Changing Our Teaching: The Role of Pedagogical Content Knowledge in Elementary Science

  • Deborah C. Smith
Chapter
Part of the Science & Technology Education Library book series (CTISE, volume 6)

Keywords

Preservice Teacher Content Knowledge Conceptual Change Teaching Strategy Pedagogical Content Knowledge 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Abell, S., Magnusson, S., Schmidt, J., & Smith, D. (1996). Building a pedagogical content knowledge base for elementary science reacher education. Symposium for the annual meeting of the National Association for Research in Science Teaching, St. Louis, MO.Google Scholar
  2. Abell, S. & Roth, M. (1994). Constructing science teaching in the elementary school: The socialization of a science enthusiast student teacher. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 31(1), 77–90.Google Scholar
  3. Abell, S. & Smith, D. (1994). What is science? Preservice elementary teachers’ conceptions of the nature of science. International Journal of Science Education. 16(4). 475–487.Google Scholar
  4. Anderson, C. & Smith, E. (1983, April). Teacher behavior associated with conceptutal learning. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Montreal, Canada.Google Scholar
  5. Anderson, C. & Smith, E. (1985). Teaching science. In V. Koehler (Ed.), The educator’s handbook: A research perspective (pp. 80–111). New York: Longman.Google Scholar
  6. Anderson, L., Smith, D., & Peasley, K. (under review). Learning to teach science during the first year of teaching: Changing conceptions of teaching as the integration of learner and content learning concerns. East Lansing, MI: Michigan State University.Google Scholar
  7. Anderson, R. & Mitchener, C. (1994). Research on science teacher education. In D. Gabel (Ed.), Handbook of research on science teaching and learning (pp. 3–44). New York: Macmillan Publishing Company.Google Scholar
  8. Ball, D. (1990). Halves, pieces, and twoths: Constructing representational contexts in teaching fractions. (Craft Paper 90–2). East Lansing, MI: Michigan State University, The National Center for Research on Teacher Education.Google Scholar
  9. Ball, D. & Lundquist, S. (1993). Collaboration as a context for joining teacher learning with learning about teaching. In D. Cohen, M. McLaughlin. and J. Talbert, (Eds.), Teaching for understanding: Challenges for policy and practice (pp. 13–42). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers.Google Scholar
  10. Baxter, J., Richert, A., & Saylor, C. (1985). Content and process in biology (Knowledge Growth in a Profession Technical Report). Stanford, CA: School of Education, Stanford University.Google Scholar
  11. Beasley, K., Christensen, P., Henriksen, S., Shank, C. & Wesley, A. 1997. Our journey with plants. Presentation at the annual meeting of the Michigan Science Teachers Association, Detroit, MI.Google Scholar
  12. Bell. B. (1985). Students’ ideas about plant nutrition: What are they? Journal of Biology Education. 19(3), 213–218.Google Scholar
  13. Bell, B., Osborne, R. & Taker, R. (1985). Finding out what children think. In R. Osborne and P. Freyberg (Eds.), Learning in science: The implications of children’s science (pages 151–165). Portsmouth. NH: Heinemann.Google Scholar
  14. Bendall, S., Goldberg, F., & Galili, I. (1993). Prospective elementary teachers’ prior knowledge about light. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 30(9), 1169–1188.Google Scholar
  15. Berg, T. & Brouwer, W. (1991). Teacher awareness of student alternate conceptions about rotational motion and gravity. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 28(1), 3–18.Google Scholar
  16. Berkheimer, G., Anderson. C., Lee, O., & Blakeslee, T. (1988). Matter and molecules. Teacher’s guide: Science book (Occasional Paper No. 121). East Lansing, MI: Michigan State University, The Institute for Research on Teaching.Google Scholar
  17. Berliner, D. (1989). Implications of studies of expertise in pedagogy for teacher education and evaluation. In New directions for teacher assessment, Proceedings of the 1988 Educational Testing Service Invitational Conference (pp. 39–68). Princeton, NJ: Educational Testing Service.Google Scholar
  18. Black. A. & Ammon, P. (1992). A developmental-constructivist approach to teacher education. Journal of Teacher Education, 43(5), 323–335.Google Scholar
