Examining Pedagogical Content Knowledge pp 95-132

Part of the Science & Technology Education Library book series (CTISE, volume 6) | Cite as

Nature, Sources, and Development of Pedagogical Content Knowledge for Science Teaching

  • Shirley Magnusson
  • Joseph Krajcik
  • Hilda Borko

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. American Association for the Advancement of Science. (1989). Science for all Americans: A project 2061 reporton literacygoals in science. mathematics. and technology, Washington, D.C.. AAAS.Google Scholar
  2. Anderson, C. W. & Smith, E. L. (1987). Teaching science, in V. Richardson-Koehler (ed.) Educators’ handbook — a research perspective, New York, Longman, 84–111.Google Scholar
  3. Anderson, R. D., & Mitchener, C. P. (1994). Research on science teacher education, in D. L. Gabel (ed.), Handbook of research on Science teaching and learning, New York, MacMillan, 3–44.Google Scholar
  4. Arnaudin, M. W., & Mintzes, J. J. (1985). Students’ alternative conceptions of the circulatory system: A cross-age study, Science Education, (69), 721–733.Google Scholar
  5. Arons, A. B. (1990). A guide to introductoryphysics teaching, New York John Wiley & Sons.Google Scholar
  6. Ausubel, D.P. (1968). Educational psychology: Acognitive view, New York, Holt, Rinehart and Winston.Google Scholar
  7. Bell, R. (1985). Students’ ideas about plant nutrition: What are they? Journal of Biological Education, 16(3), 197–200.Google Scholar
  8. Hellamy, M. L. (1990). Teacher knowledge, instruction. and student understandings: The relationships evidenced in the teaching of high school Mendelian genetics, unpublished doctoral dissertation, The University of Maryland, College Park, MD.Google Scholar
  9. Berg. T., & Brouwer, W. (1991). Teacher awareness of student alternate conceptions about rotational motion and gravity, Journal of Research in Science Teaching, (28), 3–18.Google Scholar
  10. Borko, H. & Putnam. R. T. (1996). Learning to teach, In D. C. Berliner & R. C. Calfee (eds.) Handbook of Educational Psychology, New York, MacMillan.Google Scholar
  11. California State Board of Education (1990). Science framework for California public schools kindergarten through grade twelve.Google Scholar
  12. Carlsen, W. S.(1991a). Effects of new biology teachers’ subject-matter knowledge on curricular planning, Science Education, (75), 631–647.Google Scholar
  13. Carlsen, W. S. (1991b). Subject-matter knowledge and science teaching: A pragmatic perspective, in J. Brophy (ed.) Advances in research on teaching, Val. 2, Greenwich, CT, JAI Press, 115–144.Google Scholar
  14. Carlsen, W. S. (1993). Teacher knowledge and discourse control: Quantitative evidence from novice biology teachers’ classrooms, Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 30(5), 471–481.Google Scholar
  15. Champagne, A (1989). Scientific literacy: A concept in search of a definition. In Champagne, Lovitts, & Calinger, (eds.), This year in school science 1989: Scientific literacy. Washington, D.C., American Association for the Advancement of Science.Google Scholar
  16. Champagne, A B., Klopfer, L. E., & Gunstone, R.F. (1982). Cognitive research and the design of science instruction, Educational Psychologist, 17(1), 31–53.Google Scholar
  17. Clermont, C. P., Krajcik, J. S. and Borko, H. (1993). The influence of an intensive inservice workshop on pedagogical content knowledge growth among novice chemical demonstrators, Journal of Research is Science Teaching, 30(1), 21–44.Google Scholar
  18. Clermont, C., Borko, H., and Krajcik, J. (1994). Comparative study of the pedagogical content knowledge of experienced and novice chemical demonstrators, Journal of Research is Science Teaching, 31(4), 419–441.Google Scholar
  19. Cohen, D. K., & Ball, D. L. (1990). Relations between policy and practice: A commentary, Educational Evaluation and policy Analysis, 12, 330–338.Google Scholar
  20. Confrey, J. (1990). A review of the research on student conceptions in mathematics, science, and programming, in C. Cazden (ed.), Review of research in education, Vol. 16, Washington D.C., American Educational Research Association, 3–56.Google Scholar
