68

Construction of Teacher Knowledge in Context: Preparing

Elementary Teachers to Teach Mathematics and Science

Norene Vail Lowery

University of Houston

The purpose of this study was to further the understanding of how preservice teachers construct
teacher knowledge and pedagogical content knowledge of elementary mathematics and science
in a school-based setting and the extent of knowledge construction. Evidence of knowledge
construction (its acquisition, its dimensions, and the social context) was collected through the use
of a qualitative methodology. The methods course was content-specific with instruction in
elementary mathematics and science. Learning experiences were based on national standards with
a constructivist instructional approach and immediate access to field experiences. Analysis and
synthesis of data revealed an extensive acquisition of teacher knowledge and pedagogical content
knowledge. Learning venues were discovered to be the conduits of learning in a situated learning
context. As in this study, content-specific, school-based experiences may afford preservice
teachers greater opportunities to focus on content and instructional strategies at deeper levels; to
address anxieties typically associated with the teaching of elementary mathematics and science;
and to become more confident and competent teachers. Gains in positive attitudes and confidence
in teaching mathematics and science were identified as direct results of this experience.

Current reform efforts emphasizing the importance
of teacher knowledge have produced national stan-
dards for mathematics education and science education
(National Council of Teachers of Mathematics
[NCTM], 1989, 1991, 1995, 2000; National Research
Council [NRC], 1996). Created as guidelines, these
standards address improvements in student learning,
program development, assessment, and professional
development for teachers. These standards promote
learning environments that encourage the implementa-
tion of the constructivist learning perspective. These
bold constructs create the need for new ways of
teaching and learning. New ways of teaching and
learning demand new ways of educating teachers. If
preservice teachers need to be taught in the same
manner in which they will be teaching (Cuban, 1984;
Lortie, 1975), then it is imperative that teacher educa-
tion programs keep pace with new recommendations
for their preparation (Sizer, 1991). Teachers are seen
as the key figures of implementation of national stan-
dards by both mathematics and science groups and bear
the burden of successful reform (NCTM, 1989, 1991,
1995, 2000; NRC, 1996).
Reform efforts stimulate concern for the status of
teacher education and suggest new emphases for re-
search. How well do teacher education programs enable
teachers to fulfill this responsibility? What are the
effects of innovative preparation programs on preservice
teachers’ acquisition of teacher knowledge?
Research of teacher knowledge, its acquisition, its
dimensions, and the social context of its construction
adds to the knowledge base regarding effective teach-
ing, and further research is needed (Calderhead, 1987;
Carlsen, 1991; Grossman, 1990; Wilson, Shulman, &
Richert, 1987). Educators need to know how teachers
learn; what types of knowledge and levels of knowl-
edge acquisition are necessary to become effective
teachers; and what contexts are most conducive to
learning how to teach. Brown and Borko (1992) re-
garded learning to teach as the acquisition of knowledge
systems or schemata; cognitive skills such as pedagogi-
cal problem solving and decision-making; and a set of
observable teaching behaviors that simultaneously in-
teract with experience and factors of change. Re-
searchers agree that understanding teacher knowledge
and teacher thinking is critical to understanding teach-
ing and learning how to teach (Berliner, 1986; Clark &
Dunn, 1991; Clark & Peterson, 1986; Fenstermacher,
1994; Grossman, 1995; Leinhardt, Putnam, Stein &
Baxter, 1991; Shulman, 1986).
The context for learning how to teach is another
important consideration. There is evidence to suggest
that preservice teachers benefit from active, learner-
centered constructivist environments (Brindley, 2000;

