Constructing New Forms of Teaching: Subject Matter Knowledge in Inservice Teacher Education

Abstract

The authors analyze how the staff of Summer Math for Teachers and the Writing Project, two inservice programs designed to help elementary school teachers develop constructivist teaching practices, construed the programs' subject matter and the role that subject matter knowledge was assigned relative to other kinds of knowledge and skill in helping participating teachers learn to teach mathematics or writing in radically different ways. The analysis showed that the programs' reformist pedagogy is based on a principled conception of the subject matter but developing teachers' subject matter knowledge was not an explicit objective. The authors conclude that research is needed to determine whether effective constructivist teaching, as characterized by the inservice programs, depends on the depth of teachers' subject matter knowledge.

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Atwell, N. (1987). In the middle: Writing, reading, and learning with adolescents. Montclair, NJ: Boynton/Cook.

Ball, D. L. (1991). Teaching mathematics for under-standing: What do teachers need to know about the subject matter? In M. Kennedy (Ed.), Teaching academic subjects to diverse learners (pp. 63-83). New York: Teachers College Press.

Ball, D. L. , & McDiarnid, G. W. (1990). The subject-matter preparation of teachers. In W. R. Houston (Ed.), Handbook of research on teacher education (pp. 437-449). New York: Macmillan.

Bruner, J. (1960). Process of education. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.

Calkins, L. M. (1986). The art of teaching writing. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.

Calkins, L. M. (1991). Living between the lines. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.

Carpenter, T. , Fennema, E. , Peterson, P. , & Carey, D. (1988). Teachers' pedagogical content knowledge of students' problem solving in elementary arithmetic. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 19, 385-401.

Cohen, D. K. (1988). Teaching practice: Plus ca change. (Issue Paper 88-3). East Lansing, MI: National Center for Research in Teacher Education.

Elbow, P. (1981). Writing with power: Techniques for mastering the writing process. New York: Oxford University Press.

10.

Graves, D. H. (1983). Writing: Teachers and children at work. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.

11.

Grossman, P. L. (1989). A study in contrast: Sources of pedagogical content knowledge for secondary English. Journal of Teacher Education, 40(5), 24-31.

12.

Hashweh, M. (1987). Effects of subject matter knowledge in the teaching of biology and physics. Teaching and Teacher Education, 3, 109-120.

13.

Kennedy, M. (1991). Teaching academic subjects to diverse learners. New York: Teachers College Press.

14.

Lampert, M. (1986). Knowing, doing, and teaching multiplication. Cognition and Instruction, 3, 305-342.

15.

Lampert, M. (1990). When the problem is not the question and the solution is not the answer: Mathematical knowing and teaching. American Educational Research Journal, 27, 29-63.

16.

Murray, D. (1984). Write to learn. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.

17.

National Center for Research on Teacher Education. (1988). Teacher education and learning to teach: A research agenda. Journal of Teacher Education, 39(6), 27-32.

18.

National Council of Teachers of Mathematics. (1991). Professional standards for the teaching of mathematics. Reston, VA: Author.

19.

Schifter, D. (in press). Mathematics process as mathematics content: A course for teachers. Educational Studies in Mathematics.

20.

Schwab, J. J. (1978). Education and the structure of the disciplines. In I. Westbury & N. J. Wilkof (Eds.), Science, curriculum, and liberal education (pp. 229-272). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

21.

Shulman, L. S. (1986). Those who understand: Knowledge growth in teaching. Educational Researcher, 15(2), 4-14.

22.

Shulman, L. S. (1987). Knowledge and teaching: Foundations of the new reform. Harvard Educational Review, 57, 1-22.

23.

Wilson, S. M. (1988). Understanding historical understanding. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Stanford University, Stanford, CA.

24.

Wilson, S. M. , & Wineburg, S. (1988). Peering at history through different lenses: The role of disciplinary perspectives in teaching history. Teachers College Record, 89, 525-539.

25.

Zinsser, W. (1985). On writing well (3rd ed.). New York: Harper & Row.