  21. Cronin-Jones, L. L. (1991). Science teacher beliefs and their influence on curriculum implementation: Two case studies, Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 28, 235–250.Google Scholar
  22. Dagher, Z., & Cossman, G. (1992). Verbal explanations given by science teachers: Their nature and implications, Journal of Research in Science Teaching. 29, 361–374.Google Scholar
  23. Dobey, D. C., & Schafer, L. E. (1984). The effects of knowledge on elementary science inquiry teaching. Science Education, 68, 39–51.Google Scholar
  24. Doran, R L., Lawrenz, F., & Helgeson, S. (1994). Research on assessment in science, in D. L. Gabel (ed.), Handbook of research on science teaching and learning, New York MacMillan, 388–442.Google Scholar
  25. Driver, R.. & Easley, J. (1978). Pupils and paradigms: A review of literature related to concept development in adolescent science students, Studies in Science Education, 5, 61–84Google Scholar
  26. Driver, R., Guesne, E., & Tiberghien, A. (eds.) (1985). Children’s ideas in science. Philadelphia. Open University Press.Google Scholar
  27. Driver, R., Squires, A,, Rushworth, P., & Wood-Robinson, V. (1994). Making Sense of secondary science, New York, Routledge.Google Scholar
  28. Duschl, R. A, & Gitomer. (1991). Epistemological perspectives on conceptual change: Implications for educational practice, Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 28, 839–858.Google Scholar
  29. Finley, F. N., Stewart, J., & Yarroch, W. L. (1982). Teachers’ perceptions of important and difficult science content, Science Education. 66, 531–538.Google Scholar
  30. Gabel, D. L., (ed.) (1994). Handbook of research on science teaching and learning, New York, Macmillan.Google Scholar
  31. Gilbert. J. K., Osborne, R. J., & Fensham. P. J. (1982). Children’s science and its consequences for teaching, Science Education, 66(4), 623–633.Google Scholar
  32. Grossman. P. (1990). The making of a teacher: Teacher knowledge and teacher education. New York, Teachers College Press.Google Scholar
  33. Guesne, E. (1985). Light. In R. Driver, E. Guesne, & A. Tiberghien (eds.), Children’s ideas in science, London, Milton Keynes, 10–32Google Scholar
  34. Hashweh, M.Z. (1987). Effects of subject-matter knowledge in the teaching of biologyand physics, Teaching and Teacher Education, 3(2), 109–120.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Helgeson, S. L., Blosser, P. E., & Howe. R. W. (1977). The status of pre-college science, mathematics. and social science education: 1955–1975. Vol. I: Science Education, Center for Science and Mathematics Education, Ohio State University.Google Scholar
  36. Helm, H. (1980). Misconceptions in physics amongst South African students, Physics Education, (15). 92–105.Google Scholar
  37. Hewitt, P. (1993). Conceptual physics, New York, HarperCollins College Publishers.Google Scholar
  38. Hewson, P.W., & Hewson, M.G. A’B. (1989). Analysis and use of a task for identifying and conceptions of teaching science, Journal Of Education for Teaching. (I5), 191–209.Google Scholar
  39. Hollon, R.E., Roth, K.J., & Anderson, C.W. (1991). Science teachers’ conceptions of teaching and learning, in J. Brophy (ed.). Advances in research on teaching, Vol. 2, Greenwich, CT, JAI Press, 145–185.Google Scholar
  40. Holmes Group (1990). Tomorrow’s schools: Principles for the design of professional development schools. East Lansing, MI.Google Scholar
  41. Hurd, P. (1989). Science education and the nation’s economy. In Champagne, Lovitts, & Calinger (eds.). Scientific literacy: This year in school Science 1989, Washington, D.C., American Association for the Advancement of Science, 15–40Google Scholar
  42. Karplus, R., & Thier, H D. (1967). A new look at elementary school science. Science curriculum improvement study, Chicago, Rand McNally.Google Scholar
  43. Keuthe, L J. (1963). Science concepts: A study of sophisticated errors, Science Education. (47), 361–364.Google Scholar