  19. Book, C. & Freeman, D. (1986). Diffrerences in entry characteristics of elementary and secondary teacher candidates. Journal of Teacher Education, 37(2), 47–54.Google Scholar
  20. Borko, H, Eisenhart, M., Brown, C., Underhill, R.. Jones, D. & Agard, P. (1992). Learning to teach hard mathematics: Do novice teachers and their instructors give up too easily? Journal of Research in Mathematics Education, 23, 194–222.Google Scholar
  21. Borko, H & Putnam, R. (1996). Learning to teach. In D. Berliner & J. Calfee (Eds.), Handbook of Educational Psychology, (pp. 673–708) New York: Macmillan.Google Scholar
  22. Boyes, M. & Chandler, M. 1992. Cognitive development, epistemic doubt, and identity formation in adolescence. Journal of Youth andolescence, 21, 277–304.Google Scholar
  23. Buchmann, M. (1983). The priority of knowledge and understanding in teaching (Occasional paper No 61). East Lansing. MI: Michigan State University, Institute for Research on Teaching.Google Scholar
  24. Carey, S. & Smith, C. (1993). On understanding the nature of scientific knowledge. Educational Psychologist, 28(3), 235–251.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Carlsen, W. (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
  26. Chinn, C.A. & Brewer, W.F. (1993). The role of anomalous data in knowledge acquisition: A theoretical framework and implications for science instruction. Review of Educational Research, 63(1), 1–49.Google Scholar
  27. Civil, M. (1992, April). Prospective elementary teachers’ thinking about mathematics. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, San Francisco, CA.Google Scholar
  28. Cobb, P. & Bauersfeld, H. (Eds.) (1995). The emergence of mathematical meaning: Interaction in classroom cultures. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Publishers.Google Scholar
  29. DeVries, K. (1986). Children’s conceptions of shadow phenomena. Genetic, Social, and General Psychology Monographs, 1 12(4), 479–530.Google Scholar
  30. Driver, R., Guesne, E., & Tiberghien, A (Eds.) (1985). Children’s ideas in science. Philadelphia: Open University Press.Google Scholar
  31. Driver, K., Asoko, H., Leach, J., Mortimer, E., & Scott, P. (1994). Constructing scientific knowledge in the classroom. Educational Researcher, 23(7), 5–12.Google Scholar
  32. Driver, K., Leach, J., Millar, R. & Scott, P. (1996). Young people’s images of science. Philadelphia: Open University Press.Google Scholar
  33. Duschl, R. (1994). Research on the history and philosophy of science. In D. Gabel (Ed.), Handbook of research on science teaching and learning (pp. 443–465). New York: Macmillan Publishing Company.Google Scholar
  34. Eberhart, S., Philhower, R., Sabatino, M., Smith, D., & Waterhouse, R. (1990). Taking misconceptions into account can throw new light on shadows. Powerline, 1(1), 1–5.Google Scholar
  35. Fennema, E., Franke, M., Carpenter, T. & Carey, D. (1993). Using children’s mathematical knowledge in instruction. American Educational Research Journal, 30(3), 555–583.Google Scholar
  36. Fuller, F., (1969). Concerns for teachers: A developmental conceptualization. American Educational Research Journal, 6(2), 207–226.Google Scholar
  37. Gallagher, J. 1991. Prospective and practicing secondary school science teachers’ knowledge and beliefs about the philosophy of science. Science Education, 75, 121–134.Google Scholar
  38. Gardner, A,, Mason, C. & Matyas, M. (1989). Equity, excellence and ‘Just plain good teaching’ The American Biology Teacher, 51(2), 72–77.Google Scholar
  39. Gee, C., Sanchez-Saenz, J. Svec, M. & Gabel, D. (1994). An evaluation of preservice elementary teachers’ Science content knowledge, pedagogical knowledge and pedagogical content knowledge. Poster session presented at the annual meeting of the National Association for Research in Science Teaching. Anaheim, CA.Google Scholar
  40. Gentner. D. & Gentner. D. R. (1983). Flowing waters or teeming crowds: Mental models of electricity. In D. Gentner and A. Stevens (Eds.), Mental models (pp. 99–129). Hillsdale. NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Publishers.Google Scholar
  41. Gess-Newsome, J., & Lederman, N. G. (1993). Preservice biology teachers’ knowledge structures as a function of professional teacher education: A year-long assessment. Science Education, 77(1), 25–45.Google Scholar