School Science and Mathematics

 Construction of Teacher Knowledge
Holt-Reynolds, 2000; Kelly, 2000). Teaching and learn-
ing occur in social contexts. Embedded in knowledge
construction is the importance of authentic learning
contexts (Cochran, DeRuiter, & King, 1993) and learn-
ing in social context (Bullough & Gitlin, 1991; Piaget,
1970; Vygotsky, 1978). Situated knowledge is the result
of such activity, content, and culture embedded in
authentic, relevant problem situations. It is believed to
influence knowledge construction and its transferability
(Brown, Collins, & Duguid, 1989). Within this social
context, teacher reflection is seen as an essential factor
for constructing teacher knowledge (Roberson, 2000),
particularly pedagogical content knowledge (Wilson et
al., 1987).
Contemporary foundations in cognitive psychology
provide a developing knowledge base for preparing
teachers. One theoretical model of teacher knowledge
suggests seven domains of teachers’ professional knowl-
edge: knowledge of subject matter, pedagogical con-
tent knowledge, knowledge of other content, knowledge
of the curriculum, knowledge of learners, knowledge of
educational aims, and general pedagogical knowledge
(Shulman & Grossman, 1988; Wilson et al., 1987).
Pedagogical content knowledge (PCK), one particular
interest of this study, is that domain of teachers’ knowl-
edge that combines subject matter knowledge and knowl-
edge of pedagogy (Tobin, Tippins, & Gallard, 1994).
Studies that examine factors affecting the con-
struction of teachers’ knowledge, teacher learning, and
context can make significant contributions in strength-
ening the preparation of teachers and complement a
growing knowledge base for teaching. Research of
PCK is limited in elementary school mathematics and
science. This study was conducted in a school-based
setting focusing on the construction of teacher knowl-
edge in preservice teachers and the construction of
PCK of elementary mathematics and science. These
questions guided the study: (a) How do preservice
teachers construct teacher knowledge and what is the
extent of that construction? (b) How do preservice
teachers construct PCK of elementary mathematics
and science and what is the extent of that knowledge
construction?
Research Methodology, Design, and
Procedures
A case study was chosen for this context-specific
inquiry (as described by Lincoln & Guba, 1985). Data
collection spanning a semester allowed the researcher
to learn the school culture, to build trust, and to develop
rapport to aid credibility. The use of multiple data
Volume 102(2), February 2002
69
sources and methods triangulated information. Con-
text-rich materials provided background meaning to
support data analysis and interpretations. Norms of
qualitative methodology were observed and facilitated
the discovery and extent of knowledge construction by
preservice teachers. Respondents were 31 junior and
senior elementary education majors at a large university
enrolled in a required methods course that fulfills
certification for elementary mathematics and science
instruction. A school-based setting was selected to
allow simultaneous interactions of the complexities
involved in teaching. This social context of school
provided the opportunity to examine how preservice
teachers collectively and individually construct and
reconstruct meaning.
The site for methods instruction was located on a
suburban public elementary school campus (K-5) in a
central Texas school district with an enrollment of 338
students. This campus was state rated with a student
population as high performing and exemplary. The
teaching staff consisted of four team teachers each in
kindergarten, first grade, and second grade; three team
teachers in third grade; and two team teachers each in
fourth and fifth grades. A portable building designated
as the mathematics and science lab was the site of
methods course instruction. Although called a profes-
sional development school, this experience was con-
tent-specific in that the methods course involved only
mathematics and science instruction. This allowed a
more in-depth experience in these content areas for the
preservice teachers.
Within this context, the preservice teachers expe-
rienced a standards-based (NCTM, 1989, 1991, 1995,
2000; NRC, 1996), rather than textbook-based, math-
ematics and science methods course, with immediate
access to field experiences. National standards and
state and local curriculum policies determined the grade
level content that became the foundation of content
study in the methods course. Course goals were to
become informed of national and state standards and to
become reflective practitioners. A constructivist ap-
proach to learning and teaching was modeled, ob-
served, discussed, and implemented. Site-specific tasks
included teaching and tutoring mathematics and sci-
ence to elementary students; designing instructional
materials; and creating family involvement nights. Field
experiences of observation and teaching were negoti-
ated with the schedules of grade level cohort groups of
4-5 preservice teachers and the in-service teachers’
conference and instructional times. These sessions
were specifically generated and designed by in-service
teachers in collaboration with preservice cohorts in
70 Construction of Teacher Knowledge
accordance with the school’s curriculum objectives.
The university instructors performed advisory roles for
field experience activities. The primary instructor is a
veteran science educator, grounded in public school
science, and is currently teaching preservice teachers,
in-service teachers, and graduate students. The re-
searcher (the secondary instructor) is a veteran teacher
of grades preK-8 and preservice teachers with elemen-
tary mathematics and science emphases. Both instruc-
tors believe teaching mathematics and science must
involve appropriate grade-level content with relevant
hands-on/minds-on approaches to learning.
Participant observations, random individual inter-
views and focus group exit interviews, methods course
artifacts, and school artifacts were used to develop a
thick description of the learning context from multiple
perspectives. (See Appendix A.) Required products
from coursework used as data sources were written
assignments, anonymous weekly evaluations, a mid-
term assessment project, reflective journals, summative
portfolios, and a final assessment document. Various
course tasks included evaluation, synthesis, and imple-
mentation of teaching strategies and national standards;
participation in inquiry and discovery activities; and
participation in professional development activities with
in-service teachers. The use of constructivist instruc-
tional strategies and authentic assessment were inte-
gral components of the experience. The methods course
included topic contents and methods instruction in
mathematics, science, and the integration of mathemat-
ics and science. Classroom lessons were designed and
taught by preservice cohorts under the guidance of the
in-service teachers and course instructors. Weekly
class meetings were divided into direct methods course
experiences and field experiences. A collaborative
environment was created by the attributes of the
setting, the methods course, and the personnel.
Analysis of Data
The data were processed following the suggested
steps of synthesis of a constant comparative method
adapted from Glaser and Strauss (1967). The data
analysis chart (Appendix B) presents the order of
procedures involved in the stages of analysis. Descrip-
tive rules for the stages of analysis were devised that
rendered each internally consistent. Inclusion and ex-
clusion decisions were recorded in the researcher’s
reflexive journal. This ongoing analysis enabled deter-
mination of source exhaustion, category saturation,
emergence of regularities, and overextension in data
collection (Lincoln & Guba, 1985). Peer debriefing was
School Science and Mathematics
utilized throughout each stage of analysis. The first
stage of analysis involved unitizing the data. Two
methods were used: note cards and note strips (com-
puter generated); and computer-unit segmentation of
data (Erlandson, Harris, Skipper, & Allen, 1993). Each
unit coded the source, the type of respondent/infor-
mant, the episode, and other data that emerged. Sorting
was performed during the second stage of analysis
using the units of data (identified areas of learning) to
bring together provisional categories that were related
(learning components). Inclusion was determined based
on the similarity of at least 10% of responses. The third
stage of analysis sorted learning components into
predetermined learning categories. Evidence of teacher
knowledge and PCK emerged from these analyses. As
no new categories emerged, the next stage of analysis
was initiated.
Extensive subsequent analysis in the fourth stage of
analysis provided more depth in understanding the
knowledge construction by preservice teachers in this
setting. Learning components within the learning cat-
egories were found to be interactive, concurrent con-
nections between and among categories. From this final
analysis, learning in this setting was discovered to be an
interactive process that suggested an active form of
acquisition, termed by the researcher as a learning
venue. The origin and extent of knowledge construc-
tion was determined by learning venues. Learning
components were sorted into corresponding learning
venues. (See Appendix C.) Knowledge is constructed
by the preservice teachers through these learning
venues. This was developed from a grounded theoreti-
cal perspective.
Results
There were many elements interacting within this
