What Makes it Special? : Content Knowledge for Teaching
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.59890/ijaer.v1i1.405Keywords:
Mathematics, Teacher Knowledge, Pedagogical Content KnowledgeAbstract
This article reports the authors’ efforts to develop a practice-based theory of content knowledge for teaching built on Shulman’s (1986) notion of pedagogical content knowledge. As the concept of pedagogical content knowledge caught on, it was in need of theoretical development, analytic clarification, and empirical testing. The purpose of the study was to investigate the nature of professionally oriented subject matter knowledge in mathematics by studying actual mathematics teaching and identifying math ematical knowledge for teaching based on analyses of the mathematical problems that arise in teaching. In conjunction, mea sures of mathematical knowledge for teaching were developed. These lines of research indicate at least two empirically discernable subdomains within pedagogical content knowledge (knowledge of content and students and knowledge of content and teaching) and an important subdomain of “pure” content knowledge unique to the work of teaching, specialized content knowledge, which is distinct from the common content knowledge needed by teachers and nonteachers alike. The article con cludes with a discussion of the next steps needed to develop a useful theory of content knowledge for teaching.
References
Ball, D. L. (1988). Knowledge and reasoning in mathematical peda- gogy: Examining what prospective teachers bring to teacher edu- cation. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Michigan State University, East Lansing.
Ball, D. L. (1990). The mathematical understandings that prospective teachers bring to teacher education. Elementary School Journal, 90, 449-466.
Ball, D. L. (1993). With an eye on the mathematical horizon: Dilemmas of teaching elementary school mathematics. Elementary School Journal, 93(4), 373-397.
Ball, D. L. (1999). Crossing boundaries to examine the mathematics entailed in elementary teaching. In T. Lam (Ed.), Contemporary mathematics (pp. 15-36). Providence, RI: American Mathematical Society.teaching geometry, K-12 (pp. 1-16). Reston, VA: National Council of Teachers of Mathematics.
de Berg, K. C., & Greive, C. (1999). Understanding the siphon: An example of the development of pedagogical content knowledge using textbooks and the writings of early scientists. Australian Science Teachers’ Journal, 45(4), 19-26.
Delaney, S. (2008). Adapting and using U.S. measures to study Irish teachers’ mathematical knowledge for teaching. Unpublished doc- toral dissertation, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor.
Grossman, P. L. (1990). The making of a teacher: Teacher knowledge and teacher education. New York: Teachers College Press.
Grossman, P. L., Wilson, S. M., & Shulman, L. S. (1989). Teachers of substance: Subject matter knowledge for teaching. In M. Reynolds (Ed.), The knowledge base for beginning teachers (pp. 23-36). New York: Pergamon.
Hapgood, S., Palincsar, A. S., Kucan, L., Gelpi-Lomangino, A., & Khasnabis, D. (2005, April). Investigating a new measure of teachers’ pedagogical content knowledge for teaching informational text com- prehension. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Montreal, Quebec, Canada.
Hill, H. C., & Ball, D. L. (2004). Learning mathematics for teaching: Results from California’s Mathematics Professional Development Institutes. Journal of Research in Mathematics Education, 35, 330-351.
Hill, H. C., Ball, D. L., & Schilling, S. G. (2004). Developing mea- sures of teachers’ mathematics knowledge for teaching. Elementary School Journal, 105(1), 11-30.
Hill, H. C., Rowan, B., & Ball, D. L. (2005). Effects of teachers’ mathematical knowledge for teaching on student achievement. American Education Research Journal, 42(2), 371-406.
Hoyles, C., Noss, R., & Pozzi, S. (2001). Proportional reasoning in nursing practice. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 32, 4-27.
Kent, P., Noss, R., Guile, D., Hoyles, C., & Bakker, A. (2007). Characterizing the use of mathematical knowledge in boundary crossing situations at work. Mind, Culture, and Activity, 14(1-2), 64-82.
Kilpatrick, J., Swafford, J., & Findell, B. (Eds.). (2001). Adding it up: Helping children learn mathematics. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
Lowery, N. V. (2002). Construction of teacher knowledge in context: Preparing elementary teachers to teach mathematics and science. School Science and Mathematics, 102(2), 68-83.