  44. Krajcik, J. S., Blumenfeld, P., Starr, M., Palinesar, A,, and Coppola, B. (1993). Integrating knowledge bases: An upper elementary teacher preparation program emphasizing the teaching of science. In Rubba, P. (ed.), Excellence in Educating Teachers of Science, The 1993 Yearbook of the Association for the Education of Teachers in Science.Google Scholar
  45. Krajcik. J. S., Blumenfeld, P.C., Marx, R. W., & Soloway, E. (1994). A collaborative model for helping teachers learn project-based instruction, Elementary School Journal, (94), 483–497.Google Scholar
  46. Krajcik, J. S. & Layman, J. W. (1989, March). Middle school teachers’ conceptions of heat and temperature: Personal and teaching knowledge. Paper presentation of the annual meeting of the National Association for Research in Science Teaching, San Francisco, CA.Google Scholar
  47. Krajcik, J.S., Layman, J. W., Starr, M. & Magnusson, S. J. (1991, April). The development of middle school teachers’ content knowledge and pedagogical content knowledge of heat energy and temperature, paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association. Chicago, IL.Google Scholar
  48. Kulm, G., & Malcom, S. M. (eds.) (1991). Science assessment in the service of reform, Washington D.C., American Association for the Advancement of Science.Google Scholar
  49. Lampert, M. & Ball, D. (1990). Using hypermedia technology to support a new pedagogy of teacher education. (Issue Paper 90-5), East Lansing, MI, National Center for Research on Teacher Education, Michigan State University.Google Scholar
  50. Lantz, O., & Kass, H. (1987). Chemistry teachers’ functional paradigms, Science Education, (71), 117–134.Google Scholar
  51. Lawson, A. E., Abraham, M. R., & Renner, J. W. (1989). A theory of instruction: Using the learning cycle to teach science concepts and thinking skills (Monograph of the National Association for Research in Science Teaching, No. 1), Cincinnati, OH, NARSTGoogle Scholar
  52. Leinhardt, G. & Greeno, J. (1986). The Cognitive Skill of Teaching, Journal of Educational Psychology, 78(2), 75–95.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Linn, M. C., & Songer, N. B. (1991). Teaching thermodynamics to middle school students: What are appropriate cognitive demands? Journal of Research in Science Teaching, (28), 885–918.Google Scholar
  54. Lunetta, V., Hofstein, A,, & Giddings, G. (1981). Evaluating science laboratory skills, The Science Teacher, 48(1), 22–25.Google Scholar
  55. Magnusson, S.J. (1991). The relationship between teachers’ content and pedagogical content knowledge and students’ content knowledge of heat energy and temperature, unpublished doctoral dissertation, The University of Maryland, College Park, MD.Google Scholar
  56. Magnusson, S. J. (1993). Context and student reasoning about heat energy and temperature. unpublished manuscript.Google Scholar
  57. Magnusson, S. J., Borko, H., & Krajcik, J. S. (1994, March). Teaching complex Subject matter in science.’ Insights from an analysis of pedagogical content knowledge, paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the National Association for Research in Science Teaching, Anaheim CAGoogle Scholar
  58. Magnusson, S. J., Borko, H., Krajcik J. S., & Layman, J. W. (1994). Developing scientific understanding: The influence of teacher knowledge and instruction on student knowledge development, unpublished manuscriptGoogle Scholar
  59. Magnusson, S. J., Boyle, R. A., & George, A. (1994, March). Teaching Electricity for Understanding, panel presentation at the annual meeting of the National Science Teachers Association. Annaheim, CA.Google Scholar
  60. Magnusson, S. J., Boyle, R. A., & Templin, M. (1994, April). Conceptual Development: Re-examining knowledge construction in science, paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, New Orleans, LA.Google Scholar
  61. Magnusson, S. J., Karr, C., George, A., & Boyle, R. A. (1994, March). Multidisciplinary Possibilities in Project-based Learning: Electricity and Architecture, panel presentation at the annual meeting of the National Science Teachers Association. Annaheim CA.Google Scholar
