Dimensions of Quality in Teacher Knowledge

  • Michael J. Lawson
  • Helen Askell-Williams
  • Rosalind Murray-Harvey
Part of the Springer International Handbooks of Education book series (SIHE, volume 21)

In the media, in government and in research literature there is a strong view that we need high quality teachers. In Australia, the Federal Minister for Education, Science and Training recently made her government's views clear: “I am committed to ensuring that every child in Australia, wherever they attend school, have access to a high quality education, with high quality teachers in a high quality environment” (Bishop, 2006). In the United States of America, a recent report from the new Commission on the Skills of the American Workforce identified the need to recruit more high quality teachers as a key component in a recommended revamp of the US education system (NCEE, 2006). The official documents associated with the No Child Left Behind Act in the US also have a focus on improving teacher quality (U.S. Department of Education, 2007) in addition to a major concern with ensuring that “highly qualified” teachers are available in all classrooms. And the vision of the United Kingdom Department for Education and Skills is that its recent National Strategies will “transform the quality of learning and teaching to benefit all children and young people in all phases and settings” (U.K. Department for Education and Skills, 2006, Purpose vision and strategic aims para. 2).


Pedagogical Content Knowledge Teacher Knowledge Teacher Quality Knowledge Element Harvard Educational Review 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Anderson, J. R. (2005). Cognitive psychology and its implications (6th ed.). New York: Worth.Google Scholar
  2. Anderson, L. W., & Krathwohl, D. R. (2001). A taxonomy for learning, teaching, and assessing: A revision of Bloom's taxonomy of educational objectives (Abridged ed.). New York: Longman.Google Scholar
  3. Askell-Williams, H. (2004). The quality of learners' knowledge about teaching and learning. Adelaide: Shannon Research Press.Google Scholar
  4. Askell-Williams, H., & Lawson, M. J. (2005). Representing the dynamic complexity of students' mental models of learning in order to provide ‘entry points’ for teaching. New Horizons in Education, 113, 16–40.Google Scholar
  5. Askell-Williams, H., & Lawson, M. J. (2006). Multidimensional profiling of medical students' knowledge about learning. Medical Education, 40, 138–145.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Bereiter, C. (1997). Situated cognition and how to overcome it. In D. Kirshner & J. A. Whitson (Eds.), Situated cognition: Social, semiotic and psychological perspectives (pp. 281–300). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  7. Berliner, D. C. (2004). Describing the behaviour and documenting the accomplishments of expert teachers. Bulletin of Science, Technology and Society, 24, 200–212.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Biggs, J. B. (1987). Student approaches to learning and studying. Hawthorn, Victoria, Australia: Australian Council for Educational Research.Google Scholar
  9. Biggs, J. B., & Collis, K. F. (1982). Evaluating the quality of learning: The SOLO taxonomy (Structure of the Observed Learning Outcome). London: Academic Press.Google Scholar
  10. Bishop, B. (2006). Media release: Australia celebrates world teachers' day. Retrieved December 18, 2006, from
  11. Borko, H., & Putnam, R. T. (1996). Learning to teach. In D. C. Berliner & R. C. Calfee (Eds.), Handbook of educational psychology (pp. 673–708). New York: Macmillan.Google Scholar
  12. Boulton-Lewis, G. M. (1994). Tertiary students' knowledge of their own learning and a SOLO taxonomy. Higher Education, 28, 387–402.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Boulton-Lewis, G. M. (1995). The SOLO taxonomy as a means of shaping and assessing learning in higher education. Higher Education Research and Development, 14, 143–154.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Calderhead, J. (1996). Teachers: Beliefs and knowledge. In D. C. Berliner & R. C. Calfee (Eds.), Handbook of educational psychology (pp. 709–725). New York: Macmillan.Google Scholar
  15. Chi, M. T. H. (1985). Interactive roles of knowledge and strategies in the development of organised sorting and recall. In J. W. Segal, S. F. Chipman, & R. Glaser (Eds.), Thinking and learning skills (Vol. 1, pp. 457–483). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  16. Chi, M. T. H., & Roscoe, R. D. (2002). The processes and challenges of conceptual change. In M. Limón & L. Mason (Eds.), Reconsidering conceptual change: Issues in theory and practice (pp. 3–27). Dordrecht: Kluwer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Chinnappan, M. C., & Lawson, M. J. (2005). A framework for analysis of teachers' geometric content knowledge and geometric knowledge for teaching. Journal of Mathematics Teacher Education, 8, 197–221.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Chrismer, S. S., Hodge, S. T., & Saintil, D. (Eds.). (2006). Introduction: Assessing NCLB: Perspectives and prescriptions. [Special issue]. Harvard Educational Review, 76(4), 457–460.Google Scholar
