The Influence of Discipline on Teachers’ Knowledge and Decision Making

  • Michael PhillipsEmail author
  • Vitomir Kovanović
  • Ian Mitchell
  • Dragan Gašević
Conference paper
Part of the Communications in Computer and Information Science book series (CCIS, volume 1112)


The knowledge required by teachers has long been a focus of public and academic attention. Following a period of intense research interest in teachers’ knowledge in the 1980s and 1990s, many researchers have adopted Shulman’s suggestion that expert teaching practice is based on seven forms of knowledge which collectively are referred to as a knowledge base for teaching. Shulman’s work also offered a decision-making framework known as pedagogical reasoning and action, which allows teachers to use their seven forms of knowledge to make effective pedagogical decisions. Despite the widespread acceptance of these ideas, no empirical evidence exploring the connections between knowledge and decision-making is evident in the research literature. This paper reports on a pilot study in which the connections between knowledge and decisions in science, mathematics and information technology teachers’ lesson plans are quantified and represented using epistemic network analysis. Findings reveal and levels of complexity that have been intimated but, until now, not supported with empirical evidence.


Teacher knowledge Teacher decision making Epistemic network analysis 


  1. 1.
    Shulman, L.S.: Knowledge and teaching: foundations of the new reform. Harvard Educ. Rev. 57(1), 1–22 (1987)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Guerriero, S.: Teachers’ pedagogical knowledge: what it is and how it functions. Educ. Res. Innov., 99–118 (2017)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Ogren, C.A.: Rethinking the “nontraditional” student from a historical perspective: state normal schools in the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries. J. High. Educ. 74(6), 640–664 (2003)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    National Commission on Excellence in Education: A Nation at Risk. Washington D.C. (1983)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Tom, A.R., Valli, L.: Professional knowledge for teachers. In: Handbook of Research on Teacher Education, pp. 373–392 (1990)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Grimmett, P., MacKinnon, A.: Craft knowledge and the education of teachers. In: Grant, G. (ed.) Review of Research in Education. American Education Research Association, Washington DC (1992)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Nelson, B.: Teachers’ special knowledge. Educ. Res. 21(9), 32–33 (1992). Scholar
  8. 8.
    Clandinin, D.J., Connelly, F.M.: Teachers’ personal knowledge: what counts as ‘personal’ in studies of the personal. J. Curriculum Stud. 19(6), 487–500 (1987)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Shulman, L.S.: Paradigms and research programs in the study of teaching. In: Wittrock, M. (ed.) Handbook of Research on Teaching, 3rd edn, pp. 3–36. Macmillan, New York (1986)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Shulman, L.S.: Those who understand: knowledge growth in teaching. Educ. Res. 15(2), 4–14 (1986)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Shulman, L.S.: The wisdom of practice. In: Berliner, D. Rosenshine, B. (eds.) Talks to Teachers: A Festschrift for N.L. Gage, pp. 369–386. Random House, New York (1987)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Shulman, L.S.: Toward a pedagogy of cases. In: Case Methods in Teacher Education, pp. 1–30 (1992)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Ocak, C., Baran, E.: Observing the indicators of technological pedagogical content knowledge in science classrooms: video-based research. J. Res. Technol. Educ., 1–20 (2019)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Angeli, C., Valanides, N.: Preservice elementary teachers as information and communication technology designers: an instructional systems design model based on an expanded view of pedagogical content knowledge. J. Comput. Assist. Learn. 21(4), 292–302 (2005). Scholar
  15. 15.
    Koehler, M.J., Mishra, P., Yahya, K.: Content, pedagogy, and technology: testing a model of technology integration. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association, San Diego, CA, April 2004.
  16. 16.
    Pierson, M.E.: Technology integration practice as a function of pedagogical expertise. J. Res. Comput. Educ. 33(4), 413–430 (2001). Scholar
  17. 17.
    Harris, J., Phillips, M., Koehler, M., Rosenberg, J.: TPCK/TPACK research and development: past, present and future directions. Australas. J. Educ. Technol. 33(3), i–viii (2017).
  18. 18.
    Fenstermacher, G.D.: Chapter 1: The knower and the known: the nature of knowledge in research on teaching. Rev. Res. Educ. 20(1), 3–56 (1994)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Sachs, J.: Teacher professionalism: why are we still talking about it? Teach. Teach. 22(4), 413–425 (2016)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Loughran, J., Mulhall, P., Berry, A.: In search of pedagogical content knowledge in science: developing ways of articulating and documenting professional practice. J. Res. Sci. Teach. 41(4), 370–391 (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Phillips, M.: Teachers’ TPACK enactment in a Community of Practice, Monash University, Melbourne. eThesis (2014).
  22. 22.
    Loughran, J., Keast, S., Cooper, R.: Pedagogical reasoning in teacher education. In: Loughran, J., Hamilton, M.L. (eds.) International Handbook of Teacher Education, pp. 387–421. Springer, Singapore (2016). Scholar
  23. 23.
    Smart, V.L.: Technological pedagogical reasoning: the development of teachers’ pedagogical reasoning with technology over multiple career stages, Doctoral thesis, Griffith University, Queensland, Australia (2016).
  24. 24.
    Starkey, L.: Teachers’ pedagogical reasoning and action in the digital age. Teach. Teach. Theor. Pract. 16(2), 233–244 (2010). Scholar
  25. 25.
    Mishra, P., Koehler, M.J.: Technological pedagogical content knowledge: a framework for teacher knowledge. Teach. Coll. Rec. 108(6), 1017–1054 (2006). Scholar
  26. 26.
    Harris, J., Phillips, M.: If there’s TPACK, is there technological pedagogical reasoning and action? In: Society for Information Technology & Teacher Education International Conference, pp. 2051–2061. Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education (AACE), March 2018Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Shaffer, D.W., Collier, W., Ruis, A.R.: A tutorial on epistemic network analysis: analyzing the structure of connections in cognitive, social, and interaction data. J. Learn. Anal. 3(3), 9–45 (2016)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Shaffer, D.W., et al.: Epistemic network analysis: a prototype for 21st-century assessment of learning. Int. J. Learn. Media 1(2), 33–53 (2009). Scholar
  29. 29.
    Ferreira, R., Kovanović, V., Gašević, D., Rolim, V.: Towards combined network and text analytics of student discourse in online discussions. In: Penstein Rosé, C., et al. (eds.) Artificial Intelligence in Education, pp. 111–126 (2018). Scholar
  30. 30.
    Gašević, D., Joksimović, S., Eagan, B.R., Shaffer, D.W.: SENS: network analytics to combine social and cognitive perspectives of collaborative learning. Comput. Hum. Behav. 92, 562–577 (2019). Scholar
  31. 31.
    Shaffer, D.W.: Epistemic frames and islands of expertise: learning from infusion experiences. In: Proceedings of the 6th International Conference on Learning Sciences, pp. 473–480 (2004).
  32. 32.
    Nash, P., Shaffer, D.W.: Mentor modeling: the internalization of modeled professional thinking in an epistemic game. J. Comput. Assist. Learn. 27(2), 173–189 (2011). Scholar
  33. 33.
    Marquart, C.L., et al.: rENA: epistemic network analysis (Version (2019).

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Monash UniversityMelbourneAustralia
  2. 2.University of South AustraliaAdelaideAustralia

Personalised recommendations