You are on page 1of 9

ON THE EPISTEMIC NATURE OF PEDAGOGICAL

CONTENT KNOWLEDGE
Shulamit Kapon
University of Haifa
Abstract: This paper presents a theoretical examination of teachers' cognition involved in
integrating new practices to the instruction of science. It reviews studies of Pedagogical
Content Knowledge (PCK) and Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge (TPCK) and
questions their applicability in conceptualizing teachers' knowledge at the individual
cognitive level. It argues that while categorical models of teachers' knowledge are productive
for acknowledging and assessing specialized knowledge for teaching, they are still far from
fully describing teachers' complex coordination of knowledge. Informed by the Knowledge in
Pieces epistemological perspective (diSessa, 1993) it is suggested that teachers knowledge
could be more productively modeled as a dynamic complex system in which PCK (or TPCK)
reflects an evolving state of a complex system instead of a dichotomist category of
knowledge.
Keywords: pedagogical content knowledge, knowledge in pieces, online teaching

INTRODUCTION
How well do prevalent categorical conceptualizations of teachers' knowledge account for the
coordination and development of specialized knowledge for teaching during actual practice?
This question is particularly crucial when considering the large-scale integration of
educational technologies in the instruction of science. K12 online learning programs are
becoming widespread (Barbour, 2009; Powell & Patrick, 2006). Information communication
technologies (ICT) contain no inherent specific instructional functions, and many of the predesigned online curricular materials are not necessarily fully designed for the instructional
functions a teacher might implement at a given moment. Take for example a physics teacher
who teaches a fully online class. Consider the possible ways in which this teacher might use
an available technology and online instructional resources by redesigning and transforming
them in moment-to-moment activity aimed at achieving a local particular instructional goal.
This teacher draws upon and coordinates various types of knowledge such as previous
instructional experiences, content knowledge, familiarity with the class as a group and the
students as individuals, knowledge about the available technology, available curricula,
alternative instructional schemes, etc.
The complex coordination described above is sometimes carried out over a microgenetic time
scale as the teacher cognizes, explores and responds to the students reactions, with the local
instructional goal in mind. It also has a developmental aspect. A teachers first efforts at
employing a particular online-instruction scheme probably differ from her uses of this
scheme as a skilled online teacher. Thus the form and function of the instructional action
employed by a teacher change over time and with accumulated experience.
How well do prevalent categorical theoretical conceptualizations of teachers' knowledge
account for this coordination? This paper argues that they are still far from achieving this
goal. It questions the productivity of conceptualizing teachers' knowledge at the individual
cognitive level as compartmentalized into categories and subcategories, and suggests an
alternative perspective.

