploring post-secondary chemistry instructors’ knowledge for teaching 1H NMR spectroscopy. Chemistry Education Research and Practice, 25(4), 976–995. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Gess-Newsome, J. (2015). A model of teacher professional knowledge and skill including PCK: Results of the thinking from the PCK summit. In A. Berry, P. J. Friedrichsen, & J. Loughran (Eds.), Teaching and learning in science series. Re-examining pedagogical content knowledge in science education (pp. 28–42). Routledge. [Google Scholar]
  15. Grossman, P. L. (1990). The making of a teacher: Teacher knowledge and teacher education. Teachers College Press. [Google Scholar]
  16. Kahn, R. R., & Nyamupangedengu, E. (2022). Investigating opportunities for integrating methodology when teaching a life science topic (meiosis) to fourth-year pre-service teachers: A case study. Journal of Education (South Africa), 86, 64–84. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Khoza, H. C. (2024). Exploring the rationale for lesson design as a tool for developing and evaluating science pre-service teachers’ topic-specific pedagogical content knowledge. Journal of Education (South Africa), 95, 3–22. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Magnusson, S., Krajcik, J., & Borko, H. (1999). Nature sources and development of pedagogical content knowledge for science teaching. In J. Newsome, & N. Lederman (Eds.), Examining pedagogical content knowledge: The construct and its implications for science education (pp. 95–132). Kluwer Academic. [Google Scholar]
  19. Makhechane, M., & Mavhunga, E. (2021). Developing topic-specific PCK in chemical equilibrium in a chemistry PGCE class: Feasible or not? African Journal of Research in Mathematics, Science and Technology Education, 25(2), 160–173. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Malcolm, S. A., Mavhunga, E., & Rollnick, M. (2019). The validity and reliability of an instrument to measure physical science teachers’ topic-specific pedagogical content knowledge in stoichiometry. African Journal of Research in Mathematics, Science and Technology Education, 23(2), 181–194. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Mapulanga, T., Ameyaw, Y., Nshogoza, G., & Bwalya, A. (2024). Integration of topic-specific pedagogical content knowledge components in secondary school science teachers’ reflections on biology lessons. Discover Education, 3(1), 1–19. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Mapulanga, T., Ameyaw, Y., Nshogoza, G., & Sinyangwe, E. (2023). Improving secondary school biology teachers’ topic-specific pedagogical content knowledge: Evidence from lesson studies. Journal of Baltic Science Education, 22(1), 20–36. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Mapulanga, T., Nshogoza, G., & Yaw, A. (2022). Zambian secondary school biology teachers’ profiles of planned topic-specific pedagogical content knowledge for teaching respiration. African Journal of Research in Mathematics, Science and Technology Education, 26(1), 47–62. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Mavhunga, E. (2016). Transfer of the pedagogical transformation competence across chemistry topics. Chemistry Education Research and Practice, 17(4), 1081–1097. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Mavhunga, E. (2020). Revealing the structural complexity of component interactions of topic-specific PCK when planning to teach. Research in Science Education, 50(3), 965–986. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Mavhunga, E., Ibrahim, B., Qhobela, M., & Rollnick, M. (2016). Student teachers’ competence to transfer strategies for developing PCK for electric circuits to another physical sciences topic. African Journal of Research in Mathematics, Science and Technology Education, 20(3), 299–313. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Mavhunga, E., & Rollnick, M. (2013). Improving PCK of chemical equilibrium in pre-service teachers. African Journal of Research in Mathematics, Science and Technology Education, 17(1–2), 113–125. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Mavhunga, E., & Rollnick, M. (2016). Teacher-or-Learner-Centred? Science teacher beliefs related to topic-specific pedagogical content knowledge: A South African case study. Research in Science Education, 46(6), 831–855. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Mavhunga, E., & van der Merwe, D. (2020). Bridging science education’s theory–practice divide: A perspective from teacher education through topic-specific PCK. African Journal of Research in Mathematics, Science and Technology Education, 24(1), 65–80. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Mavhunga, E., & Zondi, F. (2022, September 12–15). Teacher knowledge for teaching science digitally [Conference session]. The 5th International Conference on New Trends in Teaching and Education, Wits University, Science Education Division (pp. 1–13), Barcelona, Spain. [Google Scholar]
