difficult是什么意思Pedagogical Content Knowledge
tyrannosaurus
crack是什么意思>夏季旅游BY MATTHEW KOEHLER
Shulman (1986) advanced thinking about teacher knowledge by introducing the idea of pedagogical content knowledge. He claimed that the emphas on teachers subject knowledge and pedagogy were being treated as mutually exclusive domains in rearch concerned with the domains (1987, p.6). The practical conquence of such exclusion was production of teacher education programs in which a focus on either subject matter or pedagogy dominated. To address this dichotomy, he propod to consider the necessary relationship between the two by introducing the notion of PCK.
This knowledge includes knowing what teaching approaches fit the content, and likewi, knowing how elements of the content can be arranged for better teaching. This knowledge is different from the knowledge of a disciplinary expert and also from the general pedagogical knowledge shared by teachers across disciplines. PCK is concerned with the reprentation and formulation of concepts, pedagogical techniques, knowledge of what makes concepts difficult or easy to learn, know ledge of students’ prior knowledge and theories of epistemology. It also involves knowledge of teaching strategies that incorporate appropriate conceptual reprentations, to address learner difficulties and m
isconceptions and foster meaningful understanding. It also includes knowledge of what the students bring to the learning situation, knowledge that might be either facilitative or dysfunctional for the particular learning task at hand. This knowledge of students includes their strategies, prior concepti ons (both “naïve” and instructionally produced); misconceptions students are likely to have about a particular domain and potential misapplications of prior knowledge.
PCK exists at the interction of content and pedagogy. Thus it does not refer to a simple consideration of both content and pedagogy, together but in isolation; but rather to an amalgam of content and pedagogy thus enabling transformation of content into pedagogically powerful forms. PCK reprents the blending of content and pedagogy into an understanding of how particular aspects of subject matter are organized, adapted, and reprented for instruction. Shulman argued that having knowledge of subject matter and general pedagogical strategies, though necessary, were not sufficient for capturing the knowledge of good teachers. To characterize the complex ways in which teachers think about how particular content should be taught, he argued for “pedagogical content knowledge” as the content knowledge that deals with the teaching process, includi ng the “the ways of reprenting and formulating the subject that make it comprehensible to others” (p. 9). If teachers were to be successful they would have to confront both issues (of content and pedagogy) sin1>debate的用法
multaneously, by embodying “the aspects of con tent most germane to its teachability” (Shulman, 1986, p. 9). At the heart of PCK is the manner in which subject matter is transformed for teaching. This occurs when the teacher interprets the subject matter, finding different ways to reprent it and make it accessible to learners.
The notion of PCK has been extended (and critiqued) by scholars after Shulman (for instance e Cochran, DeRuiter, & King, 1993; van Driel, Verloop, & De Vos, 1998). In fact, Shulman’s initial description of teacher knowledge included many more categories (such as curriculum knowledge, knowledge of educational contexts, etc.). Matters are further complicated by the fact that Shulman has himlf propod multiple lists in different publications, that lack, in his own words, “great cross-article consistency” (Shulman, 1986; p. 8). Our emphasis on PCK is bad on Shulman’s acknowledgement
that “pedagogical content knowledge is of special interest becau it identifies the distinctive bodies of knowledge for teaching. It reprents the blending of content and pedagogy into an understanding of how particular topics, problems, or issues are organized, reprented, and adapted to the diver interests and abilities of learners, and prented for instruction” (p. 8). Moreover, our emphasis on PCK is consistent with the work of many other scholars and recent educational reform documents. Si
neeatoeflnce its introduction in 1987, PCK has become a widely uful and ud notion. For instance in the area of science education scholars such as Anderson and Mitchner (1994); Hewson and Hewson (1988); Cochran, King, and DeRuiter (1993); and professional organizations such as the National Science Teachers Association (NSTA, 1999) and National Council for the Accreditation of Teacher Education (NCATE, 1997) have all emphasized the value of PCK for teacher preparation and teacher professional development. An analysis of “Teacher Educator’s handbook: Building a knowledge ba for the preparation of teachers” (Murray, 1996) shows Shulman as the fourth most cited auth or of the clo to 1500 authors in the book’s author index with an overwhelming majority of tho references made to this concept of PCK (Murray, 1996, referred by Segall, 2004). The notion of PCK, since its introduction in 1987, has permeated the scholarship that deals with teacher education in general and the subject matter education in particular (See for example, Ball, 1996; Cochran, King & DeRuiter, 1993; Grossman, 1990; Ma, 1999; Shulman, 1987; Wilson, Shulman, & Richert, 1987). It is valued as an epistemological concept that ufully blends together the traditionally parated knowledge bas of content and pedagogy.
Diagrammatically, we can reprent Shulman’s contribution to the scholarship of teacher knowledge by connecting the two circles, so that their interction reprents Pedagogical Content Knowledge
在线中翻英as the interplay between pedagogy and content. In Shulman’s words, this interction contains within it, “the most regularly taught topics in one’s subject area, the most uful forms of repren tation of tho ideas, the most powerful analogies, illustrations, examples, explanations, and demonstrations – in a word, the ways of reprenting and formulating the subject that make it comprehensible to others” (Shulman, 1986, p. 9).考研成绩什么时候出来
Although Shulman did not discuss technology and its relationship to pedagogy and content, we do not believe that the issues were considered unimportant. Rather, the intent is to now bring explicit attention to the issues by considering how technology interacts with pedagogy as Technological Pedagogical Knowledge (TPK), with content as Technological Content Knowledge (TCK), and jointly as Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge (TPCK).
january怎么读