  42. Grosslight, L., Unger, C., Jay, E. & Smith, C. (1991). Understanding models and their use in science: Conceptions of middle and high school students and experts. Journal of Research in Science Teaching. 28(9), 799–822.Google Scholar
  43. Grossman, P. (1990). The making of a teacher. New York: Teachers College, Columhia University.Google Scholar
  44. Grossman, P. (199 1). Overcoming the apprenticeship of observation in teacher education coursework. Teaching and Teacher Education, 7(4), 345–357.Google Scholar
  45. Grossman, P., Wilson, S., & Shulman, L. (1989). Teachers of substance: Subject matter knowledge for teaching. In M. Reynolds (Ed.), Knowledge base for beginning reachers (pp. 23–36). New York: Pergamon.Google Scholar
  46. Guesne. E. (1985). Light. In R. Driver, E. Guesne, & A. Tiberghien, (Eds.), 1985. Children’s ideas in science. Philadelphia: Open University.Google Scholar
  47. Gurney, B. (1995). Tugboats and tennis games: Preservice conceptions of teaching and learning revealed through metaphors. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 32(6), 569–583.Google Scholar
  48. Hashweh, M. (1985). An exploratory study ofteacher knowledge and teaching: The effects of Science teachers’ knowledge of subject matter and their conceptions of learning on their teaching. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Stanford University, CA.Google Scholar
  49. Herget, D. (Ed.) (1989). The history and philosophy of science in science teaching. Proceedings of the first international conference. Tallahassee, FL: Florida State University.Google Scholar
  50. Hollingsworth, S. (1989). Prior beliefs and cognitive change in learning to teach. American Educational Research Journal, 26(2). 160–189.Google Scholar
  51. Hollon. R. & Anderson, C. (1987, April). Teachers’ beliefs about students’ learning processes in science: Self-reinforcing belief systems. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Washington, D.C.Google Scholar
  52. Holt-Reynolds, D. 1992. Personal history-based beliefs as relevant prior knowledge in coursework: Can we practice what we teach? American Educational Research Journal, 29(2), 325–349.Google Scholar
  53. Johsua. S. & Dupin, J. (1987). Taking into account student conceptions in instructional strategies: An example in physics. Cognition and instruction. 4(2), 117–135.Google Scholar
  54. Kagan, D., (1992). Professional growth among preservice and beginning teachers. Review of Educational Research, 62(2), 129–170.Google Scholar
  55. Keats, E. J. (1992). Dreams. New York: Macmillan Publishing.Google Scholar
  56. Krajcik. J.. Layman, J., Starr, M. & Magnusson, S. (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
  57. Kuhn, D., Amsel, E., & O’Loughlin, M. (1988). The development scientific thinking skills. New York: Academic Press Inc.Google Scholar
  58. Kuhn, T., (1970). The structure of scientific revolutions. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  59. Latour, B. & Woolgar, S. (1986). Laboratory life: The construction of scientific facts. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  60. Lederman, N. G. (1992). Students’ and teachers’ conceptions of the nature of science: A review of the research. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 29(4), 331–359.Google Scholar
  61. Lederman, N. G. (1995, April). Translation and transformation of teachers’ understanding of the nature of science into classroom practice. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the National Association for Research in Science Teaching, San Francisco, CA.Google Scholar
  62. Lederman, N. G., Gess-Newsome, J., & Latz, M. S. (1994). The nature and development of preservice science teachers’ conceptions of subject matter and pedagogy. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 31(2), 129–146.Google Scholar
  63. Leinhardt, G. & Smith, D. A. (1985). Expertise in mathematics instruction: Subject matter knowledge. Journal of Educational Psychology, 77(3), 241–271.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Lehrer, R. & Schauble, L. 1996. Modeling in mathematies and science. James S. McDonnell Foundation’s Cognitive Studies in Educational Practice Program.Google Scholar
  65. Lemke. J. (1990). Talking science: Language, learning and values. Norwood, NJ: Ablex Publishing Corporation.Google Scholar
  66. Lortie, D. (1975). Schoolteacher: A sociological study. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  67. McDiarmid, G. W. (1990). Challenging prospective teachers’ beliefs during early field experience: A quixotic undertaking? Journal of Teacher Education, 41(3), 12–20.Google Scholar
  68. McDiarmid, G. W. (in press). The arts and sciences as preparation for teaching. In K. Howey & N. Zympher (Eds.), Faculty development for improving teacher preparation. Washington, DC: Association of Teacher Educators.Google Scholar
  69. McDiarmid, G. W., Ball, D. L., & Anderson, C. W. (1989). Why staying one chapter ahead doesn’t really work: Subject-specific pedagogy. In M. Reynolds (Ed.), Knowledge base for the beginning teacher (pp. 193–205). Oxford, England: Pergamon.Google Scholar
  70. McEwan, H. & Bull, B. (1991). The pedagogic nature of subject matter knowledge. American Educational Research Journal, 28(2), 316–334.Google Scholar
  71. Mcichtry, Y. (1992). Influencing student understanding of the nature of science: Data from a case of curriculum development. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 29(4), 389–407.Google Scholar
  72. Meichtry. Y. (1993). The impact of science curricula on student views about the nature of science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 30(5), 429–443.Google Scholar
  73. Michigan Essential Goals and Objectives for Science Education (1991). Lansing, MI: Michigan State Board of Education.Google Scholar
  74. Milne, C. & Taylor, P. (1995). Metaphors as global markers for teachers’ beliefs about the nature of science. Research in Science Education, 25(I), 39–49.Google Scholar
  75. National Research Council. (1996). National science education standards. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.Google Scholar
  76. Neale, D., Smith, D. & Johnson, V. (1990). Implementing conceptual change teaching in primary science. The Elementary School Journal, 91(2), 109–131.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  77. Noordhoff, K., (1993). Teaching U.S. history to Alaska Native students: Knowledge and beliefs of prospective secondary teachers. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Michigan State University, East Lansing, MI.Google Scholar
  78. Pea, R. (1993). Learning science concepts through material and social activities: Conversational analysis meets conceptual change. Educational Psychologist, 28(3), 265–277.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  79. Piaget, J. (1930). The child’s conception of physical causality. Totowa, NJ: Littlefield, Adams. Piaget, J. (1980). Experiments in contradiction. (D. Coltman, Trans.) Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  80. Pomeroy, D. (1993). Implications of teachers’ beliefs about the natureof science: Comparison of the beliefs of scientists, secondary science teachers, and elementary teachers. Science Education. 7(3), 261–278.Google Scholar
  81. Posner, G., Strike, K., Hewson, P., & Gertzog, W. (1982). Accommodation of a scientific conception: Toward a theory of conceptual change. Science Education, 66(2), 211–227.Google Scholar
  82. Raizen, S. & Michelson, A (1993). The future of science in elementary schools: Educating prospective teachers. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers.Google Scholar
  83. Raths, J. (no date) Three elements of pedagogical content knowledge. Unpublished paper. University of Vermont.Google Scholar
  84. Richardson, V. (1996). The role of attitudes and beliefs in learning to teach. In J. Sikula, T. Buttery & E. Guyton (Eds.), The Handbook of Researchon Teacher Education (2nd edition, pp. 102–119). New York: Macmillan.Google Scholar
  85. Richardson, V., Anders, P., Tidwell, D., & Lloyd, C. (1991). The relationship between teachers’ beliefs and practices in reading comprehension instruction. American Educational Research Journal, 28(3), 559–586.Google Scholar
  86. Russell, T. (1983). Analyzing arguments in science classroom discourse: Can teachers’ questions distort scientific authority? Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 20, 27–45.Google Scholar
  87. Rutherford, J. & Ahlgren, A. (1990). Science for all Americans. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  88. Robinson, J. (1968). The nature of Science and science teaching. Helmont, CA: Wadsworth.Google Scholar
  89. Rosebery, CA., Warren, B., & Conant, F. (1990). Appropriating scientific discourse: Findings from language minority classrooms. Bolt, Beranek and Newman, lnc.Google Scholar
  90. Roth, K. (1987). The power plant: Teacher’s guide to photosynthesis. (Occaional Paper No. 112). East Lansing, MI: Michigan State University, The Institute for Research on Teaching.Google Scholar
  91. Roth, K., Smith, E., & Anderson, C. (1983, April). Students’ conceptions of photosynthesis and food for plants. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Montreal, Canada.Google Scholar
  92. Sanders, M. (1993). Erroneous ideas about respiration: The teacher factor. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 30(8), 919–934.Google Scholar
  93. Schauble, L., Klopfer, L. & Raghavan, K. (1991). Students’ transition from an engineering modelto a science model of experimentation. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 28(9), 859–2382Google Scholar
  94. Schmidt, W. & Buchmann, M. (1983). Six teachers’ beliefs and attitudes and their curriculum time allocations. The Elementary School Journal, 84(2), 162–171CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  95. Schneps, M. (1989). A private universe. Santa Monica, CA: Pyramid Film and Video.Google Scholar
  96. Schommer, M. (1994). Synthesizing epistemological belief research: Tentative understandings and provocative confusions. Educational Psychology Review, 6(4), 293–319.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  97. Schwab, J. (1978). Science, curriculum, and liberal education (selected essays). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  98. Shapiro, B. (1994). What children bring to light: A constructivist perspective on children’s learning in science. New York: Teachers College Press.Google Scholar
  99. Shulman, L. (1986). Those who understand: Knowledge growth in teaching. Educational Researcher, 15(2), 4–14.Google Scholar
  100. Simon, M. & Brobeck, S. (1993). Changing views of mathematics learning: A case study of a prospective elementary teacher. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the North American Chapter of the International Group for the Psychology of Mathematics Education (PME-NA), Monterey, CA.Google Scholar
  101. Simon, M. & Schifter, D. (1991). Towards a constructivist perspective: An intervention study of mathematics teacher development. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 22, 309–331.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  102. Simpson, R., Koballa, T., & Oliver, J. (1994). Research on the affective dimension of science learning. In D. Gabel (Ed.), Handbook of research on science teaching and learning (pp. 211–234). New York: Macmillan Publishing Company.Google Scholar
  103. Smith, D. (1987, April). Primary teachers’ substantive, syntactic, and pedagogical content knowledge. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the National Association for Research in Science Teaching, Washington, DC.Google Scholar
  104. Smith, D., (1989). The role of teacher knowledge in teaching conceptual change science lessons. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Delaware, DE.Google Scholar
  105. Smith, D. (1992, April). The Curriculum Development Lab: A vehicle for staff development in primary science. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the National Association for Research in Science Teaching, Boston, MA.Google Scholar
  106. Smith, D. (1993, April). Dilemmas and decisions in using conceptual change theory in the classrootti. Video presentation at the annual meeting of the National Association for Research in Science Teaching, Atlanta, GA.Google Scholar
  107. Smith, D., Levine-Rose, S., & Conway, P. (1995, April). The reconstruction of preservice elementary teachers’ conceptions of the nature of science. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, San Francisco. CA.Google Scholar
  108. Smith, D. & Neale, D. (1987, April). The construction of Subject matter knowledge in primary science. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association. Washington, DC.Google Scholar
  109. Smith, D. & Neale, D. (1991). The construction of subject-matter knowledge in primary science teaching. In J. Brophy (Ed.), Advances in Research on Teaching (Vol. 2, pages 187–243). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.Google Scholar
  110. Smith D. & Neale, D. (1992, April). On the road to expertise: Changes in primary teachers’ sublect matter knowledge for teaching science. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, San Francisco, CA.Google Scholar
  111. Smith, E., Blakeslee, T. & Anderson, C. (1993). Teaching strategies associated with conceptual change learning in science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 30(2), 111–126.Google Scholar
  112. Smith, E. and Sendelbach, N. (1982). The program, the plans and the activities of the classroom: The demands of activity-based science. In J. Olson (Ed.), Innovation in the science curriculum: Classroom knowledge and curriculum change. London: Croom-Helm.Google Scholar
  113. Smith. J. (1994). Efficacy and teaching mathematics by telling: A challenge for reform. Unpuhlished manuscript. Michigan State University.Google Scholar
  114. Songer, N. & Linn, M. (1991). How do students’ views of science influence knowledge integration’? Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 28(9), 761–784.Google Scholar
  115. Stofflet, R. & Stoddardt, T. (1994). The ability to understand and use conceptual change pedagogy as a function of prior content learning experience. Journal of Research in Science Tenching, 31(1). 31–51.Google Scholar
  116. Strauss, S. (1993). Teachers’ pedagogical content knowledge about children’s minds arid learning: Implications for teacher education. Educational Psychologist, 28(3), 279–290.Google Scholar
  117. Tobias, S. (1990). They’re not dumb, they’re different. Tucson, AZ: Research Corporation.Google Scholar
  118. Tobin, E;. (1990). Changing metaphors arid beliefs: A master switch for teaching? Theory into Practice, 29(2), 122–127.Google Scholar
  119. Tobin, K. & Garnett, P. (1988). Exemplary practice in science classrooms. Science Education, 72(2), 197–208.Google Scholar
  120. Tobin, E;.. Tippins, D. & Gallard, A. (1994). Research on instructional strategies for teaching science. In D. Gabel (Ed.), Handbook of researchon science teaching and learning (pp. 45–93). New York: Macmillan Publishing Company.Google Scholar
  121. Varelas, M. (1996). Between theory and data in a seventh-grade science class. Journal of Research in Science Teaching. 33(3), 229–263.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  122. Wandersee, J., Mintzes, J. & Novak, J. (1994). Research on alternative conceptions in science. In D. Gabel (Ed.), Handbook of research on science teaching and learning (pp. 177–210). New York: Macmillan Publishing Company.Google Scholar
  123. Watts, M. & Bentley, D. (1994). Humanizing and feminizing science: Reviving anthropomorphic and animistic thinking in constructivist science education. International Journal of Science Education, 16(1), 83–97.Google Scholar
  124. Weiss, I. (1987, April). How well prepared are science and mathematics teachers? Results of the I985 National survey of Science and Mathematics Education. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Washington, DC.Google Scholar
  125. White, B. (1993). Thinker tools: Causal models, conceptual change, and science education. Cognition and Instruction, 10(1), 1–100.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  126. White, R. & Gunstone. R. (1992). Probing understanding. New York: The Falmer Press.Google Scholar
  127. Wilcox. S., Lanier, P., Schram, P., & Lappan, G. (1992). Influencing beginning teachers’ practice in mathematics education: Confronting constraints of knowledge, beliefs and context. (Research Report 92-1). East Lansing, MI: Michigan State University, The Center for Research on Teacher Learning.Google Scholar
  128. Zembal, C., Krajcik, J., Blumenfeld, P., & Palinesar, A. (1995, April). Preservice elementary teachers’ developing understanding of how to select, represent, and teach content. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, San Francisco, CA.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Kluwer Academic Publishers 1999

Authors and Affiliations

  • Deborah C. Smith

There are no affiliations available

Personalised recommendations