  31. Mazibe, E. N., Gaigher, E., & Coetzee, C. (2020). Comparing pedagogical content knowledge across fundamental concepts of electrostatics: A Case of three pre-service teachers. African Journal of Research in Mathematics, Science and Technology Education, 24(2), 143–155. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Mazibe, E. N., Gaigher, E., & Coetzee, C. (2025). The relationship between teachers’ enacted pedagogical content knowledge and student learning in fundamental concepts of electrostatics. Research in Science and Technological Education, 43(2), 476–494. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Mdleleni, S., & Ngcoza, K. M. (2025). Using topic-specific pedagogical content knowledge to study indigenous knowledge integration in Grade 11 physical science lessons: Teachers’ perspectives. African Journal of Research in Mathematics, Science and Technology Education, 29(1), 128–141. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Mdolo, M. M., & Mundalamo, F. J. (2015). Teacher knowledge shaping the teaching of genetics: A case study of two underqualified teachers in Malawi. African Journal of Research in Mathematics, Science and Technology Education, 19(1), 1–11. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Mientus, L., Hume, A., Wulff, P., Meiners, A., & Borowski, A. (2022). Modelling STEM teachers’ pedagogical content knowledge in the framework of the refined consensus Model: A systematic literature review. Education Sciences, 12(6), 385. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Miheso, J. M., & Mavhunga, E. (2020). The retention of topic-specific PCK: A longitudinal study with beginning chemistry teachers. Chemistry Education Research and Practice, 21(3), 789–805. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Moher, D., Shamseer, L., Clarke, M., Ghersi, D., Liberati, A., Petticrew, M., Shekelle, P., & Stewart, L. A. (2015). Preferred reporting items for systematic review and meta-analysis protocols (PRISMA-P) 2015 statement. Systematic Reviews, 4, 1. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  38. Ndlovu, B. P. (2024). Retaining knowledge for practice: A study of first-year chemistry teachers’ planned TSPCK in stoichiometry. South African Journal of Chemistry, 78(1), 283–292. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Ndlovu, B. P., & Malcolm, S. A. (2022). Changes in pre-service teachers’ planned TSPCK in stoichiometry after a TSPCK-based practicum. African Journal of Research in Mathematics, Science and Technology Education, 26(2), 125–141. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Ndlovu, B. P., Nsele, S. W., & Khoza, H. C. (2025). Enhancing conceptual teaching in organic chemistry through lesson study: A TSPCK-Based approach. Chemistry Teacher International, 1–14. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Neumann, K., Kind, V., & Harms, U. (2019). Probing the amalgam: The relationship between science teachers’ content, pedagogical and pedagogical content knowledge. International Journal of Science Education, 41(7), 847–861. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Nyamupangedengu, E., & Lelliott, A. (2018). Planning for teaching a genetics course to pre-service teachers: Experiences of a biology teacher educator. African Journal of Research in Mathematics, Science and Technology Education, 22(3), 308–318. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Page, M. J., McKenzie, J. E., Bossuyt, P. M., Boutron, I., Hoffmann, T. C., Mulrow, C. D., Shamseer, L., Tetzlaff, J. M., Akl, E. A., Brennan, S. E., Chou, R., Glanville, J., Grimshaw, J. M., Hróbjartsson, A., Lalu, M. M., Li, T., Loder, E. W., Mayo-Wilson, E., McDonald, S., … Moher, D. (2021). The PRISMA 2020 statement: An updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews. The BMJ, 372, n71. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. 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. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Pitjeng-Mosabala, P., & Rollnick, M. (2018). Exploring the development of novice unqualified graduate teachers’ topic-specific PCK in teaching the particulate nature of matter in South Africa’s classrooms. International Journal of Science Education, 40(7), 742–770. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Poti, J. G., Dudu, W. T., & Sebatana, M. J. (2022). A South African beginner natural sciences teacher’s articulated PCK-in-practice with respect to electric circuits: A case study. Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science and Technology Education, 18(10), em2161. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Rollnick, M., & Gaigher, E. (2022). Teaching electromagnetism for the first time: A case study of pre-service science teachers’ enacted pedagogical content knowledge. Research in Science Education, 52(2), 357–378. [Google Scholar]
  48. Rollnick, M., & Mavhunga, E. (2014). PCK of teaching electrochemistry in chemistry teachers: A case in Johannesburg, Gauteng Province, South Africa. Educacion Quimica, 25(3), 354–362. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Samaniego López, M. V., Orrego Riofrío, M. C., Barriga-Fray, S. F., & Paz Viteri, B. S. (2025). Technologies in inclusive education: Solution or challenge? A systematic review. Education Sciences, 15(6), 715. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Sarkar, M., Gutierrez-Bucheli, L., Yip, S. Y., Lazarus, M., Wright, C., White, P. J., Ilic, D., Hiscox, T. J., & Berry, A. (2024). Pedagogical content knowledge (PCK) in higher education: A systematic scoping review. Teaching and Teacher Education, 144, 104608. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Shinana, E., Ngcoza, K. M., & Mavhunga, E. (2021). Development of teachers’ PCK for a scientific inquiry-based teaching approach in Namibia’s rural schools. African Journal of Research in Mathematics, Science and Technology Education, 25(1), 1–11. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. Shulman, L. S. (1986). Those who understand knowledge. Educational Researcher, 15(2), 4–14. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  53. Shulman, L. S. (1987). Knowledge and teaching: Foundations of the new reform. Harvard Educational Review, 57, 1–22. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Education 15 01417 g001
Figure 1. Teacher Professional Knowledge (Gess-Newsome, 2015).
Figure 1. Teacher Professional Knowledge (Gess-Newsome, 2015).
Education 15 01417 g001
Education 15 01417 g002
Figure 2. The Refined Consensus Model (Carlson et al., 2019).
Figure 2. The Refined Consensus Model (Carlson et al., 2019).
Education 15 01417 g002
Education 15 01417 g003
Figure 3. Positioning of TSPCK in the RCM, adapted from Mavhunga and van der Merwe (2020).
Figure 3. Positioning of TSPCK in the RCM, adapted from Mavhunga and van der Merwe (2020).
Education 15 01417 g003
Education 15 01417 g004
Figure 4. PRISMA diagram—adapted from Page et al. (2021).
Figure 4. PRISMA diagram—adapted from Page et al. (2021).
Education 15 01417 g004
Education 15 01417 g005
Figure 5. Publication trend (number of studies) using the TSPCK framework.
Figure 5. Publication trend (number of studies) using the TSPCK framework.
Education 15 01417 g005
Table 1. Inclusion/exclusion criteria.
Table 1. Inclusion/exclusion criteria.
AspectInclusion CriteriaExclusion Criteria
Study focusThe study focuses on PCKThe study focuses on other domains of teachers’ knowledge base, e.g., pedagogical knowledge, content knowledge, technological pedagogical content knowledge, and topic-specific professional knowledge, etc.
PCK frameworkThe study uses the TSPCK frameworkThe study focuses on other PCK frameworks/models
Publication typeJournal article based on empirical researchReview, book, book chapter, proceedings, etc.
ContextFormal educationInformal/non-formal education
Language EnglishOther languages
Publication yearJanuary 2013–June 2025 2012 and after June 2025
Domain/subjectScience (biology/life science, physical, chemistry, physics, natural science)Non-science subjects (e.g., mathematics, engineering, computer science, economics…)
Table 2. Publication sources.
Table 2. Publication sources.