collaborative environment. The elementary school cam-
pus, the in-service teachers, the principal, and the
elementary students comprised the School System.
Elements of the University System were the preservice
teachers, the methods course, and the course instruc-
tors. This collaborative learning environment provided
the context for the construction of knowledge by the
preservice teachers. Although each working system is
capable of functioning autonomously, placing these
systems in a school-based setting allowed and necessi-
tated the collaborative interaction. A direct result of the
interactions between the systems and among the ele-
ments of each system created the situated learning
context. As the two systems interactively merged in the
school-based setting, a third system was created. The
 Construction of Teacher Knowledge
researcher termed this third system the “Cohort of
Learners System,” (See Appendix D.)
Characteristics and attributes of each element
contributed to the strength of reciprocal interactions
resulting in the creation of this third system. The Cohort
of Learners System provided the arena for situated
learning. The reported and observed results indicated
there were two distinctive, influential, and active ele-
ments within the Cohort of Learners System. These
were the “dailiness of school” (patterned after
Lieberman and Miller, 1978) and the methods course.
The two systems merged as the preservice teachers
realized the dailiness of school. The demands of the
collaborative aspects of the methods course were
conducive for system interactions. Preservice teach-
ers, in-service teachers, course instructors, as well as
other school personnel, collaborated and negotiated the
teaching and learning experiences framed by the stan-
dards-based methods course. From these efforts, pre-
determined learning categories were identified. These
categories were the foundational emphasis addressed
by the preservice teachers in the summative portfolio:
(a) Learning from teachers; (b) learning from children;
(c) learning from the methods course and instructors;
and (d) learning from self, peers, and others.
These categories created a framework for report-
ing the construction and extent of teacher knowledge
and PCK in mathematics and science by preservice
teachers. Data analysis confirmed and verified these
categories. The selection and structure of the school-
based context, the methods course, and the involvement
of all elements in both systems provided the crucial
foundation for the collaborative interactions. The Co-
hort of Learners System developed and flourished as a
result of the interactive contributions. Data analysis
confirmed that learning occurred and was nurtured in
this situated learning context.
The preservice teachers did acquire teacher knowl-
edge in this school-based context. Data analysis re-
vealed that learning components of teacher knowledge
and PCK in mathematics and science were identified in
learning categories. However, analyses displayed a
crossover and overlap of components between and
among categories. Merely listing the learning catego-
ries and learning components was determined to be an
insufficient response to the purpose of the study.
Further data analysis was performed to determine how
preservice teachers construct this knowledge and the
extent of that construction.
A redundancy of the learning components was
present in the four learning categories. Preservice
teachers did not learn about classroom management
Volume 102(2), February 2002
71
only from the methods course and instructors. They
learned from elementary students, from in-service
teachers, and from themselves and their peers. A
continual, repetitious appearance of learning compo-
nents surfaced from one category to another. This was
interpreted by the researcher to represent an active
state of learning. The term “knowledge construction”
suggested that another dimension of learning was
generated within this school-based context. Tracing the
common appearances of learning components created
pathways of learning between and among learning
categories. Further analysis implied that these path-
ways were the missing links in determining how knowl-
edge was constructed and the extent to which that
construction occurred. An active form of knowledge
acquisition existed in these pathways. The researcher
envisioned these active processes as venues. This form
of knowledge acquisition in this context was discovered
and defined by the researcher as a “learning venue.”
Learning Venues
The descriptions of these learning venues are
presented as separate entities; yet, they are interactive,
vibrant, and alive. Learning venues share common
strands of learning components. Venue figures consist
of those predominantly identified learning components
for reporting purposes. The learning venues are learn-
ing through collaboration; learning through reflection;
learning through exemplary models; and learning through
situated context. (See Appendix C.) In the Cohort of
Learners System, the existence of knowledge gain was
actively orchestrated, scaffolded, and constructed
through the learning venues. The acquisition, the dimen-
sions, and the context of teacher knowledge and PCK
are evidenced in these learning venue descriptions.
Data analysis revealed that common strands (espe-
cially, group dynamics, negotiation, and cohort interac-
tion) further substantiate the strength of the interactive
nature of the learning venues. The learning reported
here originates from all data sources, as described
earlier. (See Appendix A.) The excerpts that follow
were selected to be the most revealing and indicative of
common responses made by the preservice teachers in
the data. (See Appendix E for data reference codes.)
Learning Through Collaboration
Collaborative efforts from each element were vital
for knowledge construction. The preservice teachers
became familiar with their in-service teachers’ identi-
fying attributes of enthusiasm, flexibility, patience, cre-
ativity, and motivation. Actually designing and
72 Construction of Teacher Knowledge
implementing lessons that were valid, existing curricula
was a tremendous source of knowledge growth. Through
this collaborative venue, the preservice teachers learned
about, from, and with children.
How can a teacher learn from a student? Actually,
it is very easy and happens constantly. Children
have a great deal to offer. They represent a large
variation in learning styles, interests, abilities,
etc....We all can learn so much from one another if
we listen...Children have a great deal to offer and
share, and I have learned that I need to take that into
account when I am teaching, because it really isn’t
my room; it’s ours. (PF: 20.7)
From experiences with the elementary students,
the preservice teachers constructed teacher knowl-
edge and PCK in mathematics and science. Learning to
think on one’s feet and to be able to adapt teaching to
meet the needs of students exemplifies developing
PCK. Preservice teachers learned grade level appro-
priateness, content, and lesson structure and execution,
as well as PCK.
The kids really enjoyed this center because they got
to touch and feel the insides of a pumpkin. I think it
was neat for them to get such a tactile experience.
I did notice that some for the kids did not want to get
the pumpkin stuff on their hands. It never occurred
to me that children wouldn’t want to get messy,
because I loved getting sticky and gooey as a child.
I let the kids who didn’t want to touch the stuff stand
back and watch or count seeds with a spoon. (LN:
19.5)
Today we worked with individual children who
were having trouble with borrowing and subtrac-
tion. [One boy] didn’t really understand when to
borrow and when not to borrow. I picked up that he
wasn’t understanding the concept with the way his
teacher was explaining it to him. So I took a
different approach, and I could see that he truly
understood the concept after I explained it. At this
point, I would tell his confidence was boosted and
he had more enthusiasm. Seeing his excitement
made me feel great. I had actually taught him
something. (PF: 6.4)
Direct interaction in the classroom provided needed
experiences in classroom management, the logistics of
teaching, and exposure and interaction with the value,
content, structure, and use of national standards. Team
teaching, teaching styles, and group dynamics were
evidenced in collaborative efforts. Continual, open lines
of communication were maintained. Negotiation of
miscommunication gave way to learning situations for
all personnel. The researcher functioned as a coordinator
School Science and Mathematics
and mediator of potential discord among all groups.
Through observation, mediation was determined. Mutual
respect, trust, and acceptance were imperative.
Teachers should work collaboratively to use the
standards for math and science in their curriculum
so that our teaching and learning in these subjects
will improve in our schools...I have also learned that
we should develop an inquiry-based program and
assess the students learning from their inquiry...
You have also taught us that we should believe in
ourselves and that confidence is the key to success
in teaching...I have learned more in this class this
semester about teaching than I have learned in any
other education class... (PF: 28.6)
When teaching science lessons, preservice teach-
ers identified knowledge growth. Responses highlighted
the value of active learning, the use of manipulatives,
the importance of group dynamics, and teacher’s pro-
cedural knowledge. Learning from the mathematics
lessons revealed an increase in mathematics under-
standing and student cognition levels, the importance of
