2018
DOI: 10.1007/s11165-018-9718-7
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

A Comparison Between Reported and Enacted Pedagogical Content Knowledge (PCK) About Graphs of Motion

Abstract: This paper reports a case study of four grade 10 physical sciences teachers" PCK about graphs of motion. We used three data collection strategies, namely teachers" written accounts, captured by the Content Representation (CoRe) tool, interviews and classroom observations. We conceptualised the PCK displayed in the CoRe tool and the interview as "reported PCK" and the PCK demonstrated during lessons as "enacted PCK". These two manifestations of PCK were compared to establish the extent of agreement between repo… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1
1

Citation Types

1
25
0

Year Published

2019
2019
2023
2023

Publication Types

Select...
8
1

Relationship

1
8

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 31 publications
(50 citation statements)
references
References 33 publications
1
25
0
Order By: Relevance
“…So the translation of a neat, singular plTSPCK episode into eTSPCK in classroom enactment does not occur in a corresponding neat one-to-one ratio process, but rather as a network process demanding the ability for PSTs to activate additional appropriate teacher knowledge that supports the ultimate delivery of the intended knowledge. This finding confirms the widely communicated distinct contextual affordances of the planning vs. teaching settings on PCK (Barendsen & Henze, 2019;Mazibe, Coetzee, & Gaigher, 2018), and the need for teacher education to care about exploring both contexts in order to fully derive the phronesis value of PCK.…”
Section: Discussionsupporting
confidence: 75%
“…So the translation of a neat, singular plTSPCK episode into eTSPCK in classroom enactment does not occur in a corresponding neat one-to-one ratio process, but rather as a network process demanding the ability for PSTs to activate additional appropriate teacher knowledge that supports the ultimate delivery of the intended knowledge. This finding confirms the widely communicated distinct contextual affordances of the planning vs. teaching settings on PCK (Barendsen & Henze, 2019;Mazibe, Coetzee, & Gaigher, 2018), and the need for teacher education to care about exploring both contexts in order to fully derive the phronesis value of PCK.…”
Section: Discussionsupporting
confidence: 75%
“…It refers to the common knowledge that is shared by a community of teachers and that can be applied across different contexts. The next realm describes knowledge that is relatively passive and static while it is unique to individual teachers and contexts, similar to idiosyncratic PCK (Park & Suh, 2015), knowledge-on-action (Park & Oliver, 2008), espoused or planned PCK (Aydeniz & Kirbulut, 2014) and reported PCK (Mazibe et al, 2018). When personal PCK is applied during actual teaching, it becomes enacted PCK (Carlson & Daehler, 2019).…”
Section: Literature Reviewmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…It was in this third phase, when we shared the analysis and results of the first and second phases, that she expressed the reflections given in Table 7, where they are contrasted with her reflections some 17 years earlier. This reported PCK did not necessarily reflect the pPCK of Marina currently (Mazibe et al, 2020), but it could give us clues about his teaching. In any case, it is a pervasive obstacle whose origin may be due to an incomplete Professional Knowledge (in relation to Students and Pedagogy) and to the beliefs of Marina, which suggests a stable structure of teacher cognition (Meschede et al, 2017).…”
Section: Fig 2 Types Of Problem-based Interactionsmentioning
confidence: 83%