Author :
Abstract
One of the components of pedagogical content knowledge is curriculum knowledge. Curriculum contains aims and objectives which belong to the subjects that the teachers will teach and explain the skills that students are supposed to be obtained. Constructivist model was adopted instead of behaviourist model of teaching mathematics with changes in the secondary mathematics program in Turkey in 2005. In this study, we aimed at determining pre-service teachers’ curriculum knowledge related to the limit and continuity concept. First, Content Knowledge Questionnaire on the limit and continuity concept was administered to 37 pre-service teachers. According to the results of the questionnaire, four pre-service teachers were selected with different levels of subject matter knowledge. Interviews were conducted with the selected pre-service teachers, their lesson plans of limit and continuity were examined and their micro-teaching was observed. Data obtained shows that the pre-service teachers’ curriculum knowledge was limited.
Keywords
Abstract
One of the components of pedagogical content knowledge is curriculum knowledge. Curriculum contains aims and objectives which belong to the subjects that the teachers will teach and explain the skills that students are supposed to be obtained. Constructivist model was adopted instead of behaviourist model of teaching mathematics with changes in the secondary mathematics program in Turkey in 2005. In this study, we aimed at determining pre-service teachers’ curriculum knowledge related to the limit and continuity concept. First, Content Knowledge Questionnaire on the limit and continuity concept was administered to 37 pre-service teachers. According to the results of the questionnaire, four pre-service teachers were selected with different levels of subject matter knowledge. Interviews were conducted with the selected pre-service teachers, their lesson plans of limit and continuity were examined and their micro-teaching was observed. Data obtained shows that the pre-service teachers’ curriculum knowledge was limited.
Keywords
- Arsac, G. (1989). La transposition didactique en mathématiques. In IREM et LIRDHIST de Lyon (eds.), La Transposition Didactique en Mathématiques, en Physique et Biologie, 3-36.
- Aslan, K. (2003). Eğitim fakültelerinin yeniden yapılandırılmalarına ilişkin bir değerlendirme. Balıkesir Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü Dergisi, 6(9), 23-37.
- Baki, A. (2002). Öğrenen ve Öğretenler İçin Bilgisayar Destekli Matematik. İstanbul: Uygun Basın ve Tic. Ltd.Şti.
- Ball, D.L. (1990). Prospective elementary and secondary teachers’ understanding of division. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 21, 132-144.
- Ball, D.L. (1997). Developing mathematics reform: What don’t we know about teacher learning-but would make good working hypotheses? In S. Friel & G. Bright (Eds.), Reflecting on Our Work: NSF Teacher Enhancement in K-6 Mathematics (pp. 77-111). Lanham, MD: University Press of America.
- Ball, D.L., & McDiarmid, G.W. (1990). The subject matter preparation of teachers. In W.R. Houston (Ed.) Handbook of Research on Teacher Education. New York: Macmillan.
- Baştürk, S. (2009). Ortaöğretim matematik öğretmen adaylarına göre fen edebiyat fakültelerindeki alan eğitimi. İnönü Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 10(3), 137160.
- Baxer, J.A., & Lederman, N.G., (1999). Assessment and measurement of pedagogical content knowlege. In J. Gess-Newsome and N. G. Lederman (Eds.), Examining Pedagogical Content Knowledge: PCK and Science Education (pp. 147-161). Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publisher.
- Brown, D. F., & Rose, T. D. (1995). Self-reported classroom impact of teachers’ theories about learning and obstacles to implementation. Action in Teacher Education, 17(1), 20-29.
- Buzeika, A. (1996). Teachers’ beliefs and practice: The chicken or the egg? In P. C. Clarkson (Ed.), Technology in mathematics education. Proceedings of the 19th Annual Conference of the Mathematics Education Research Group of Australasia (pp. 93-100). Melbourne: Mathematics Education Research Group of Australia.
- Canbazoğlu, S. (2008). Fen Bilgisi Öğretmen Adaylarının Maddenin Tanecikli Yapısı Ünitesine İlişkin Pedagojik Alan Bilgilerinin Değerlendirilmesi. Yayınlanmamış Yüksek Lisans Tezi, Eğitim Bilimleri Enstitüsü Gazi Üniversitesi, Ankara.
- Cornett, J.W., Yeotis, C., & Terwilliger, L. (1990). Teacher personal practical theories and their influence upon teacher curricular and instructional actions: A case study of a secondary science teacher. Sceince Education, 74(5), 517-529.
- Cronin-Jones, L.L. (1991). Science teacher beliefs and their influence on curriculum implementation: Two cases studies. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 28, 235250.
- Demirel, Ö. (2009). Kuramdan Uygulamaya Eğitimde Program Geliştirme (12. Baskı). Ankara: Pegama Yayıncılık.