hands-on manipulatives and real-world relevancy, as
well as the need for a variety of instructional strategies
and teacher knowledge.
Not only have I learned a lot from and about the
children while learning math and science, but I have
also learned with them! I have learned more about
leaves, flowers, buoyancy, gravity, logic and verte-
brates/invertebrates this semester all from the boys
and girls... (PF: 28.5)
Learning about children doing mathematics and
science (PCK) was experienced daily.
The first most significant change in myself was the
ideas I had about teaching science and the impor-
tance of being a constant learner. This was defi-
nitely a gradual change over the semester. Before
entering this course, I never understood the impor-
tance of being completely informed and knowl-
edgeable about the science content taught in the
classroom. I did not realize the advanced knowl-
edge many students have in scientific content and
my lacking knowledge in many areas. (FE:Q4:25)
With teaching science you need to be sure that the
children are comprehending the experiment/activ-
ity — not just going through the motions. (PSTWE:
Q2:11.8.2)
Science isn’t just fun, hands-on/minds-on activi-
ties. You must foster an understanding of con-
tent literacies, too. (LN: 1.3b)
Through daily negotiations in this problem-solving
context, the cohort interaction experienced by preservice
teachers was a tremendous source of learning. These
 Construction of Teacher Knowledge
collaborations were the result of the Cohort Learning
System. Learning through this school-based collabora-
tion fostered growth in teacher knowledge. The exten-
sive learning reported and documented in these results
is overwhelmingly supportive of the values of collabo-
rative efforts. Exit focus group interviews with the
preservice teachers and the in-service teachers verify
the importance of collaboration. Collaboration with
peers and colleagues is essential for developing quality
professionals.
Learning Through Reflection
Reflective thinking before, during, and after teach-
ing was considered imperative for a thorough teaching
experience by course instructors. The reflective pro-
cess is valued in professional growth and successful
teaching (Dewey, 1933; Kraus & Butler, 2000; Schön,
1987; Valli, 1992). Preservice teachers were continu-
ally encouraged to develop reflective thought as a tool
for developing confidence and competence (autonomy
and self-efficacy) in teaching mathematics and sci-
ence. Knowledge of self as a learner and as teacher
surfaced through the reflective process. This was
encouraged and accomplished through daily journal
entries, informal daily evaluations, and other course
artifacts. Growth in confidence and competence were
reported in the summative portfolios, the final assess-
ment, in weekly evaluations, and documented by re-
searcher observations and in-service teachers’ focus
group interviews.
What I gained from myself in this course was
confidence. What an important and imperative
thing to have! That is the most rewarding discovery
I can carry with me. (PF: 7.9)
During individual interviews, preservice teachers
were asked what they saw as the most important
aspects about science/mathematics teaching that an
elementary teacher should know. Responses suggested
that teachers should work with the students using
hands-on, real-world situations; make lessons relevant
and challenging; realize that abstract concepts are hard;
have more problem solving; know the students; act as
a facilitator of learning; and integrate mathemathics and
science, as well as other areas. The importance and
value of content was apparent through the reflective
venue. The preservice teachers came to terms with
their own attitudes toward mathematics and science, as
was evidenced in the data. This content-specific, school-
based setting promoted many opportunities for
preservice teachers to develop confidence and
competence in learning to teach elementary mathematics
and science. The researcher and in-service teachers
Volume 102(2), February 2002
73
indicated in the data that the growth in posture of the
preservice teachers had a tremendous effect on their
observed performances.
I also feel that I have gained confidence in my
knowledge of mathematics and science. I always
enjoyed these subjects, but did not feel confident
about my knowledge until now. This was such a
valuable experience, because I will carry this con-
fidence with me during my teaching career. (FE:
Q4: 19)
I have always been afraid of math and science. I
have never been good at either one because they
were boring and abstract to me. Through this
semester, I have learned ways to make math and
science relevant, fun, and interesting. I now enjoy
learning scientific things and events and look for-
ward to teaching them. (FE: Q4: 13)
The greatest area I feel I can improve in is my
knowledge base of scientific concepts. This course
proved to me there are many content areas I could
be teaching and in some ways I am scientifically
illiterate. (PF: 4.27)
Now I know that the best way to teach these
subjects is through discovery and exploration,
connecting math and science to the real world is
vital. I feel more confident about math and science
as I enter student teaching. (FE: Q4.6)
Achieving acceptance into the school culture was
instrumental in the development of self-efficacy, as the
preservice teachers became effective members. The
quality and depth of the reflections grew over the
semester. The researcher’s journal indicates the tre-
mendous growth in reflective clarity and depth ob-
served in reading the reflections by the preservice
teachers throughout the semester. Promoting reflective
teaching was a course goal that was deemed achieved
as a result of observation and documentation. Preservice
teachers confronted their own learning and the extent
of that learning through their summative portfolio as-
sessment. Responses specifically identified knowledge
acquisition of teacher knowledge and PCK.
The classifying activity that I had planned took
them less than five minutes. By the time the center
was finished, I was grasping in the air to find things
to say. This taught me to always be overprepared. I
should have had a few “back-up” ideas. Also, I
needed to have more critical thinking questions in
mind. The next time we did these centers, I modified
my lesson and it went very smoothly. Learning from
and modifying lessons is very important. (PF: 16.7)
Learning attributed to interacting with mathematics
and science lessons included: content knowledge; the
74 Construction of Teacher Knowledge
importance of hands-on/manipulatives; relevancy; in-
structional strategies; group dynamics; and student at-
tributes and cognition (ability and levels). Instructional
strategies were identified and implemented, as well as
effective questioning, timing, lesson planning, classroom
management, preparation, and authentic assessment.
This collaborative interaction was a relevant, au-
thentic learning environment for preservice teachers.
Reflection revealed that group dynamics and problem
solving were only successful after terms of negotiation
were established. Through this venue, preservice teach-
ers were able to track their learning, evaluate their
learning, and project their learning. Construction of
teacher knowledge and PCK was present throughout
the summative portfolios. Individual and focus group
interviews, researcher observations, and other data sources
confirmed, verified, and supported these results.
Learning Through Exemplary Models
In-service teachers, video teachers, course in-
structors, and other preservice teachers were exem-
plary models employed in this venue.
The teachers and the reactions from their students
taught me that their way of teaching math and
science by reading textbooks was not successful.
(PF: 6.6)
The national standards for mathematics and sci-
ence and the state standards were used as guidelines
for the teaching and learning experiences addressing
skills, processes, and subject matter content. Involve-
ment with a variety of instructional strategies provided
opportunities for knowledge growth. Practicing and
experimenting with questioning techniques was instru-
mental in the development of teaching strategies. A
variety of classroom management techniques were
demonstrated, analyzed, implemented, and adapted
within this methods course. Efforts were made by
course instructors to provide learning experiences that
challenged the mindset of the preservice teachers. It
was imperative that new ways of teaching and learning
become part of their beliefs system. In order to do this,
the constructivist learning approach offered the
preservice teachers experiences in mathematics and
science as both learner and teacher.
Simply hearing methods to implement is not enough.
Learning becomes real as we see management
taking place. We cannot predict what we will have
to handle from the children, but seeing teachers
handling problems makes the information more real
and meaningful. (PF: 7.5)
Exemplary models provided and demonstrated
professional development, professionalism, lesson
School Science and Mathematics
planning, effective curriculum, discipline management,
assessment, grade-level appropriateness, and more.
These excerpts revealed the acquisition of teacher
knowledge and PCK through specifically designed
course tasks that placed the preservice teacher in the
posture of the learner.
This opportunity provided by the instructors gave
me a deeper understanding of these concepts
because I was actually engaged in the activity.
Being in the position of the child helped me to learn
how vital it is to utilize these instructional methods