Source/JournalN (%)Articles
African Journal of Research in Mathematics, Science and Technology Education * 13 (38.2)(Chani et al., 2018; Makhechane & Mavhunga, 2021; Malcolm et al., 2019; Mapulanga et al., 2022; Mavhunga et al., 2016; Mavhunga & Rollnick, 2013; Mavhunga & van der Merwe, 2020; Mazibe et al., 2020; Mdleleni & Ngcoza, 2025; Mdolo & Mundalamo, 2015; Ndlovu & Malcolm, 2022; Nyamupangedengu & Lelliott, 2018; Shinana et al., 2021)
Chemistry Education Research and Practice4 (11.8)(Akinyemi & Mavhunga, 2021; Fantone et al., 2024; Mavhunga, 2016; Miheso & Mavhunga, 2020)
Chemistry Teacher International1 (2.9)(Ndlovu et al., 2025)
Discover Education1 (2.9)(Mapulanga et al., 2024)
Educacion Quimica1 (2.9)(Rollnick & Mavhunga, 2014)
Education Sciences1 (2.9)(Buma & Sibanda, 2022)
Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science and Technology Education1 (2.9)(Poti et al., 2022)
International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education1 (2.9)(Buma et al., 2024)
International Journal of Science Education2 (5.9)(Davidowitz & Potgieter, 2016; Pitjeng-Mosabala & Rollnick, 2018)
Journal of Baltic Science Education1 (2.9)(Mapulanga et al., 2023)
Journal of Education (South Africa) *2 (5.9)(Kahn & Nyamupangedengu, 2022; Khoza, 2024)
Journal of Science Teacher Education1 (2.9)(Buma & Nyamupangedengu, 2023)
Research in Science and Technological Education1 (2.9)(Mazibe et al., 2025)
Research in Science Education3 (8.8)(Mavhunga, 2020; Mavhunga & Rollnick, 2016; Rollnick & Gaigher, 2022)
South African Journal of Chemistry *1 (2.9)(Ndlovu, 2024)
Note: * Local/African journals.
Table 3. Contexts of the studies.
Table 3. Contexts of the studies.
N (%)Articles
Country/Location of studySouth Africa27 (79.4)(Akinyemi & Mavhunga, 2021; Buma et al., 2024; Buma & Nyamupangedengu, 2023; Buma & Sibanda, 2022; Davidowitz & Potgieter, 2016; Kahn & Nyamupangedengu, 2022; Khoza, 2024; Makhechane & Mavhunga, 2021; Malcolm et al., 2019; Mavhunga, 2020; Mavhunga et al., 2016; Mavhunga, 2016; Mavhunga & Rollnick, 2013, 2016; Mavhunga & van der Merwe, 2020; Mazibe et al., 2020, 2025; Mdleleni & Ngcoza, 2025; Miheso & Mavhunga, 2020; Ndlovu, 2024; Ndlovu et al., 2025; Ndlovu & Malcolm, 2022; Nyamupangedengu & Lelliott, 2018; Pitjeng-Mosabala & Rollnick, 2018; Poti et al., 2022; Rollnick & Gaigher, 2022; Rollnick & Mavhunga, 2014)
Malawi1 (2.9)(Mdolo & Mundalamo, 2015)
Namibia2 (5.9)(Chani et al., 2018; Shinana et al., 2021)
USA1 (2.9)(Fantone et al., 2024)
Zambia3 (8.8)(Mapulanga et al., 2022, 2023, 2024)
SubjectBiology9 (26.5)(Buma & Nyamupangedengu, 2023; Kahn & Nyamupangedengu, 2022; Khoza, 2024; Mapulanga et al., 2022, 2023, 2024; Mdolo & Mundalamo, 2015; Nyamupangedengu & Lelliott, 2018; Shinana et al., 2021)