- Doğan, S. (2010). Özel Dershanelerdeki Matematik Eğitiminin Niteliği ve Öğrenci Yaklaşımlarının incelenmesi. Yayınlanmamış Yüksek Lisans Tezi, Eğitim Bilimleri Enstitüsü, Marmara Üniversitesi, İstanbul.
- Doll, C.R. (1986). Curriculum İmprovement: Decision Making and Process (6th Ed.). Boston: Allyn and Bacon.
- Dönmez, G. (2009). Matematik Öğretmen Adaylarının Limit ve Süreklilik Kavramlarına İlişkin Pedagojik Alan Bilgilerinin Değerlendirilmesi. Yayınlanmamış Yüksek Lisans tezi, Marmara Üniversitesi Eğitim Bilimleri Enstitüsü-İstanbul.
- Duffee, L., & Aikenhead, G. (1992). Curriculum change, student evaluation, and teacher pratical knowledge. Science Education, 76(5), 493-506.
- Duschl, R.A., & Wright, E. (1989). A case study of high school teachers’ decision making models for planning and teaching science. Journal of Research in Sciene Teaching, 26(6), 467-501.
- Ergün, M. (2010). Program Geliştirme ve Öğretim. 03.05.2010 tarihinde www.egitim.aku.edu.tr/opd04.ppt adresinden indirilmiştir.
- Fennema, E., & Franke, M. L. (1992). Teachers' knowledge and its impact. In D.A. Grouws (Ed.), Handbook of Research on Mathematics Teaching and Learning (pp. 147-164). New York: Macmillan.
- Foss, D. H., & Kleinsasser, R. C. (1996). Preservice elementary teachers’ views of pedagogical and mathematical content knowledge. Teaching and Teacher Education, 12(4), 429-442.
- Fullan, M., & Stegelbauer, S. (1991). The New Meaning of Educational Change. New York: Cassell.
- Gallagher, J.J. (1991). Prospective and practicing secondary school science teachers’ knowledge and beliefs about the philosophy of science. Science Education, 75(1), 121
- Gess-Newsome, J. (1999). Pedagogical content knowledge: an introduction and orientation. In J. Gess-Newsome and N. G. Lederman (Eds.), Examining Pedagogical Content Knowledge: PCK and Science Education (pp.3-17). Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publisher.
- Good, C. (1973). Dictionnary of Education (3rd Ed.) New York: Mc Graw-Hill.
- Grant, T. J., Hiebert, J., & Wearne, D. (1994). Teachers’ Beliefs and Their Responses to Reformminded Instruction in Elementary Mathematics. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED376170)
- Grossman, P.L. (1990). The making of a teacher: Teacher knowledge and teacher education. New York: Teachers College Press.
- Grossman, P.L., Wilson, W.M., & Shulman, L.S. (1989). Teachers of substance: Subject matter knowledge for teaching. In M.C. Reynolds (Ed.), Knowledge Base for the Beginning Teacher. New York: Pergamon Press.
- Hashweh, M. (1987). Effects of subject matter knowledge in the teaching of biology and physics. Teaching and Teacher Education, 33(1), 47-63.
- Hill, H.C., Ball, D.B., & Schilling, S.G. (2008). Unpacking pedagogical content knowledge: Conceptualizing and measuring teachers’ topic-specific knowledge of students. Journal for Research in Mathematics Teacher Education, 39(4), 372-400.
- Hofer, B.K., & Pintrich, P.R. (1997). The development of epistemological theories: Beliefs about knowledge and knowing and their relation to learning. Review of Educational Research, 67(1), 88-140.
- Hollon, R.E., Roth, K.J., & Anderson, C.W. (1991). Science teachers’ conceptions of teaching and learning, in J. Brophy (ed.). Advances in research on teaching, Vol. 2, Greenwich, CT, JAI Press, 145-185.
- Karasar N. (2005) Bilimsel Araştırma Yöntemi (15. baskı). Ankara: Nobel Yayıncılık.
- Lantz, O., & Kass, H. (1987). Chemistry teachers’ functional paradigms. Science Education,
- Lovat, T.J., & Smith, D. (1995). Curriculum: Action on Reflection Revisited. Australia: Social Science Press.
- Ma, L. (1999). Knowing and Teaching Elementary Mathematics: Teachers’ Understanding of Fundamental Mathematics in China and the United States. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
- McDiarmid, G.W., Ball, D.L., & Anderson, C. (1989). Why staying ahead one chapter just won’t work: Subject-specific pedagogy. In M.C. Reynolds (Ed.), Knowledge Base for the Beginning Teacher. New York: Pergamon Press.