to grasp children’s attention and maintain their
interest. (PF: 4.18)
I learned that real learning takes place when given
meaningful and relevant hands-on/minds-on activi-
ties. I learned more about math myself through this
course. I feel more sure of my ability to teach math
in the classroom (use of manipulatives and activi-
ties allowing children to think, problem-solve, con-
struct number concepts, etc.). (FE: Q4.17)
I feel now that science and math are very important
skills for children. My attitude about how to go
about teaching them has changed. I think that I
have become more concerned with hands-on ac-
tivities and discovery learning. The children learn
so much more by becoming involved in the lesson
and experimenting themselves. (FE: Q4.21)
I think that the most valuable thing I learned ... is the
power of inquiry. My group used this tool in every
lesson we taught. It means so much more for the
child to discover on their own why something
happens and how to alter the results....The most
influential process I can give to my children is
problem solving and discovering on their own. The
feeling as we manipulated our helicopters for them
to become just what we wanted them to be cannot
be matched. We had so much fun with that activity
that we did not even know we were learning about
gravity and free fall. We were allowed to bring
prior knowledge into our thought processes and
change our helicopter to what we wanted it to be.
(PF: 30.7)
I liked seeing all the manipulatives and I like playing
with them. This is helpful because some of them I
had never experienced before. (PSTWE: Q1.10.5).
I am much more confident after this semester. This
change was gradual because I was terrified at first.
After I was in the classroom, my confidence began
to build each week. (FE: Q4: 10)
Data confirm that learning was attributed to the
interactive and collaborative nature of the learning
environment. The transfer and application of learning
 Construction of Teacher Knowledge
concerning exemplary models were well represented in
specific course tasks data. Evidence that the preservice
teachers had taken ownership of many of the models
was overwhelming, as documented in interviews, port-
folios, and observations. The researcher’s and in-
service teachers’ classroom observations over the
semester revealed a continual pattern of emerging
growth in teacher knowledge demonstrated by the
preservice teachers. In-service teachers reported that
they, too, had opportunities to observe new ways of
teaching and learning elementary mathematics and
science. Learning components emerged through group
dynamics, negotiation, and cohort interaction through
this exemplary models venue.
Learning Through Situated Context
Identified learning components indicated acquisi-
tion of teacher knowledge and PCK of mathematics
and science through this venue. Learning occurred in
this situated learning context. There were many oppor-
tunities for preservice teachers to apply and transfer
learning (theory to practice) through authentic learning
experiences. There were “real” teachers, “real” chil-
dren, “real” lessons, in a “real” school.
My experience allowed me to apply the techniques
which I have learned in my courses to real teaching
situations. This professional development school
experience was, itself, an application of the “hands-
on, minds-on” learning which I have been taught to
provide my students with. It presented me, a
preservice teacher, with real world teaching and
problem solving opportunities. Through experience
and cooperative learning, I was able to determine
solutions to complex situations. I learned from
experience the necessity for a teacher to possess
the qualities of flexibility, persistence, and confi-
dence. (PF: 19.9)
Teaching strategies were planned, implemented,
adjusted, and evaluated by the preservice teachers as
both teacher and learner. This was done in collaboration
with the in-service teachers, other cohort groups, and
the researcher. This fostered more opportunities for
knowledge growth. The researcher observed a meta-
morphic evolution from apprehensive, shy preservice
teachers to cohorts of confident and competent novice
teachers. The school-based context of this methods
course was critical in fostering many areas of learning.
Developing collaboration, classroom management, team
teaching, communication skills, planning, cooperation,
confidence and competency with mathematics and
science, and learning about children were among many
of the benefits.
Volume 102(2), February 2002
75
I have noticed that the children are not the only ones
learning. I have learned so much from the children
just by being able to work with them in their
classroom. I learned about the ways they think
about things in the world around them. I also
learned that the children see things in ways I teach
that I never saw before. I am able to see how the
theories and methods of teaching math and science
apply to children. I have been able to observe how
the children use math and science and apply it to
their daily living. Through this course, I am not only
learning math and science methods, but I am also
learning about myself and how I can best work with
children. (PF: 13.3)
Mathematics and science content learning was
experienced as a group and individually. Many preservice
teachers had limited or no meaningful experiences with
mathematics and science content. There were “Aha’s”
while working as learners in content activities. On a
weekly evaluation form, one preservice teacher re-
ported that the most important thing she had learned in
science this week was “not to teach science the way I
was taught!” Preservice teachers researched and
learned many mathematics and science concepts prior
to teaching the elementary students. The importance of
content learning and subject matter was evidenced in
planning and teaching lessons for the elementary chil-
dren. Preservice teachers valued content learning in the
role of teacher and as learner.
A sense of belonging and acceptance in the school
culture was achieved as the semester progressed.
Trust and respect were exhibited as the preservice
teachers assumed responsibility for the elementary
students’ learning. Group dynamics and cohort interac-
tion through negotiation were factors in the quality and
depth of learning. The dailiness of school can only be
realized in such a situated context. The preservice
teachers were exposed to the events and unscheduled
sequencing of situations that occur daily in a multitude
of ways while teaching school. This enculturation,
originated and accomplished from this immersion, fos-
tered the development of teacher knowledge and PCK
through the situated context venue.
Summary
The purpose of this study was to determine how
and to what extent preservice teachers construct teacher
knowledge and PCK of elementary mathematics and
science. The school-based methods course, based on
the national mathematics and science standards, was
content-specific, limited to mathematics and science
76 Construction of Teacher Knowledge
instruction. A constructivist instructional approach was
implemented to facilitate preservice teachers’ learning
as promoted through the national standards. The use of
authentic assessment within this context promoted new
ways of teaching and learning. The school-based con-
text provided the collaborative setting. The course
instructors and in-service teachers orchestrated and
scaffolded learning that enabled the preservice teach-
ers to construct teacher knowledge. The findings con-
firmed the acquisition of teacher knowledge and PCK
of mathematics and science by the preservice teachers.
The extent of knowledge construction was revealed.
The learning reported fulfills conceptions of teacher
knowledge (Adams & Krockover, 1997) and of PCK
(Grossman, 1990). Repetitious reports of learning were
embedded in the data responses from multiple sources.
This confirms and verifies knowledge construction.
The redundancy of the responses suggested that teacher
knowledge and PCK became part of the schemata of
the preservice teachers (as described by Anderson,
1984). Findings confirm that learning did occur.
Identified learning components were framed by
predetermined, data verified, learning categories. These
four learning categories contained learning components
that were shared and overlapped. Categorized evi-
dences of learning did not portray how knowledge was
constructed or the extent of learning acquired by
preservice teachers. Through further analysis, the re-
searcher envisioned knowledge construction to involve
active processes. Learning was not stagnant, but full of
motion radiating in every direction and was a direct
result of the interactive nature of this context. The term,
learning venue, was chosen to actively illustrate the
“construction” of knowledge. Active forms of knowl-
edge acquisition, learning venues, were discovered that
accommodated for crossover, repetition, and blending
of the categories. These learning venues were discov-
ered: learning through collaboration; learning through
reflection; learning through exemplary models; and
learning through situated context. Learning venues
diminished the boundaries of the predetermined learn-
ing categories and illustrated active learning processes.
This was achieved as the elements of the School
System and the University System joined and enhanced
the formation of an interactive Cohort of Learners
System. (See Appendix C.)
Data analysis revealed that these learning venues
provided the means for the preservice teachers to
acquire the ends, teacher knowledge and PCK of
elementary mathematics and science. How was con-
struction of teacher knowledge and PCK in mathemat-