Chemistry16 (47.1)(Akinyemi & Mavhunga, 2021; Chani et al., 2018; Davidowitz & Potgieter, 2016; Fantone et al., 2024; Makhechane & Mavhunga, 2021; Malcolm et al., 2019; Mavhunga, 2016, 2020; Mavhunga & Rollnick, 2013, 2016; Mavhunga & van der Merwe, 2020; Miheso & Mavhunga, 2020; Ndlovu, 2024; Ndlovu et al., 2025; Ndlovu & Malcolm, 2022; Rollnick & Mavhunga, 2014)
Physics6 (17.6)(Mavhunga et al., 2016; Mazibe et al., 2020, 2025; Mdleleni & Ngcoza, 2025; Poti et al., 2022; Rollnick & Gaigher, 2022)
Natural sciences (Biology, Chemistry, and Physics)3 (8.8)(Buma et al., 2024; Buma & Sibanda, 2022; Pitjeng-Mosabala & Rollnick, 2018)
Participants’ teaching levelSecondary school31 (91.2)(Akinyemi & Mavhunga, 2021; Buma et al., 2024; Buma & Nyamupangedengu, 2023; Chani et al., 2018; Davidowitz & Potgieter, 2016; Kahn & Nyamupangedengu, 2022; Khoza, 2024; Makhechane & Mavhunga, 2021; Malcolm et al., 2019; Mapulanga et al., 2022, 2023, 2024; Mavhunga, 2016, 2020; Mavhunga et al., 2016; Mavhunga & Rollnick, 2013, 2016; Mavhunga & van der Merwe, 2020; Mazibe et al., 2020, 2025; Mdleleni & Ngcoza, 2025; Mdolo & Mundalamo, 2015; Miheso & Mavhunga, 2020; Ndlovu, 2024; Ndlovu et al., 2025; Ndlovu & Malcolm, 2022; Pitjeng-Mosabala & Rollnick, 2018; Poti et al., 2022; Rollnick & Gaigher, 2022; Rollnick & Mavhunga, 2014; Shinana et al., 2021)
University3 (8.8)(Buma & Nyamupangedengu, 2023; Fantone et al., 2024; Nyamupangedengu & Lelliott, 2018)
Table 4. Methodological approaches in the reviewed studies.
Table 4. Methodological approaches in the reviewed studies.
N (%)Articles
ApproachesQualitative24 (70.6)(Buma & Nyamupangedengu, 2023; Chani et al., 2018; Davidowitz & Potgieter, 2016; Fantone et al., 2024; Kahn & Nyamupangedengu, 2022; Khoza, 2024; Makhechane & Mavhunga, 2021; Mapulanga et al., 2022, 2023, 2024; Mavhunga, 2020; Mavhunga et al., 2016; Mavhunga & Rollnick, 2016; Mavhunga & van der Merwe, 2020; Mazibe et al., 2020, 2025; Mdleleni & Ngcoza, 2025; Mdolo & Mundalamo, 2015; Miheso & Mavhunga, 2020; Ndlovu et al., 2025; Nyamupangedengu & Lelliott, 2018; Poti et al., 2022; Rollnick & Mavhunga, 2014; Shinana et al., 2021)
Mixed10 (29.4)(Akinyemi & Mavhunga, 2021; Buma et al., 2024; Buma & Sibanda, 2022; Malcolm et al., 2019; Mavhunga, 2016; Mavhunga & Rollnick, 2013; Ndlovu, 2024; Ndlovu & Malcolm, 2022; Pitjeng-Mosabala & Rollnick, 2018; Rollnick & Mavhunga, 2014)
Methods **Interviews 5 (14.7)(Fantone et al., 2024; Khoza, 2024; Mapulanga et al., 2022; Mdleleni & Ngcoza, 2025; Miheso & Mavhunga, 2020)
Lesson observation *2 (5.9)(Miheso & Mavhunga, 2020; Shinana et al., 2021)
Interview + lesson observation6 (17.6)(Akinyemi & Mavhunga, 2021; Buma & Nyamupangedengu, 2023; Chani et al., 2018; Kahn & Nyamupangedengu, 2022; Mapulanga et al., 2024; Mazibe et al., 2025; Mdolo & Mundalamo, 2015; Pitjeng-Mosabala & Rollnick, 2018; Poti et al., 2022; Rollnick & Gaigher, 2022)
* Similar to Chan and Hume (2019), recorded lessons were included in ‘lesson observation’. ** The numbers are not cumulative because some methods were used in combinations.