Magnusson, S., Krajcik, J., & Borko, H. (1999). Nature, sources and development of pedagogical content knowledge for science teach- ing. In J. Gess-Newsome & N. G. Lederman (Eds.), Examining pedagogical content knowledge: The construct and its implica- tions for science education (pp. 95-132). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer Academic.
Ma, L. (1999). Knowing and teaching elementary mathematics: Teachers’ understanding of fundamental mathematics in China and the United States. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Marks, R. (1990). Pedagogical content knowledge in elementary mathematics. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Stanford University, Palo Alto, CA.
Moats, L. C. (1999). Teaching reading is rocket science: What expert teachers of reading should know and be able to do. Washington, DC: American Federation of Teachers.
Millroy, W. L. (1992). An ethnographic study of the mathematical ideas of a group of carpenters. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education (Monograph Series No. 5).
National Mathematics Advisory Panel. (2008) Foundations for suc- cess: The final report of the National Mathematics Advisory Panel. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education.
Niess, M. L. (2005). Preparing teachers to teach science and mathe- matics with technology: Developing a technology pedagogical content knowledge. Teaching and Teacher Education, 21, 509-523. Noss, R., & Hoyles, C. (1996). The visibility of meanings: Designing for understanding the mathematics of banking. International
Journal of Computers for Mathematical Learning, 1(1), 3-31.
Phelps, G. (2008). Just knowing how to read isn’t enough! What teachers need to know about the content of reading. Manuscript submitted for publication.
Phelps, G., & Schilling, S. G. (2004). Developing measures of con- tent knowledge for teaching reading. Elementary School Journal, 105(1), 31-48.
Philipp, R. A., Cabral, C., & Schappelle, B. P. (2005). IMAP CD- ROM: Integrating mathematics and pedagogy to illustrate children’s reasoning [Computer software]. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson.
Rovegno, I., Chen, W., & Todorovich, J. (2003). Accomplished teachers’ pedagogical content knowledge of teaching dribbling to third grade children. Journal of Teaching in Physical Education, 22, 426-449.
Schilling, S. G. (in press). The role of psychometric modeling in test validation for the MKT measures: An application of multidimen- sional item response theory. Measurement: Interdisciplinary Research and Perspectives.
Schwab, J. J. (1978). Education and the structure of the disciplines. In I. Westbury & N. Wilkof (Eds.), Science, curriculum, and lib- eral education (pp. 167-183). Chicago: University of Chicago. (Original work published 1961)
Shulman, L. S. (1986). Those who understand: Knowledge growth in teaching. Educational Researcher, 15(2), 4-14.
Shulman, L. S. (1987). Knowledge and teaching: Foundations of the new reform. Harvard Educational Review, 57, 1-22.
Smith, E. L., & Anderson, C. W. (1984). Plants as producers: A case study of elementary science teaching. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 21(7), 685-698.
Stylianides, A. J., & Ball, D. L. (2004, April). Studying the mathe- matical knowledge needed for teaching: The case of teachers’ knowledge of reasoning and proof. Paper prepared for the 2004 Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association, San Diego, CA.
Thames, M. H. (2008). A study of practice-based approaches for determining the mathematics that (K-8) teachers need to know. Unpublished manuscript.
Wilson, S., Shulman, L., & Richert, A. (1987). “150 different ways of knowing”: Representations of knowledge in teaching. In J. Calderhead (Ed.), Exploring teachers’ thinking (pp. 104-123). Eastbourne, UK: Cassell.
Wilson, S. M. (1988). Understanding historical understanding: Subject matter knowledge and the teaching of American history. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Stanford University, Palo Alto, CA.
Wilson, S. M., & Wineburg, S. S. (1988). Peering at history through different lenses: The role of disciplinary perspectives in teaching history. Teachers College Record, 89(4), 525-539.
Wineburg, S. (1990). Historical problem-solving: A study of the cog- nitive processes used in the evaluation of documentary evidence. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Stanford
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2023 Torang Siregar, Awal Harahap, Ahmad Arisman, Hariman Hasayangan Rangkuti, Iskandarsyah, Indra Saputra Harahap, Risky Ardian, Sulhan Daulay, Zainuddin Batubara
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