ics and science achieved in this setting? Learning
School Science and Mathematics
venues were the conduits of knowledge construction.
Learning venues only existed due to the presence of the
attributes of the study: the content-specific methods
course, the elements within the working systems; the
collaborative interactions of these systems; the school-
based context; and the constructivist learning environ-
ment. What was the extent of knowledge construction?
A typical, school-based setting offers methods instruc-
tion in all content areas simultaneously and may be
quite overwhelming for preservice teachers. The depth
and strength of teacher knowledge construction was
enhanced in this study, as methods instruction was
limited to mathematics and science. The extent of
the construction of PCK in mathematics and science
was, in particular, fostered by the content-specific
attribute of this school-based experience. Preservice
teachers, as well as other data sources, revealed the
extent of knowledge construction in this setting.
That extent is embedded in the reported results and
will be manifested in the future classrooms of these
preservice teachers.
These findings have implications for the prepara-
tion of teachers. Typical on-campus methods courses
do not allow for immediate access to teaching elemen-
tary children in real-world situations. School-based
methods courses allow preservice teachers immersion
in authentic learning experiences and context. The
acquisition, dimensions, and social context of the con-
struction of teacher knowledge have been revealed
from the results of this study. What better place to learn
to teach than to be in a school context immersed in the
culture and dailiness of school? Only through a situated
context of school could these preservice teachers
experience their chosen profession. The preparation of
teachers in authentic methods and contexts is a valid
alternative to the limitations of campus-based prepara-
tion. As in this study, content-specific, school-based
experiences may afford preservice teachers greater
opportunities to focus on content and instructional
strategies at deeper levels; to address anxieties typi-
cally associated with the teaching of elementary math-
ematics and science; and to become more confident
and competent teachers.
The discovery of the learning venues was inher-
ent on the specific attributes of this study. It is
reasonable that further investigation of this context
is warranted. Another in-depth analysis of the data is
planned. It is anticipated that the interactions in this
context concerning the acquisition of teacher knowl-
edge and PCK through learning venues will reveal yet
another level of understanding of the waysteacher
knowledge is constructed.
 Construction of Teacher Knowledge
References
Adams, P. E., & Krockover, G. H. (1997). Beginning
science teacher cognition and its origins in the preservice
secondary science teacher program. Journal of
Research in Science Teaching, 34(6), 633-653.
Anderson, R. (1984). Some reflections on the
acquisition of knowledge. Educational Researcher,
13(10), 5-10.
Berliner, D. (1986). In search of the expert
pedagogue. Educational Researcher, 15(7), 5-13.
Brindley, R. (2000). Learning to walk the walk:
Teacher educators’ use of constructivist epistemology
in their own practice. Professional Educator, 22(2),
1-14.
Brown, C. A., & Borko, H. (1992). Becoming a
mathematics teacher. In D. A. Grouws (Ed.), Handbook
of research on mathematics teaching and learning
(pp. 209-239). Macmillan: National Council of Teachers
of Mathematics.
Brown, J., Collins, A., & Duguid, P. (1989). Situated
cognition and the culture of learning. Educational
Researcher, 18(1), 32-42.
Bullough, R., & Gitlin, A. (1991). Educative
communities and the development of the reflective
practitioner. In R. Tabachnick & K. Zeichner (Eds.),
Issues and practices in inquiry-oriented teacher
education (pp. 33-55). London: Falmer.
Calderhead, J. (Ed.). (1987). Exploring teachers’
thinking. London: Cassell.
Carlsen, W. S. (1991). Subject-matter knowledge
and science teaching: A pragmatic perspective. In J. E.
Brophy (Ed.), Advances in research on teaching (pp.
115-143). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.
Clark, C., & Dunn, S. (1991). Second-generation
research on teachers’ planning, intentions, and routines.
In H. C. Waxman & H. J. Walberg (Eds.), Effective
teaching: Current research (pp. 183-201). Berkeley,
CA: McCutchan.
Clark, C. M., & Peterson, P. L. (1986). Teachers’
thought processes. In M. C. Wittrock (Ed.), Handbook
of research on teaching (3rd ed.) (pp. 255-296). New
York: Macmillan.
Cochran, K., DeRuiter, J. A., & King, R. A. (1993).
Pedagogical content knowing: An integrative model for
teacher preparation. Journal of Teacher Education,
44(4), 263-272.
Cuban, L. (1984). How teachers taught:
Constancy and change in American classrooms:
1890-1980. New York: Longman.
Volume 102(2), February 2002
77
Dewey, J. (1933). How we think. Boston: Heath.
Erlandson, D., Harris, E., Skipper, B., & Allen, S.
(1993). Doing naturalistic inquiry: A guide to
methods. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Fenstermacher, G. D. (1994). The knower and the
known: The nature of knowledge in research on teaching.
In L. Darling-Hammond (Ed.), Review of Research in
Education (Vol. 20, pp. 3-56). Washington, DC:
American Educational Research Association.
Glaser, B., & Strauss, A. (1967). The discovery of
grounded theory. Chicago: Aldine.
Grossman, P. (1990). The making of a teacher:
Teacher knowledge and teacher education. New
York: Teachers’ College.
Grossman, P. (1995). Teachers’ knowledge. In L.
W. Anderson (Ed.), International encyclopedia of
teaching and teacher education (2nd ed., pp. 20-24).
New York: Pergamon.
Holt-Reynolds, D. (2000). What does the teacher
do: Constructivist pedagogies and prospective teachers’
beliefs about the role of a teacher. Teaching and
Teacher Education, 16(1), 21-32.
Kelly, J. (2000). Rethinking the elementary science
methods course: A case for content, pedagogy and
informal science education. International Journal of
Science Education, 22(7), 55-77.
Kraus, S., & Butler, K. (2000). Reflection is not
description: Cultivating reflection with preservice
teachers. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the
American Association of Colleges for Teacher
Education. Chicago, IL.
Leinhardt, G., Putnam, R. T., Stein, M. K., &
Baxter, J. (1991). Where subject knowledge matters.
In J. E. Brophy (Ed.), Advances in research on
teaching (pp. 87-113). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.
Lieberman, A., & Miller, L. (1978). The social
realities of teaching. Teachers College Press, 80(1),
54-68.
Lincoln, Y., & Guba, E. (1985). Naturalistic
inquiry. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Lortie, D. (1975). Schoolteacher: A sociological
study. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
National Council of Teachers of Mathematics.
(1989). Curriculum and evaluation standards for
school mathematics. Reston, VA: Author.
National Council of Teachers of Mathematics.
(1991). Professional standards for the teaching of
school mathematics. Reston, VA: Author.
National Council of Teachers of Mathematics.
(1995). Assessment standards for the teaching of
school mathematics. Reston, VA: Author.
78 Construction of Teacher Knowledge
National Council of Teachers of Mathematics.
(2000). Principles and standards for the teaching of
school mathematics. Reston, VA: Author.
National Research Council. (1996). National
science education standards. Washington, DC:
National Academic Press.
Piaget, J. (1970). Science of education and the
psychology of the child. New York: Viking.
Roberson, T. (2000). Philosophy of philosophy:
Making the connection between philosophy and
pedagogy for preservice teachers. Paper presented
at the Annual Meeting of the Society for Philosophy and
History of Education, Biloxi, MS.
Schön, D. (1987). Educating the reflective
practitioner: Toward a new design for teaching and
learning in the professions. San Francisco, CA:
Jossey-Bass.
Shulman, L. (1986). Paradigms and research
programs in the study of teaching: A contemporary
perspective. In M. Wittrock (Ed.), Handbook of
research on teaching (3rd ed., pp. 3-36). New York:
Macmillan.
Shulman, L., & Grossman, P. (1988). Knowledge
growth in teaching: A final report to the Spencer
Foundation. Stanford, CA: Stanford University.
Sizer. T. (1991). No pain, no gain. Educational
Leadership, 48(8), 32-34.
Stallings J., & Kowalski, T. (1990). Research on
professional development schools. In W. Houston (Ed.),
Handbook of research on teacher education (pp.
251-263). New York: Macmillan.
School Science and Mathematics
Tobin, K., Tippins, D., & Gallard, A. (1994).
Research on instructional strategies for teaching science.
In D. Gable (Ed.), Handbook of research on science
teaching and learning: A project of the National
Science Teachers Association (pp. 45-93). New York:
Macmillan.
Valli, L. (Ed.). (1992). Reflective teacher
education: Cases and critiques. Albany, NY: State
University of New York Press.
Vygotsky, L. (1978). Mind in society. Cambridge,
UK: Cambridge University Press.
Wiebe, A. (1987). A model of learning and five-star
lessons. In AIMS Project Bulletin (pp. 8-12). Fresno,
CA: Fresno College Press.
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.
104-124). London: Cassell.
Editors’ Note: Correspondence concerning this
article should be addressed to Norene Vail Lowery,
Mathematics Education, Department of Curriculum &
Instruction, University of Houston, 4800 Calhoun Street,
Houston, TX 77204-5027.
Electronic mail may be sent via Internet to
nlowery@uh.edu
 Construction of Teacher Knowledge 79