CATEGORICAL MODELS OF TEACHERS' KNOWLEDGE


Lee Shulman's influential work reframed the study of teachers knowledge in ways that
attend to the role of content in teaching, and represent the specialized understanding of
content that is unique to the profession of teaching. Shulman (1986, 1987) defined seven
categories of knowledge for teaching, and argued that the category that is most likely to
distinguish the content specialist from the pedagogue is the category of Pedagogical Content
Knowledge (PCK). He described PCK as ways of representing and formulating the subject
that make it comprehensible to others (1986, p. 9). Since its introduction in 1986, PCK has
become widely employed in the context of teacher education. Many studies have highlighted
the central role of PCK in teachers' practice and in teacher education. However, some
educational researchers (Ball, Thames, & Phelps, 2008; Borko & Putnam, 1996; Friedrichsen,
Driel, & Abell, 2011; Gess-Newsome, 1999; Lee, Brown, Luft, & Roehrig, 2007;
Magnusson, Krajcik, & Borko, 1999; Marks, 1990; Schoenfeld, 2006) have also argued that
an understanding of the nature of PCK; namely, a clear unambiguous definition of its scope,
structure and function, is needed both theoretically and empirically. Some of the researchers
cited above (Ball et al., 2008; Hill, Ball, & Schilling, 2008; Magnusson et al., 1999; Park &
Chen, 2012; Tsamir & Tirosh, 2008) suggested parsing Shulmans PCK and CK (content
knowledge) or SMK (subject matter knowledge) categories into further subcategories.
However there is no consensus on the list of these subcategories, their definitions,
hierarchical structure or empirical differentiation.
The developmental process of PCK is another open question. Shulman and colleagues
(Wilson, Shulman, & Richert, 1987) suggested that PCK emerges and grows as teachers
transform their content knowledge for the purposes of teaching. The general transformative
nature of PCK has been embraced at different levels by many researchers (see for example
the collection of studies in Gess-Newsome & Lederman, 1999). Yet there are hardly any
studies that examine in detail how this transformation takes place. One possible reason is that
the researchers who have paid the most attention to PCK are primarily interested in
determining what teachers need to know in order to teach effectively and how this knowledge
can be assessed.
Empirical evidence shows that teachers knowledge is much more fragmented, intuitive and
context-sensitive than categorical models of teachers knowledge suggest. Researchers who
have examined teachers instructional actions have documented idiosyncratic and topicspecific integration of components (e.g., Grossman, 1990; Park & Chen, 2012), whereas
researchers who asked teachers to think about different specific teaching contexts found that
teachers express contradictory pedagogical views in different contexts (Eley, 2006; Kali,
Goodyear, & Markauskaite, 2011; Kane, Sandretto, & Heath, 2002; Postareff, Katajavuori,
Lindblom-Ylanne, & Trigwell, 2008). Hence, modeling teachers knowledge as neatly parsed
categories might be instrumental for the purpose of establishing external standards and
assessment; however, it is unlikely that this is how this knowledge is organized and
constructed in teachers minds (Borko & Putnam, 1996; Gess-Newsome, 1999).
The increasing role of technology in education has added additional complexity to the notion
of PCK (Borko, Whitcomb, & Liston, 2009). Several lines of research have aimed to
conceptualize the knowledge that instructors and designers of technology-rich learning
environments draw on. A widely investigated strand is Technological Pedagogical Content
Knowledge (TPCK) (AACTE, 2008; Angeli & Valanides, 2009; Archambault & Crippen,
2009; Koehler & Mishra, 2005; Koehler, Mishra, & Yahya, 2007; Mishra & Koehler, 2006;
Schmidt et al., 2009) which makes explicit reference to PCK. Koehler and Mishra (e.g.,
Koehler & Mishra, 2005; Koehler, Mishra, Hershey, & Peruski, 2004; Koehler et al., 2007;

Mishra & Koehler, 2006) conceptualized TPCK as an extension of the concept of


Pedagogical Content Knowledge (Shulman, 1986, 1987). They suggested that the integration
of technology into the process of education adds an additional core category to Shulmans
framework. Hence, TPCK is a subcategory of knowledge that reflects the intersection of
three core categories of teachers knowledge: technological knowledge (TK), pedagogical
knowledge (PK), and content knowledge (CK).
The general idea of specialized knowledge for teaching specific content with technology is
certainly compelling. However, the TPCK model has been criticized on theoretical grounds.
Graham (2011) pointed out that it is not clear whether the development of TPCK should be
conceptualized as transformative or integrative, an ambiguity that has been highlighted by
other scholars as well (Archambault & Barnett, 2010; Archambault & Crippen, 2009). Angeli
and Valanides (2009) argued that although teachers epistemic beliefs and values about
teaching and learning influence how they reason about their disciplinary instruction, they are
not represented in the TPCK model. In particular, teachers epistemic beliefs and values have
been dealt with in some categorical models of PCK, although this subcategory has not been
developed or described in detail at the individual processing level (e.g., Carlsen, 1999;
Magnusson et al., 1999; Park & Chen, 2012).
Thus although PCK and TPCK are productive terms for acknowledging specialized
knowledge for teaching, modeling teachers knowledge at the individual cognitive level as
parsed into dichotomist categorizations fails to reflect the empirical findings cited above.
Recently it has been suggested that TPCK is not a fixed category of knowledge but rather a
higher level mental model that helps teachers to integrate their prior knowledge (Krauskopf,
Zahn, & Hesse, 2012): "Teachers need not only to combine from more independent
knowledge domains (TK and PK) more interrelated aspects (TPK and PCK), in order to solve
for the overall task (TPCK). Rather, with regard to the representational format, this
combination needs also to be accompanied by a transformation into a mental model
representation of elements and interrelations that can be manipulated and from which
inferences can be made" (p. 1196). Yet, this suggestion also has its theoretical limits. First,
the suggested processes are unidirectional (TK+PK=>TPK, PK+CK=>PCK,
TK+PK+CK=>TPCK) rather than multidirectional transformations (e.g, PCK=>CK). Every
teacher has experienced moments when her understanding of content deepened after
designing instruction, and during these experiences for instance PCK led to the improvement
of CK. Second, the suggested mental model accounts for the dynamic attributes of teachers'
knowledge but not for their stable knowledge constructs. The next section explains why, in
my view, modeling teachers knowledge as a dynamic complex system in which PCK (or
TPCK) reflects an evolving state of a complex system rather than a category may come closer
to describing the dynamics of teacher knowledge at the cognitive level. This paper does not
dismiss the notion of mental models with regard to teachers' knowledge, but argues that they
are only one part of the complex knowledge system.