  62. Magnusson, S. J., & Palinesar, A. S. (1995). Learning environments as a site of science education reform, Theory into Practice, 34(1), 1–8.Google Scholar
  63. Magnusson, S. J., Templin, M., & Boyle, R. A. (1997). Dynamic science assessment: A new approach for investigating conceptual change Journal of the Learning Sciences, 6(1), 91–142.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Marek E.A, Eubanks, C., & Gallaher, T. H. (1990). Teachers’ understanding and use of the learning cycle. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 27(9), 821–834.Google Scholar
  65. Marks, R. (1990). Pedagogical content knowledge: From a mathematical case to a modified conception. Journal of Teacher Education, (41), 3–1 IGoogle Scholar
  66. Marx, R. W., Blumenfeld, P. C., Krajcik, J. S., Blunk, M., Crawford, B., Kelly, B., & Meyer, K. M. (1994). Enacting project-based science: Experiences of four middle grade teachers. The Elementary School Journal, 94(5), 517–538.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. McDiarmid, G. W., Ball, D. B., Anderson, C. W. (1989). Why staying one chapter ahead doesn’t really work: Subject-specific pedagogy, in M. C. Reynolds (Ed)., Knowledge base for the beginning teacher, New York Pergamon, 193–205.Google Scholar
  68. Michigan State Board of Education (1991). Michigan essential goals andobjectives for science education (K-12). Lansing MI, MSBE.Google Scholar
  69. Mitchener, C., & Anderson, R. D. (1989). Teachers’ perspective: Developing and implementing an STS curriculum, Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 26, 351–369.Google Scholar
  70. National Research Council (1994). National science education standards, Washington, D.C., National Academy of Sciences, National Academy Press.Google Scholar
  71. Nespor, J. (1987). The role of beliefs in the practice of teaching, Journal of Curriculum Studies. (19), 317–328.Google Scholar
  72. Nusshaum, J. (1985). The particulate nature of matter in the gaseous phase, in R. Driver, E. Guesne, & A. Tiberghien (eds.), Children’s ideas in science, London, Milton Keynes, 124–144.Google Scholar
  73. Nusshaum, J., A Novick, S. (1982). Alternative frameworks, conceptual conflict and accommodation: Toward a principled teaching strategy, Instructional Science, (11), 183–200.Google Scholar
  74. Osborne, R., & Freyberg, P. (1985). Learning in science: The implications of children’s science, London, Heinemann.Google Scholar
  75. Olson, J. (1981). Teacher influence in the classroom: A context for understanding curriculum translation, Instructional Science, (10), 259–275.Google Scholar
  76. Pfundt, H., & Duit, R. (1991). Bibliography: Students’ alternative frameworks and science education, 3rd edition, Insitut fur die Padagogik der Naturwissenschaften an der Universitat Kiel.Google Scholar
  77. Resnick, I,. B. (1987). Education and learning to think, Washington, D.C., National Academy Press.Google Scholar
  78. Roth, K. J., Anderson, C. W., & Smith, E. L. (1987). Curriculum materials, teacher talk and student learning: Case studies of fifth grade science teaching, Journal of Curriculum Studies, (19), 527–548.Google Scholar
  79. Rubba, P.A, Campbell, L.M., & Dana, T.M. (eds.) (1993). Excellence in educating teachers of science, 1993 Yearbook of the Association for the Education of Teachers of Science, Columbus, OH, ERIC Clearinghouse for Science, Mathematics and Environmental Education.Google Scholar
  80. Ruopp, R., Gal, S., Drayton, B., & Pfister, M. (eds.) (1993). LabNet: Toward a community of practice, Millsdale, NJ, Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  81. Sanders, L. R., Borko, H., & Lockard, J. D. (1993). Secondary science teachers’ knowledge base when teaching science courses in and out of their area of certification. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, (30), 723–736.Google Scholar
  82. Shulman, L. S. (1986). Those who understand: Knowledge growth in teaching, Educational Researcher. 15(2), 4–14.Google Scholar
  83. Shulman, L. S. (1987). Knowledge and teaching: Foundations of the new reform, Harvard Educational Review, 57(1), 1–22.Google Scholar