Appendix A
Descriptive Profile Of Data Sources

PRESERVICE TEACHERS. Individual interviews: One volunteer preservice teacher from each grade level
group. Others were selected redundancy. Focus group exit interviews: Included all participating members of
the preservice teachers’ grade level teaching cohort. Weekly evaluations: Completed as an ongoing source of
evaluation and innovative class adjustments. Reflective journals: One of the goals of this experience for the
preservice teachers is to become comfortable with and proficient at scientific and mathematical investigations of
everyday phenomena. During the course, the preservice teachers were asked to keep careful track of
investigations pursued for in-class activities and in their teaching. The records should include, for example,
questions asked while investigating, predictions made (along with reasons for the predictions), observations,
experiments, and any conclusions or generalizations drawn. Reflections about learning during the process should
be kept to better empathize with children when helping them engage in inquiry. This should include entries for every
class meeting, weekly evaluations, reflections, planning sessions, laboratory, and so on. It should be a complete
representation of the daily events of this course and its components. Final Assessment: Four structured questions
addressing learning experience and the course content. Portfolios: A portfolio is required that provides evidence
and documents the details of how the preservice teachers planned, prepared, executed, and evaluated the tasks
that were performed. The portfolio documents the process as well as the products. The reflection part of the
portfolio will detail the involvement and personal evaluation of the individual’s own involvement and participation
in the group task. The predetermined four learning categories determined the sections of the portfolio. (Required
course task.) IN-SERVICE TEACHERS: Structured questions used to initiate discussion with allowances for
further discussion with open-ended questions for individual interviews and focus group interviews. OTHERS
(Principal, librarian, course instructors): Structured questions used to initiate discussion with allowances for further
discussion with open-ended questions for interviews. FIELD NOTES: This is a daily record of all events that
occurred within the realm of the researcher and that involvement of this methods course. ARTIFACTS FILE:
Collection of documents received during this semester from school district, campus mail, and other appropriate
communications. REFLEXIVE JOURNAL: The researcher’s record of investigative decisions, embellish-
ments, questions, and pondering while researching this context and its participants.