- McGalliard, W.A.Jr. (1983). Selected Factors in the Conceptual Systems of Geometry Teachers: Four Case Studies. Unpublished Doctoral dissertation, University of Georgia, Georgia.
- Pajares, M. F. (1992). Teachers’ beliefs and educational research: Cleaning up a messy construct. Review of Educational Research, 62(3), 307-332.
- Patton, M. Q. (1987). How to use qualitative methods in evaluation. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
- Posner, J.G. (1995). Analyzing the Curriculum (2nd Ed.). McGraw-Hill, Inc., New York.
- Raymond, A.M. (1993). Unraveling the Relationships Between Beginning Elementary Teachers’ Mathematics Beliefs and Teaching Practices. Paper presented at the 15th Annual Meeting of the International Group for the Psychology of Mathematics Education, Monterey, CA. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED390694)
- Raymond, A.M. (1997). Inconsistency between a beginning elementary teachers’ mathematics belief and practices. Journal for Research on Mathematics Education, 28(5), 550-576.
- Reynolds, A., Haymore, J., Ringstaff, C., & Grossman, P. (1988). Teachers and curricular materials: Who is driving whom? Curriculum Perspectives, 8(1), 22-29.
- Robert, A., Lattuati, M., & Penninckx, J. (1999). L’enseignement des mathématiques au Lycée: Un Point de vue Didactique. Paris: Ellipses.
- Saban, A. (2000). Öğrenme ve Öğretme Süreci. Ankara: Nobel Yayıncılık.
- Sanders, L.R., Borko, H., & Lockard, J.D. (1993). Secondary science teachers’ knowledge base when teaching science courses in and out of their area of certification. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 30(7), 723-736.
- Saraç, C. (2006). Türk dili ve edebiyatı öğretmeni adaylarının fen-edebiyat fakültelerinde karşılaştıkları problemler. Kastamonu Eğitim Dergisi, 14(2), 349-358.
- Saylor, G.J., Alexander, M.W., & Lewis, J.A. (1981). Curriculum Planning for Beter Teaching and Learning (4th Ed.). New York: Holt, Rinehart, ve Winston.
- Shulman, L.S. (1986). Those who understand: Knowledge growth in teaching. Educational Researcher, 15, 4–14.
- Shulman, L.S. (1987). Knowledge and teaching: Foundations of the new reform. Harvard Educational Review, 57, 122.
- Stylianides, A.J., & Stylianides, G.J. (2006). Content knowledge for mathematics teaching: the case of reasoning and proving. In Novotn{, J., Moraov{, H., Kr{tk{, M. & Stehlíkov{, N. (Eds.). Proceedings 30th Conference of the International Group for the Psychology of Mathematics Education, Vol. 5, (pp. 201-208), Prague: PME.
- Sullivan, P. (1989). Factors inhibiting change: A case study of a beginning primary teacher. Mathematics Education Research Journal, 1(2), 1-16.
- Thompson, A. G. (1984). The relationship of teachers’ conceptions of mathematics and mathematics teaching to instructional practice. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 15, 105-127.
- Thompson, A. G. (1985). Teachers’ conceptions of mathematics and the teaching of problem solving. In E. A. Silver (Ed.), Teaching and Learning Mathematical Problem Solving: Multiple Research Perspectives (pp. 281-294). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
- Van Driel, J. H., Beijaard, D., & Verloop, N. (2001). Professional development and reform in science education: The role of teachers’ practical knowledge. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 38(2), 137-158.
- Wang, J., & Odell, S. J. (2002). Mentored learning to teach according to standardbased reform: A critical review. Review of Education Research, 72(3), 481-546.
- Wineburg, S.S., & Wilson, S.M. (1991). Subject-matter knowledge in the teaching of history. In J. Brophy (Ed.). Advenced in Research on Teaching (vol. 2, pp. 305-347). Greenwich, CT: JAI.
- Yıldırım, A., & Şimşek, H. (2005). Sosyal Bilimlerde Nitel Araştırma Yöntemleri. Ankara: Seçkin Kitapevi.
- Yıldırım, M. (2008). İlköğretim fen ve teknoloji dersinde genetik ünitesinin bilimsel bilgilerden öğretmen bilgilerine geçişinin “didaktiksel dönüşüm teorisi” yaklaşımıyla değerlendirilmesi. Yayınlanmamış Doktora Tezi, Marmara Üniversitesi Eğitim Bilimleri Enstitüsü, İstanbul.
- Yiğit, N., & Akdeniz A.R., (2004). Öğretmen adaylarının fen-edebiyat fakültesindeki problemleri. Kastamonu Eğitim Dergisi, 12(1), 77-84.