MODELING KNOWLEDGE AS A COMPLEX SYSTEM


Modeling the mind as a complex knowledge system and attending to the mechanisms of
change involved in learning entails describing reasoning and understanding as involving
many diverse knowledge elements that can be activated and used in particular contexts.
Complex systems approaches to cognition have a theoretical basis in both artificial
intelligence (Minsky, 1986) and in complex systems science (Jacobson & Wilensky, 2006;
Sabelli, 2006). In the field of educational research, an influential effort to study thinking and
learning from a complex systems perspective was initiated (1993) by diSessa in an article

presenting the empirical underpinnings of the Knowledge in Pieces (KiP) epistemological


perspective (diSessa, 1993).

The basic knowledge elements of the system


The KiP approach to understanding individual reasoning involves identifying elements of
knowledge evident in episodes of learning at a small enough grain size so that they are not
thought of as intrinsically right or wrong, but instead as productive or not for a particular
context (diSessa, 1993, 1996; diSessa, Gillespie, & Esterly, 2004; Kapon & diSessa, 2012;
Parnafes, 2007; Parnafes & diSessa, in press; B. L. Sherin, 2001). For example, diSessa
(1996) showed how a students explanation of projectile motion that might have been
interpreted as an incorrect impetus theory misconception (McCloskey, 1983) should
instead be decomposed into the activation and use of several ideas that can in fact be
productive in different contexts. In the same manner, it is argued here that modeling PCK as a
separate cognitive category masks its fine structure and thus the explanation for this typical
conduct. In fact, an article (Kali et al., 2011) that reexamined two earlier studies on
educational design practices (Goodyear & Markauskaite, 2009; Ronen-Fuhrmann & Kali,
2010), as well as an empirical study that followed the learning of pre-service science teachers
enrolled in a model-based physics course for potential teachers (Harlow, Bianchini, Swanson,
& Dwyer, 2013) explicitly suggested that conceptualizing pedagogical knowledge as
fragmented seems more in line with empirical findings than a theory-like categorical
conceptualization. Kali et al. termed the relevant basic knowledge elements "pedagogical pprims," thus adapting diSessa (1993) concept of phenomenological primitive (p-prim),
Harlow et al. termed them "pedagogical resources" (the term "resources" was adapted from
Hammer, Elby, Scherr, & Redish, 2005 interpretation of KiP).

