Subject-matter didactics as a central knowledge base for teachers, or should it be called pedagogical content knowledge?

Pedagogy, Culture and Society

Volumn 17, Issue 1, 2009, Pages 29-39

  Kansanen, Pertti ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF HELSINKI   (Finland)

Author keywords

Pedagogical content knowledge; Research on teaching; Subject matter didactics

Indexed keywords

EID: 67749094819     PISSN: 14681366     EISSN: 17475104     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1080/14681360902742845     Document Type: Article

References (50)

1. Achtenhagen, F. 1981. Theorie der Fachdidaktik. InHandbuch Schule und Unterricht, vol. 5:1, ed. W. Twellmann, 275-94. Düsseldorf: Schwann.
2. Alexander, R. 2004. Still no pedagogy? Principle, pragmatism and compliance in primary education. Cambridge Journal of Education 34, no. 1: 7-33.
3. Apel, H.J. 1990. Schulpädagogik. Eine Grundlegung. Köln: Böhlau.
4. Barone, T., and E. Eisner. 1997. Arts-based educational research. InComplementary methods for research in education. 2nd ed., ed. R.M. Jaeger, 73-98. Washington, DC: American Educational Research Association.
5. Bromme, R. 1995. What exactly is 'pedagogical content knowledge'? - Critical remarks regarding a fruitful research program. In Didaktik and/or curriculum, ed. S. Hopmann and K. Riquarts, 205-16. Kiel: Kiel University, Institut für die Pädagogik der Naturwissenschaften.
6. Calderhead, J. 2001. International experiences of teaching reform. In Handbook of research on teaching. 4th ed., ed. V. Richardson, 777-800. Washington, DC: American Educational Research Association.
7. Clark, C.M., and P.L. Peterson. 1986. Teachers' thought processes. In Handbook of research on teaching. 3rd ed., ed. M.C. Wittrock, 255-96. New York: Macmillan.
8. Cochran-Smith, M., and M.K. Fries. 2005. Researching teacher education in changing times: Politics and paradigms. In Studying teacher education: The report of the AERA panel on research and teacher education, ed. M. Cochran-Smith and K.M. Zeichner, 69-109. Washington, DC: American Educational Research Association and Lawrence Erlbaum.
9. Cruickshank, K., and M. Knoll. 1994. Herbart in Amerika. Vom Anfang und Ende eines einflußreichen Reformkonzepts 1886-1901. Bildung und Erziehung 47: 149-64.
10. Dunkin, M.J., and B.J. Biddle. 1974. The study of teaching. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.
11. Gage, N.L., and M.C. Needels. 1989. Process-product research on teaching: A review of criticism. Elementary School Journal 89: 253-300.
12. Glöckel, H. 1990. Vom Unterricht. Lehrbuch der Allgemeinen Didaktik. Bad Heilbrunn: Klinkhardt.
13. Grossman, P.L. 1990. The making of a teacher: Teacher knowledge and teacher education. New York: Teachers College Press.
14. Gudmundsdottir, S. 1991. Values in pedagogical content knowledge. Journal of Teacher Education 41, no. 3: 44-52.
15. Gudmundsdottir, S., and R. Grankvist. 1992. Deutsche Didaktik aus der Sicht neuerer empirischer Unterrichts- und Curriculumforschung in den USA. Bildung und Erziehung 45: 175-87.
16. Gudmundsdottir, S., and L.S. Shulman. 1987. Pedagogical content knowledge: Teachers' ways of knowing. In Teachers' thinking. Perspectives and research, ed. Å.L. Strømnes and N. Søvik, 51-83. Trondheim: Tapir.
17. Hamilton, D. 1999. The pedagogic paradox (or why no didactics in England?). Pedagogy, Culture & Society 7: 135-52.
18. Heimann, P., G. Otto and W. Schulz. 1965. Unterricht - Analyse und Planung. Hannover: Schroedel.
19. Hopmann, S., and K. Riquarts. 1995. Starting a dialogue. Issues in a beginning conversation between Didaktik and the curriculum traditions. Journal of Curriculum Studies 27: 3-12.
20. Hudson, B., F. Buchberger, P. Kansanen, and H. Seel, eds. 1999. Didaktik/Fachdidaktik as science(-s) of the teaching profession. TNTEE Publication, 2.1. Umeä University, Sweden: Faculty of Teacher Education.
21. Joyce, B., M. Weil, and B. Showers. 1992. Models of teaching. 4th ed. Boston: Allyn and Bacon.