  84. Shulman, L. S., Grossman, P. (1988). Knowledge growth in teaching: A final report to the Spencer foundation, Stanford, Calif., Stanford University.Google Scholar
  85. Smith, D. C. & Neale, D. C. (1989). The construction of subject matter knowledge in primary science teachers, Teaching and Teacher Education, 5(1), 1–20CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  86. Smith, D.C., & Neale, D. C. (1991). The construction of subject-matter knowledge in primary science teaching, in J. Brophy (ed.), Advances in research on teaching, Vol. 2, Greenwich, CT. JAI Press, 187–243.Google Scholar
  87. Smith, J. P., diSessa, A. A,, & Roschelle, J. (1993). Misconceptions reconceived: A constructivist analysis of knowledge in transition, The Journal of the Learning Sciences, (3), 115–163.Google Scholar
  88. Soloway, E., Krajcik, J., Blumenfeld, P., & Marx, R. (1993). Technological support for implementing project-based instruction in science, in P. Blumenfeld (Chair), Project-based Instruction: Challenges, Resolutions and Support, symposium entitled conducted at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association Atlanta, GA.Google Scholar
  89. Stake, R. E., & Easley, J. A. (1978). Case studies in science education, Urbana, IL, Center for Instructional Research and Curriculum Evaluation and Committee on Culture and Cognition, University of Illinois.Google Scholar
  90. Stake, R., Raths, J., St. John, M., Trumbull, D., Jenness, D., Foster, M., Sullivan, S., Denny, T., & Easley, J. (1993). Teacher preparation archives: Case studies of NSF-funded middle school science and mathematics teacher preparation projects, Urbana, IL, Center for Instructional Research and Curriculum Evaluation, College of Education, University of Illinois.Google Scholar
  91. Stevens, A. L., & Collins, A. (1980). Multiple conceptual models of a complex system, in R. E. Snow, P. A Federico, & W. E. Montague (eds.), Aptitude, learning and instruction. Vol. 2: Cognitive process analyses of learning and problem solving. Hillsdale, NJ, Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  92. Tamir, P. (1974). An inquiry oriented laboratory examination, Journal of Educational Measurement, (1I), 25–33.Google Scholar
  93. Tamir, P. (1983). Inquiry and the science teacher, Science Eduucation, (67), 657–672.Google Scholar
  94. Tamir, P. (1988). Subject matter and related pedagogical knowledge in teacher education, Teaching & Teacher Education, (4), 99–110.Google Scholar
  95. Tamir, P. (1993). Guest editorial. A focus on student assessment, Journal of Research in Science Teaching. 30, 535–536.Google Scholar
  96. Tobin, K., Tippins. D. J., & Gallard, A. J. (1994). Research on instructional strategies for teaching science, in D. L. Gabel (ed.), Handbook of research on science teaching and learning, New York, Macmillan, 45–93.Google Scholar
  97. Wandersee, J. H., Mintzes, J. J., & Novak, J. D. (1994). Research on alternative conceptions in science, in D. Gabel, (ed.), Handbook of research on science teaching and learning, New York, MacMillan, 177–210.Google Scholar
  98. Weiss, I. (1978). Report of the 1977 national survey of science, mathematics, and social studies education, Center for Research and Evaluation, Research Triangle Institute, Research triangle Park. North Carolina.Google Scholar
  99. Weiss, I. (1987). Report of the 1985–1986 national survey of’ science and mathematics education. Washington, D.C., National Science Foundation.Google Scholar
  100. Welch, W. W. (1981). Inquiry in school science. In N. C. Harms, & R. E. Yager (eds.), What research says to the science teacher. Vol. 3, Washington, D.C.. National Science Teachers Association, 53–64.Google Scholar
  101. Wilson, S. M., Shulman, L. S., & Richert, E. R. (1988). ‘150 different ways’ of knowing: Representations of knowledge in teaching, in (ed.) J. Calderhead Exploring Teachers’ Thinking, New York, Taylor and Francis.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Kluwer Academic Publishers 1999

Authors and Affiliations

  • Shirley Magnusson
  • Joseph Krajcik
  • Hilda Borko

There are no affiliations available

Personalised recommendations