Table 5. Data sources/instruments and participants.
Table 5. Data sources/instruments and participants.
N (%)Articles
Data sources/instrumentsContent representation (CoRe)3 (8.8)(Mavhunga et al., 2016; Ndlovu et al., 2025; Rollnick & Mavhunga, 2014)
Interview guide1 (2.9)(Nyamupangedengu & Lelliott, 2018)
TSPCK test8 (8.8)(Buma & Sibanda, 2022; Davidowitz & Potgieter, 2016; Malcolm et al., 2019; Mavhunga & Rollnick, 2013, 2016; Ndlovu et al., 2025; Ndlovu & Malcolm, 2022; Rollnick & Mavhunga, 2014)
Observation guide1 (2.9)(Shinana et al., 2021)
Lesson plan + interview guide3 (8.8)(Akinyemi & Mavhunga, 2021; Khoza, 2024; Mapulanga et al., 2022)
Lesson plan + observation guide2 (5.9)(Akinyemi & Mavhunga, 2021; Mavhunga & van der Merwe, 2020)
Lesson plan + CoRe2 (5.9)(Mavhunga, 2020; Mazibe et al., 2020)
CoRe + Observation guide3 (8.8)(Buma & Nyamupangedengu, 2023; Mavhunga, 2020; Pitjeng-Mosabala & Rollnick, 2018)
CoRe + interview guide3 (8.8)(Buma & Nyamupangedengu, 2023; Fantone et al., 2024; Pitjeng-Mosabala & Rollnick, 2018)
CoRe + TSPCK test4 (26.5)(Buma et al., 2024; Makhechane & Mavhunga, 2021; Mavhunga, 2016; Pitjeng-Mosabala & Rollnick, 2018)
Observation + interview guides9 (26.5)(Akinyemi & Mavhunga, 2021; Buma & Nyamupangedengu, 2023; Chani et al., 2018; Kahn & Nyamupangedengu, 2022; Mapulanga et al., 2024; Mazibe et al., 2025; Mdolo & Mundalamo, 2015; Poti et al., 2022; Rollnick & Gaigher, 2022)
TSPCK test + Observation guide1 (2.9)(Pitjeng-Mosabala & Rollnick, 2018)
ParticipantsPre-service teachers13 (38.2)(Akinyemi & Mavhunga, 2021; Kahn & Nyamupangedengu, 2022; Makhechane & Mavhunga, 2021; Mavhunga, 2016, 2020; Mavhunga et al., 2016; Mavhunga & Rollnick, 2013, 2016; Mavhunga & van der Merwe, 2020; Mazibe et al., 2020; Miheso & Mavhunga, 2020; Ndlovu & Malcolm, 2022; Rollnick & Gaigher, 2022)
In-service teachers15 (44.1)(Buma et al., 2024; Chani et al., 2018; Davidowitz & Potgieter, 2016; Malcolm et al., 2019; Mapulanga et al., 2022, 2023, 2024; Mdleleni & Ngcoza, 2025; Mdolo & Mundalamo, 2015; Ndlovu et al., 2025; Ndlovu, 2024; Pitjeng-Mosabala & Rollnick, 2018; Poti et al., 2022; Rollnick & Mavhunga, 2014; Shinana et al., 2021)
Lecturers3 (8.8)(Buma & Nyamupangedengu, 2023; Fantone et al., 2024; Nyamupangedengu & Lelliott, 2018)
Pre-service + in-service teachers2 (5.9)(Buma & Nyamupangedengu, 2023; Mazibe et al., 2025)
Pre-service + lecturer1 (2.9)(Kahn & Nyamupangedengu, 2022)
Note: Only one study (Poti et al., 2022) explicitly states the use of an observation form/guide. However, we assumed that all studies involving observations used observation forms to analyse the lessons.