The development of the knowledge system


Knowledge from a KiP perspective is modeled as a complex system with loosely interacting
small knowledge elements (KE) that are not intrinsically right or wrong. Hence, learning
involves a progressive systemization of this system driven by mundane and accumulated
experiences, which necessitates the reorganization and recontextualization of existing KE and
the integration of new ones; hence the path from Nave => Novice => Expert is continuous
and gradual. From this point of view, concepts are not modeled as unitary elements but
rather as complex knowledge systems that evolve along this path.
When employing a KiP perspective, one assumes that information in the world is not
transparently available. An underlying assumption is that the knowledge system provide ways
of perceiving the right and the "relevant" information, and that these knowledge constructs
develop and function as knowledge systems (diSessa, 2002; diSessa & Sherin, 1998; diSessa
& Wagner, 2005; Wagner, 2006, 2010). diSessa and Wagner (2005) and Wagner 2010
discuss the notion of concept projections; namely, the assimilatory schemes with which a
knower assimilates and interprets that which is available to be perceived. They argue that
concept projections are derived from experiences. Thus good instruction involves carefully
choosing and exposing the learner to a wide variety of contexts in which the concept is used.
This will allow the learner to accommodate and generate a large span of conceptual
projections, which will afford the identification of the concept in different contexts.
It is argued here that teachers' professional knowledge functions as a complex knowledge
system which informs their perception and interpretation of incidences of learning and
instruction, and that the theoretical machinery described in the paragraphs above is applicable
to this knowledge system as well. Table 1 presents an interpretation of existing findings from
previous studies on teachers' knowledge from a KiP perspective.

Table 1
Interpreting existing findings on teachers knowledge from a KiP perspective
Research findings

A knowledge system account

Experience-based instructional approaches support


sophisticated use of technology for teaching among preservice teachers (Angeli & Valanides, 2009; Koehler &
Mishra, 2005; Koehler et al., 2007; Kramarski &
Michalsky, 2010)

Providing experiences from which


the development and
accommodation of new concept
projections can be derived

CK and PCK are developed simultaneously


(Kleickmann et al., 2013)

Designing instruction provides


opportunities to refine existing
concept projections related to
content

Teachers implement instructional reforms through the


lens of their current practices (Cohen & Ball, 1990;
Kleickmann et al., 2013)

Teachers interpret instructional


reform by activating assimilatory
schemes

The development of PCK is an ongoing continuous


process throughout a teachers career (Seymour &
Lehrer, 2006; M. G. Sherin, 2002)

The road from a novice to an


expert teacher is a continuous
gradual path

PCK develops in relatively mundane ways (Seymour &


Lehrer, 2006; M. G. Sherin, 2002)

The development of the


knowledge system involves a
progressive systemization

Additional affordances of the KiP perspective


KiP also offers additional affordances to the study of teachers knowledge. First, studies on
personal epistemologies made up of fine-grained, context-sensitive resources (diSessa, 1985;
Elby, 2001, 2009; Elby & Hammer, 2001; Hammer & Elby, 2003; Louca, Elby, Hammer, &
Kagey, 2004) suggest that the KiP description of particular forms of knowledge elements in
a complex knowledge system might also apply to teachers personal epistemologies. Second,
the inherent contextual sensitivity of KiP is advantageous when accounting for changes in
teachers' knowledge during practice. Third, KiP models of the nature and dynamics of
knowledge elements, which when activated are considered as explanatory without any
questioning at the timescale of particular reasoning (i.e., this is how things are) (diSessa,
1993; Kapon & diSessa, 2012), suggest terminology that might describe teachers' decisions
that appear to respond in a rule-governed manner to particular configurations of cues (such
as described by Calderhead (1981)).

CONCLUSION
It was argued here that while categorical models of teachers' knowledge are productive for
acknowledging and assessing specialized knowledge for teaching, they are still far from fully
describing teachers knowledge at the individual cognitive level. It is hypothesized here that
to account for the coordination and development of specialized knowledge for teaching
during practice, such as the complex coordination of knowledge involved in teaching a
disciplinary content in a fully online classroom, it might be more productive to model

teachers knowledge as a dynamic complex system in which particular exemplars of PCK (or
TPCK) reflect an evolving state of a complex system instead of dichotomist categories of
knowledge.