22. Kansanen, P. 1995. The Deutsche Didaktik. Journal of Curriculum Studies 27: 347-52.
23. Kansanen, P. 2002. Didactics and its relation to educational psychology: Problems in translating a key concept across research communities. International Review of Education 48: 427-41.
24. Kansanen, P. 2003. Pedagogical ethics in educational research. Educational Research and Evaluation 9, no. 1: 9-23.
25. Kansanen, P., K. Tirri, M. Meri, L. Krokfors, J. Husu, and R. Jyrhämä. 2000. Teachers' pedagogical thinking. Theoretical landscapes, practical challenges. New York: Peter Lang.
26. Klafki, W. 1958. Didaktische Analyse als Kern der Unterrichtsvorbereitung. Die Deutsche Schule 50: 450-71.
27. Klafki, W. 1985. Grundzüge kritisch-konstruktiver Didaktik. Pädagogische Rundschau 39: 3-28.
28. Klafki, W. 1994. Zum Verhältnis von Allgemeiner Didaktik und Fachdidaktik - Fünf Thesen. In Allgemeine Didaktik, Fachdidaktik und Fachunterricht, ed. M.A. Meyer and W. Plöger, 42-64. Weinheim und Basel: Beltz.
29. Klingberg, L. 1994. Fach, Fachdidaktik und Allgemeine Didaktik. In Allgemeine Didaktik, Fachdidaktik und Fachunterricht, ed. M.A. Meyer and W. Plöger, 65-84. Weinheim und Basel: Beltz.
30. Knecht-von Martial, I. 1985. Geschichte der Didaktik. Zur Geschichte des Begriffs und der didaktischen Paradigmen. Frankfurt am Main: Fischer.
31. Konferenz der Vorsitzenden Fachdidaktischer Fachgesellschaften. 1998. Fachdidaktik in Forschung und Lehre. Kiel: Kiel University, Institut für die Pädagogik der Naturwissenschaften.
32. Meyer, H. 1997. Schulpädagogik. 2 vols. Berlin: Cornelsen Scriptor.
33. Nordkvelle, Y.T. 2003. Didactics: From classic rhetoric to kitchen-Latin. Pedagogy, Culture & Society 11: 315-30.
34. Plöger, W. 1994. Zur Entwicklung und zum gegenwärtigen Verhältnis von Allgemeiner Didaktik und Fachdidaktik - Ein Rückblick. In Allgemeine Didaktik, Fachdidaktik und Fachunterricht, ed. M.A. Meyer and W. Plöger, 23-41. Weinheim und Basel: Beltz.
35. Röhrs, H. 1969. Allgemeine Erziehungswissenschaft. Weinheim: Beltz.
36. Shulman, L.S. 1986a. Paradigms and research programs in the study of teaching: A contemporary perspective. In Handbook of research on teaching. 3rd ed., ed. M.C. Wittrock, 3-36. New York: Macmillan.
37. Shulman, L.S. 1986b. Those who understand: Knowledge growth in teaching. Educational Researcher 15, no. 2: 4-14.
38. Shulman, L.S. 1987. Knowledge and teaching: Foundations of the new reform. Harvard Educational Review 57, no. 1: 1-21.
39. Shulman, L.S. 1992. Research on teaching: A historical and personal perspective. In Effective and responsible teaching, ed. F.K. Oser, A. Dick, and J.-L. Patry, 15-29. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
40. Shulman, L.S., and M.G. Sherin. 2004. Fostering communities of teachers: Disciplinary perspectives. Journal of Curriculum Studies 36: 135-40.
41. Shulman, L.S., and J.H. Shulman. 2004. How and what teachers learn: A shifting perspective. Journal of Curriculum Studies 36: 257-71.
42. Simon, B. 1981. Why no pedagogy in England? In Education in the eighties, ed. B. Simon and W. Taylor, 124-45. London: Batsford.
43. Slåtten, K. 1998. Fagrelatert didaktisk kunnskap. Perspektiver på begreppet 'pedagogical content knowledge'. Nordic Educational Research 18: 163-73.
44. Sockett, H.T. 1987. Has Shulman got the strategy right? Harvard Educational Review 57, no. 2: 1-22.
45. Stones, E. 1979. Psychopedagogy: Psychological theory and the practice of teaching. London: Methuen & Co.
46. Stones, E. 1989. Pedagogical studies in the theory and practice of teacher education. Oxford Review of Education 15, no. 1: 3-15.
47. Terhart, E. 2003. Constructivism and teaching: A new paradigm in general didactics. Journal of Curriculum Studies 35, no. 1: 25-44.
48. Tom, A. 1984. Teaching as a moral craft. New York: Longman.
49. Wigger, L. 2004. Didaktik. In Historisches Wörterbuch der Pädagogik, ed. D. Benner and J. Oelkers, 244-78. Weinheim und Basel: Beltz.
50. Woods, P. 1996. Researching the art of teaching: Ethnography for educational use. London: Routledge.