SAMPLE INQUIRY QUESTIONS—-PART A: PRESERVICE TEACHERS

Individual Preservice Teachers
Tell about any memorable experiences you have had in science/mathematics as a child? What about college? Talk
about the major areas that make science/mathematics a field or discipline? Tell how and if the areas are related.
What have you found to be the most important aspects about science/mathematics teaching that a teacher should
know? Is there anything particular about teaching science/mathematics that is different from teaching other
content areas? What would be your goals for your students in learning science/mathematics? What strengths and/
or weaknesses when teaching science/mathematics will you bring to the classroom? Tell me what your main
reasons are for becoming a teacher. What formal experiences do you believe have influenced your teaching
experiences and your conception of teaching? How important are field experiences are in education courses?
What have been the benefits of this experience to preservice teachers that you have observed? to practicing
teachers? What have been the disadvantages to preservice teachers? to practicing teachers? What were your
initial thoughts about this arrangement? What are your present thoughts?
Grade Level Focus Groups Questions
What were your initial thoughts about this arrangement for the field experience? Were there apprehensions? How
is this different than other experiences in which you have participated? As the experience proceeded, did you
develop any goals for yourself and your group? Summarize and evaluate working in your grade level group. What
have you learned from this field experience? from your grade level teachers? from your elementary students? from
your instructors? from your peers? from the standards from other sources? from yourself? Has this interactive
experience influenced how you intend to teach mathematics and science in any way? What suggestions would
you offer for improvement?

Volume 102(2), February 2002

80 Construction of Teacher Knowledge

Weekly Evaluation Form Questions

Keep this sheet in your notebook. At the end of the large-group session, you will be asked to answer these questions
anonymously... You may make a carbon for your notebook so that you may track your attitudes throughout the
semester. (These responses would be appropriate inclusions for your portfolio.) What was the BEST THING about
class this week?; What was ONE THING ABOUT TEACHING SCIENCE and MATH that you learned that you
will remember for a long, long time?; A SUGGESTION or CONCERN.
Final Assessment Task
Use the material you have accumulated during this semester to develop a list of items to include in an integrated
lesson format for use in your school district. For each item, explain why you would include it in the format. Make
a list of all of the science lessons/mathematics lessons you and/or your group have taught this semester (include
dates). Describe each lesson and your involvement in the lesson in no more than 2 sentences. Include a final
sentence that summarizes what you learned from the experiences . Think about the most significant changes that
have occurred in you, your thinking, your knowledge, your attitudes, and your skills. These changes have occurred
in relation to what? Your knowledge about yourself? Your knowledge about teaching? Your knowledge about
mathematics an/or science teaching? Were these changes gradual or was there a definite turning point? Please
identify, discuss and characterize that change (as gradual or abrupt for THREE of the most significant changes that
you have experienced. Each should have direct connections to your preparation to be an elementary teacher of
mathematics and science.
SAMPLE INQUIRY QUESTIONS—PART B: OTHER DATA SOURCES
Interview Questions: Individual Inservice Teachers/Course Instructors
Tell about any memorable experiences you have had in science/mathematics as a child? What about college? Talk
about the major areas that make science/mathematics a field or discipline? Tell how and if the areas are related.
What have you found to be the most important aspects about science/mathematics teaching that a teacher should
know? Is there anything particular about teaching science/mathematics that is different from teaching other content
areas? What would be your goals for your students in learning science/mathematics? What strengths and/or
weaknesses when teaching science/mathematics do you bring to the classroom? Tell me what your main reasons
are for becoming a teacher. What formal experiences have influenced your teaching? How important are field
experiences are in education courses? What have been the benefits of this experience to preservice teachers that
you have observed? to practicing teachers? What have been the disadvantages to preservice teachers? to
practicing teachers? What were your initial thoughts about this arrangement? What are your present thoughts?
Focus Group Exit Interview Questions For In-service Teachers
What were your initial thoughts about this arrangement for the field experience? Were there apprehensions? How
is this different than other experiences in which you have participated? As the experience proceeded, did you
develop any goals for the preservice teachers? What, if anything, have you learned from this field experience? Has
this interactive experience influenced your teaching of mathematics or science in any way? What suggestions would
you offer for improvement?
Interview Questions With Support Personnel
What was the best thing about having students working with this school? How important are field experiences in
education courses? Tell about any of your mathematics and science teaching or learning experiences? What have
been the benefits of this experience to preservice teachers? to the practicing teachers? What have been the
disadvantages to preservice teachers? to practicing teachers? What were your initial thoughts about this
arrangement? What are you present thoughts? Suggestions for next semester. Any concern that you may have
regarding this experience.

School Science and Mathematics

 Construction of Teacher Knowledge 81

Appendiix B
Data Analysis Chart

DATA:
All original data

PRELIMINARY
PREPARATION STAGE FIRST STAGE ANALYSIS
Data unitized and/or treated
Segmented Data:
holistic:
All data sources divided into two
segments Areas of Learning Identified

THIRD STAGE ANALYSIS

SECOND STAGE ANALYSIS
Data categorized:
Data sorted: Areas of Learning
Learning Components sorted to
sorted to Learning Components Learning Categories

FOURTH STAGE
ANALYSIS
Subsequent Analysis:
Learning Components/
Learning Categories
produce Learning Venues

Volume 102(2), February 2002

82 Construction of Teacher Knowledge

Appendix C
Learning Venues With Learning Components

Learning Learning Learning Learning

through through through through
Collaboration Reflection Exempla ry Situated
Models Context

with these with these with these with these

learning learning learning learning
components components components components

teacher attributes Models: school-based

self
Standards/ immersion in
autonomy
teacher planning TEKS dailiness
self-efficacy
Wiebe's model
discipline & concept learning from
enthusiasm &
classroom mapping children
patience
management videos learning
confidence
about children-
competence
team teaching Strategies: -doing math/
portfolios
teaching styles hands-on/ science
minds-on professional
importance/value
curriculum inquiry- development
of content
discovery
coordination
communication integration belonging/
questioning
tasks acceptance
acceptance by
respect & trust questioning
tea chers&
manipulatives theory to
children
practice & classroom practice
experimenting management authentic
about children
with children about teachers learning
assessment
group
relevancy
group dynamics group dynamics dynamics
group dynamics
negotiation negotiation negotiation
negotiation
cohort cohort cohort
cohort interaction
interaction interaction interaction

to construct-orchestrate-scaffold
Teacher Knowledge

School Science and Mathematics

 Construction of Teacher Knowledge 83

Appendix D
Learning Venues in Context

The
The School Elements
University
System join and enhance
System

forming an
Inservice interactive Preservice
Teachers Cohort of Teachers
Learners System

within a

Elementary School-Based Course

Students Setting Instructors

Other School in a Constructivist Standards-based

Personnel Learning Environment Methods Course

were found to use these venues

for learning how to teach

Learning through Learning through

Collaboration Situated Context

Learning through
Learning through
Exemplary
Reflection
Models

Appendix E
Data Reference Codes

Preservice Teacher Data Source Origin Code Examples

Weekly evaluation form: question: date PSTWE: Q3: 9.4
Lab notebook: student: page LN: 8.3
Final Exams: student: page FE: 21.7
Portfolios: student page PF: 28.6

Volume 102(2), February 2002