REFERENCES
AACTE (Ed.). (2008). Handbook of Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge (TPCK)
for Educators. New York, NY: Routledge.
Angeli, C., & Valanides, N. (2009). Epistemological and methodological issues for the
conceptualization, development, and assessment of ICTTPCK: Advances in
technological pedagogical content knowledge (TPCK). Computers & Education,
52(1), 154-168.
Archambault, L. M., & Barnett, J. H. (2010). Revisiting technological pedagogical content
knowledge: Exploring the TPACK framework. Computers & Education, 55(4), 16561662.
Archambault, L. M., & Crippen, K. (2009). Examining TPACK among K-12 online distance
educators in the United States. Contemporary Issues in Technology and Teacher
Education, 9(1), 71-88.
Ball, D. L., Thames, M. H., & Phelps, G. (2008). Content Knowledge for Teaching What
Makes It Special? Journal of teacher education, 59(5), 389-407.
Barbour, M. (2009). Today's student and virtual schooling: The reality, the challenges, the
promise. Journal of Open, Flexible and Distance Learning, 13(1), 5-25.
Borko, H., & Putnam, R. T. (1996). Learning to teach. In D. C. Berliner & R. C. Calfee
(Eds.), Handbook of educational psychology (pp. 673708). New York, NY:
Macmillan.
Borko, H., Whitcomb, J., & Liston, D. (2009). Wicked problems and other thoughts on issues
of technology and teacher learning. Journal of teacher education, 60(1), 3-7.
Calderhead, J. (1981). A Psychological Approach to Research on Teachers' Classroom
Decision making. British Educational Research Journal, 7(1), 51-57.
Carlsen, W. S. (1999). Domains of Teacher Knowledge. In J. Gess-Newsome & N. G.
Lederman (Eds.), Examining pedagogical content knowledge (pp. 133-144).
Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic.
Cohen, D. K., & Ball, D. L. (1990). Policy and practice: An overview. Educational
Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 12(3), 233-239.
diSessa, A. A. (1985). Learning about knowing. In E. L. Klein (Ed.), Children and computers
(pp. 97-124). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
diSessa, A. A. (1993). Toward an epistemology of physics. Cognition and Instruction,
10(2&3), 105-225.
diSessa, A. A. (1996). What do just plain folk know about physics? In D. R. Olson & N.
Torrance (Eds.), The handbook of education and human development: New models of
learning, teaching, and schooling (pp. 709730). Oxford, UK: Blackwell Publishers,
Ltd.
diSessa, A. A. (2002). Why 'conceptual ecology' is a good idea In M. Limon & L. Mason
(Eds.), Reconsidering Conceptual Change. Issues in Thoery and Practice (pp. 29-60).
Dordrecht, NL: Kluer Academic Publishers.
diSessa, A. A., Gillespie, N. M., & Esterly, J. B. (2004). Coherence versus fragmentation in
the development of the concept of force. Cognitive Science, 28(6), 843-900.
diSessa, A. A., & Sherin, B. L. (1998). What changes in conceptual change? International
Journal of Science Education, 20(10), 1155-1191.

diSessa, A. A., & Wagner, J. F. (2005). What coordination has to say about transfer. In J.
Mestre (Ed.), Transfer of learning from a modern multi-disciplinary perspective (pp.
121-154). Greenwich, CT: Information Age Publishing.
Elby, A. (2001). Helping physics students learn how to learn. American Journal of Physics,
Physics Education Research Supplement, 69(7), S54-S64.
Elby, A. (2009). Defining personal epistemology: A response to Hofer & Pintrich (1997) and
Sandoval (2005). The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 18(1), 138-149.
Elby, A., & Hammer, D. (2001). On the substance of a sophisticated epistemology. Science
Education, 85(5), 554-567.
Eley, M. G. (2006). Teachers' conceptions of teaching, and the making of specific decisions
in planning to teach. Higher Education, 51(2), 191-214.
Friedrichsen, P., Driel, J. H. V., & Abell, S. K. (2011). Taking a closer look at science
teaching orientations. Science Education, 95(2), 358-376.
Gess-Newsome, J. (1999). Pedagogical content knowledge: an introduction and orientation.
In J. Gess-Newsome & N. G. Lederman (Eds.), Examining pedagogical content
knowledge: The construct and its implications for science education (pp. 3-17).
Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic.
Gess-Newsome, J., & Lederman, N. G. (Eds.). (1999). Examining pedagogical content
knowledge: The construct and its implications for science education. Dordrecht:
Kluwer Academic.
Goodyear, P., & Markauskaite, L. (2009). Teachers' design knowledge, epistemic fluency and
reflections on students' experiences. Paper presented at the The Student Experience,
The 32nd HERDSA Annual Conference, Adelaide.
Graham, C. R. (2011). Theoretical considerations for understanding technological
pedagogical content knowledge (TPACK). Computers & Education, 57(3), 19531960.
Grossman, P. L. (1990). The making of a teacher: Teacher knowledge and teacher education.
New York, NY: Teachers College Press.
Hammer, D., & Elby, A. (2003). Tapping epistemological resources for learning physics. The
Journal of the Learning Sciences, 12(1), 53-90.
Hammer, D., Elby, A., Scherr, R., & Redish, E. (2005). Resources, framing, and transfer. In
J. Mestre (Ed.), Transfer of learning from a modern multidisciplinary perspective (pp.
89-120). USA: Information Age Publishing Inc.
Harlow, D. B., Bianchini, J. A., Swanson, L. H., & Dwyer, H. A. (2013). Potential teachers'
appropriate and inappropriate application of pedagogical resources in a modelbased
physics course: A knowledge in pieces perspective on teacher learning. Journal of
Research in Science Teaching, 50(9), 1098-1126.
Hill, H. C., Ball, D. L., & Schilling, S. G. (2008). Unpacking pedagogical content knowledge:
Conceptualizing and measuring teachers' topic-specific knowledge of students.
Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 372-400.
Jacobson, M. J., & Wilensky, U. (2006). Complex systems in education: Scientific and
educational importance and implications for the learning sciences. The Journal of the
Learning Sciences, 15(1), 11-34.
Kali, Y., Goodyear, P., & Markauskaite, L. (2011). Researching design practices and design
cognition: contexts, experiences and pedagogical knowledge in pieces. Learning,
Media and Technology, 36(2), 129-149.
Kane, R., Sandretto, S., & Heath, C. (2002). Telling half the story: A critical review of
research on the teaching beliefs and practices of university academics. Review of
Educational Research, 72(2), 177-228.

Kapon, S., & diSessa, A. A. (2012). Reasoning Through Instructional Analogies. Cognition
and Instruction, 30(3), 261-310.
Kleickmann, T., Richter, D., Kunter, M., Elsner, J., Besser, M., Krauss, S., & Baumert, J.
(2013). Teachers Content Knowledge and Pedagogical Content Knowledge The Role
of Structural Differences in Teacher Education. Journal of teacher education, 64(1),
90-106.
Koehler, M. J., & Mishra, P. (2005). What happens when teachers design educational
technology? The development of technological pedagogical content knowledge.
Journal of educational computing research, 32(2), 131-152.
Koehler, M. J., Mishra, P., Hershey, K., & Peruski, L. (2004). With a little help from your
students: A new model for faculty development and online course design. Journal of
Technology and Teacher Education, 12(1), 25-55.
Koehler, M. J., Mishra, P., & Yahya, K. (2007). Tracing the development of teacher
knowledge in a design seminar: Integrating content, pedagogy and technology.
Computers & Education, 49(3), 740-762.
Kramarski, B., & Michalsky, T. (2010). Preparing preservice teachers for self-regulated
learning in the context of technological pedagogical content knowledge. Learning and
Instruction, 20(5), 434-447.
Krauskopf, K., Zahn, C., & Hesse, F. W. (2012). Leveraging the affordances of Youtube: The
role of pedagogical knowledge and mental models of technology functions for lesson
planning with technology. Computers & Education, 58(4), 1194-1206.
Lee, E., Brown, M. N., Luft, J. A., & Roehrig, G. H. (2007). Assessing beginning secondary
science teachers' PCK: Pilot year results. School Science and Mathematics, 107(2),
52-60.
Louca, L., Elby, A., Hammer, D., & Kagey, T. (2004). Epistemological resources: Applying
a new epistemological framework to science instruction. Educational Psychologist,
39(1), 57-68.
Magnusson, S., Krajcik, J., & Borko, H. (1999). Nature, sources, and development of
pedagogical content knowledge for science teaching. In J. Gess-Newsome & N. G.
Lederman (Eds.), Examining pedagogical content knowledge (pp. 95-132). Dordrecht:
Kluwer Academic.
Marks, R. (1990). Pedagogical content knowledge: From a mathematical case to a modified
conception. Journal of teacher education, 41(3), 3-11.
McCloskey, M. (1983). Naive theories of motion. In D. Gentner & A. Stevens (Eds.), Mental
models (pp. 299324). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Minsky, M. (1986). Society of mind. New York, NY: Simon & Schuster.
Mishra, P., & Koehler, M. (2006). Technological pedagogical content knowledge: A
framework for teacher knowledge. The Teachers College Record, 108(6), 1017-1054.
Park, S., & Chen, Y. C. (2012). Mapping out the integration of the components of
pedagogical content knowledge (PCK): Examples from high school biology
classrooms. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 49(7), 922941.
Parnafes, O. (2007). What does fast mean? Understanding the physical world through
computational representations. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 16(3), 415-450.
Parnafes, O., & diSessa, A. A. (in press). Microgenetic learning analysis: A methodology for
studying knowledge in transition. Human Development.
Postareff, L., Katajavuori, N., Lindblom-Ylanne, S., & Trigwell, K. (2008). Consonance and
dissonance in descriptions of teaching of university teachers. Studies in Higher
Education, 33(1), 49-61.
Powell, A., & Patrick, S. (2006). The international perspective of K-12 online learning: A
summary of the 2006 NACOL international e-learning survey. iNACOL, The

International Association for K-12 Online Learning.


http://www.inacol.org/research/docs/InternationalSurveyResultsSummaries.pdf
Ronen-Fuhrmann, T., & Kali, Y. (2010). The role of concretization in acquiring design
knowledge. Paper presented at the Learning in the Disciplines: Proceedings of the 9th
International Conference of the Learning Sciences (ICLS 2010), Chicago IL.
Sabelli, N. H. (2006). Complexity, technology, science, and education. The Journal of the
Learning Sciences, 15(1), 5-9.
Schmidt, D. A., Baran, E., Thompson, A. D., Mishra, P., Koehler, M. J., & Shin, T. S. (2009).
Technological pedagogical content knowledge (TPACK): The development and
validation of an assessment instrument for preservice teachers. Journal of Research
on Computing in Education, 42(2), 123.
Schoenfeld, A. H. (2006). Mathematics teaching and learning. In P. A. Alexander & P. H.
Winne (Eds.), Handbook of educational psychology (pp. 479-510). Mahwah, N.J.:
Lawrence Erlbaum.
Seymour, J. R., & Lehrer, R. (2006). Tracing the evolution of pedagogical content knowledge
as the development of interanimated discourses. The Journal of the Learning
Sciences, 15(4), 549-582.
Sherin, B. L. (2001). How students understand physics equations. Cognition and Instruction,
19(4), 479-541.
Sherin, M. G. (2002). When teaching becomes learning. Cognition and Instruction, 20(2),
119-150.
Shulman, L. S. (1986). Those who understand: Knowledge growth in teaching. Educational
researcher, 4-14.
Shulman, L. S. (1987). Knowledge and teaching: Foundations of the new reform. Harvard
educational review, 57(1), 1-23.
Tsamir, P., & Tirosh, D. (2008). Combining theories in research in mathematics teacher
education. ZDM, 40(5), 861-872.
Wagner, J. F. (2006). Transfer in pieces. Cognition and Instruction, 24(1), 1-71.
Wagner, J. F. (2010). A transfer-in-pieces consideration of the perception of structure in the
transfer of learning. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 19(4), 443-479.
Wilson, S. M., Shulman, L. S., & Richert, A. E. (1987). '150 different ways' of knowing:
Representations of knowledge in teaching. In J. Calderhead (Ed.), Exploring teachers
thinking (pp. 104124). London: Cassell.

You might also like