Table 6. Focus of the studies.
Table 6. Focus of the studies.
N (%)Articles
Measuring TSPCKPre-service teachers4 (11.8)(Akinyemi & Mavhunga, 2021; Mazibe et al., 2020; Ndlovu, 2024; Rollnick & Gaigher, 2022)
In-service teachers9 (26.5)(Chani et al., 2018; Davidowitz & Potgieter, 2016; Malcolm et al., 2019; Mapulanga et al., 2022, 2024; Mdleleni & Ngcoza, 2025; Mdolo & Mundalamo, 2015; Poti et al., 2022; Rollnick & Mavhunga, 2014)
Lecturers3 (8.8)(Buma & Nyamupangedengu, 2023; Fantone et al., 2024; Nyamupangedengu & Lelliott, 2018)
Pre-service teacher + lecturer1 (2.9)(Kahn & Nyamupangedengu, 2022)
Pre-service + In-service teacher2 (5.9)(Buma & Sibanda, 2022; Mazibe et al., 2025)
Developing TSPCKPre-service teachers11 (32.4)(Khoza, 2024; Makhechane & Mavhunga, 2021; Mavhunga, 2016, 2020; Mavhunga et al., 2016; Mavhunga & Rollnick, 2013, 2016; Mavhunga & van der Merwe, 2020; Miheso & Mavhunga, 2020; Ndlovu et al., 2025; Ndlovu & Malcolm, 2022)
In-service teachers4 (11.8)(Mapulanga et al., 2023; Ndlovu et al., 2025; Pitjeng-Mosabala & Rollnick, 2018; Shinana et al., 2021)
How the TSPCK framework has been usedUsed as a sole framework16 (47.1)(Akinyemi & Mavhunga, 2021; Buma & Nyamupangedengu, 2023; Chani et al., 2018; Davidowitz & Potgieter, 2016; Malcolm et al., 2019; Mavhunga, 2016, 2020; Mavhunga et al., 2016; Mavhunga & Rollnick, 2013, 2016; Mdleleni & Ngcoza, 2025; Mdolo & Mundalamo, 2015; Ndlovu et al., 2025; Nyamupangedengu & Lelliott, 2018; Rollnick & Mavhunga, 2014; Shinana et al., 2021)
Integrated into the Consensus Model2 (5.9)(Pitjeng-Mosabala & Rollnick, 2018; Poti et al., 2022)
Integrated into the Refined Consensus Model16 (47.1)(Buma et al., 2024; Buma & Sibanda, 2022; Fantone et al., 2024; Kahn & Nyamupangedengu, 2022; Khoza, 2024; Makhechane & Mavhunga, 2021; Mapulanga et al., 2022, 2023, 2024; Mavhunga & van der Merwe, 2020; Mazibe et al., 2020, 2025; Miheso & Mavhunga, 2020; Ndlovu, 2024; Ndlovu & Malcolm, 2022; Rollnick & Gaigher, 2022)
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Mapulanga, T.; Jita, L.C. A Systematic Review of Studies Using the Topic-Specific Pedagogical Content Knowledge Framework in Science Education. Educ. Sci. 2025, 15, 1417. https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci15111417

AMA Style

Mapulanga T, Jita LC. A Systematic Review of Studies Using the Topic-Specific Pedagogical Content Knowledge Framework in Science Education. Education Sciences. 2025; 15(11):1417. https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci15111417

Chicago/Turabian Style

Mapulanga, Thumah, and Loyiso Currell Jita. 2025. "A Systematic Review of Studies Using the Topic-Specific Pedagogical Content Knowledge Framework in Science Education" Education Sciences 15, no. 11: 1417. https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci15111417

APA Style

Mapulanga, T., & Jita, L. C. (2025). A Systematic Review of Studies Using the Topic-Specific Pedagogical Content Knowledge Framework in Science Education. Education Sciences, 15(11), 1417. https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci15111417

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop