Pedagogical Content Knowledge: Should We Keep it Alive?

Öz

The opening speed of this scanned document may vary depending on your connection speed.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• -

Pedagogical Content Knowledge: Should We Keep it Alive?

Öz

Makale basılı kopyadan tarandığı için açılması bağlantı hızınıza göre farklılık gösterebilir. Makaleyi bilgisayarınıza indirmeniz tavsiye edilir.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• -

Kaynakça

1. Barnett, C. (1992). “Building A Case Curriculum to Enhance the Pedagogical Content Knowledge of Mathematics Teachers,” Journal of Teacher Education, n. 42, ss. 263—272.
2. Benchmarks http:/ project2061.aaas.org/tools/benhcnİ/bchinhtm
3. Carnegie Task Force on Teaching as a Profession: (1986). A Nation Prepared: Teachers for the 21st Century. Washington DC: Carnegie î G A bant İzzet Buysa Üniversitesi Süsyal Bilimler Ensıı'tüsı'e' Dergişa“ 2006-2 ( I 3’ )
4. Clermont, C. P., Borko, H., Krajcik, S i. (1994). “Comparative Study of the Pedagogical Content Knowledge of Experienced and Novice Chemical Demonstrators,” Journal of Research in Science Teaching, n. 31, ss. 419—441.
5. Fernândez—Balboa, l., Stiehl, J. (1995). “The Generic Nature of Pedagogical Content Knowledge Among College Professors,” Teaching & Teacher Education, n. 11, ss. 293—306.
6. Grossman, P. L. (1989). “A Study in Contrast: Sources of Pedagogical Content Knowledge for Secondary English,” journal of Teacher Education, n. 40, ss. 24—31 .
7. Grossman, P. L. (1990). The Making of A Teacher: Teacher Knowledge & Teacher Education. Columbia University: Teachers College.
8. Hashweh, M. Z. (1987). “Effects of Subject—Matter Knowledge In the Teaching of Biology and Physics,” Teaching & Teacher Education, n. 3ı ss. 109—120.

9. Lederman, N. G., Gess-Newsome, l. (1992). “Do Subject Matter Knowledge, Pedagogical Knowledge, and Pedagogical Content Knowledge Constitute the ideal Gas Law of Science Teaching?” Journal of Science Teacher Education, n. 3, ss. 16—20.
10. Lederman, N. G., Gess—Newsorne, J., Latz, M. S. (1994). “Expertise in Mathematics Instruction: Subject Matter Knowledge,” Journal of Research in Science Teaching, n. 31, ss. 1 29—146.
11. Marks, R. (1990). “Pedagogical Content Knowledge: From A Mathematical Case to A Modified Conception,” Journal of Teacher Education, n. 41, ss. 3—1.1.
12. Richerdson, V. (1994). “Conducting Research on Practice,” Educational Researcher, n. 23, ss. 5—9.
13. Shulman, L. S. (1986a). “Those Who Understand: Knowledge Growth in Teaching,” Educational Researcher, n. 15, ss. 4—14.
14. Shulman, L. S., (1986b). Paradigms and Research Programs in The Study of Teaching: A. Contemporary Perspective. ln M,C, Wittrock (3rd ed.) (Ed) Handbook of research in teaching, New York: Macmiliian, ss. 3—36,
15. Shulman L. S. (1987). “Knowledge and Teaching: Foundations of The New Reform,” Harvard Educational Review, n. 57ı ss. 22.
16. Tamir, P. (1988). “Subject Matter and Related Pedagogical Knowledge in Teacher Education,” Teaching and Teacher Education, n. 4, ss. 99—110.
17. Tamir, P. (1990). “Factors Associated with the Relationship Between Formal, Informal. and Nonformal Science Learning,” journal of Environmental Education, n. 22, ss. 34—42.
18. The Holmes Group (1986). Tomorrow’s Teachers: A Report of the Holmes Group. East Lansing, Mi Author in Shaiman LS. (1987). ”Knowledge and Teaching: Foundations of the New Reform,” Harvard Educational Review, n. 57, ss. 1—22.
19. Wilson, S. . M., Shulman, L. S., Richert, E. R. (1987). “150 Different Ways of Knowing: Representations of Knowledge in Teaching,” in .l. Calderhead (Ed.), Exploring teachers‘ thinking. New York: Taylor and Francis.