  19. Craik, F. I. M., & Lockhart, R. S. (1972). Levels of processing: A framework for memory research. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behaviour, 11, 671–684.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Danto, A. C. (1973). Analytical philosophy of action. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  21. Darling-Hammond, L. (2006). Constructing 21st-century teacher education. Journal of Teacher Education, 57, 300–314.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 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.Google Scholar
  23. Fenstermacher, G. D., & Richardson, V. (2005). On making determinations of quality in teaching. Teachers College Record, 107, 186–213.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Flavell, J. H. (1979). Metacognition and cognitive monitoring. American Psychologist, 34, 906–911.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Gess-Newsome, J. (1999). Secondary teachers' knowledge and beliefs about subject matter and their impact on instruction. In J. Gess-Newsome & N. G. Lederman (Eds.), Examining pedagogical content knowledge: The construct and its implications for science education (pp. 51–94). Dordrecht, the Netherlands: Kluwer.Google Scholar
  26. Gess-Newsome, J., & Lederman, N. G. (Eds.). (1999). Examining pedagogical content knowledge: The construct and its implications for science education. Hingham: Kluwer.Google Scholar
  27. Grossman, P. L. (1995). Teachers' knowledge. In L. W. Anderson (Ed.), International encyclopedia of teaching and teacher education (2nd ed., pp. 20–24). Tarrytown, NY: Pergamon.Google Scholar
  28. Hacker, D. J., Dunlosky, J., & Graesser, A. C. (Eds.). (1998). Metacognition in educational theory and practice. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  29. Hiebert, J., Gallimore, R., & Stigler, J. W. (2002). A knowledge base for the teaching professions: What would it look like and how can we get one? Educational Researcher, 31(5), 3–15.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Hill, H. C., Schilling, S. G., & Ball, D. L. (2004). Developing measures of teachers' mathematics knowledge for teaching. Elementary School Journal, 105, 1130.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Hmelo-Silver, C. E., & Pfeffer, M. G. (2004). Comparing expert and novice understanding of a complex system from the perspective of structures, behaviours and functions. Cognitive Science, 28, 127–138.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Hogan, K. (1999a). Assessing depth of sociocognitive processing in peer group's science discussions. Research in Science Education, 29, 457–477.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Hogan, K. (1999b). Thinking aloud together: A test of an intervention to foster students' collaborative scientific reasoning. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 36, 1085–1109.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Hogan, K., & Fisherkeller, J. (2000). Dialogue as data: Assessing students' scientific reasoning with interactive protocols. In J. J. Mintzes, J. D. Novak, & J. W. Wandersee (Eds.), Assessing science understanding: A human constructivist view (pp. 96–124). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.Google Scholar
  35. Hogan, K., & Maglienti, M. (2001). Comparing the epistemological underpinnings of students' and scientists' reasoning about conclusions. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 38, 663–687.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Hogan, K., Nastasi, B. K., & Pressley, M. (2000). Discourse patterns and collaborative scientific reasoning in peer and teacher-guided discussions. Cognition and Instruction, 17, 379–432.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Karmiloff-Smith, A. (1992). Beyond modularity. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  38. Kerr, D. H. (1981). The structure of quality in teaching. In J. F. Soltis (Ed.), Philosophy and education (Vol. 1, pp. 61–93). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  39. Lave, J., & Wenger, E. (1991). Situated learning: Legitimate peripheral participation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  40. Leinhardt, G., & Greeno, J. G. (1986). The cognitive skill of teaching. Journal of Educational Psychology, 78, 75–95.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Leinhardt, G., & Smith, D. A. (1985). Expertise in mathematic instruction. Subject matter knowledge. Journal of Educational Psychology, 77, 247–271.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Marshall, D., Summers, M., & Woolnough, B. (1999). Students' conceptions of learning in an engineering context. Higher Education, 38, 291–309.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Martin, B. L., Mintzes, J. J., & Clavijo, I. E. (2000). Restructuring knowledge in biology: Cognitive processes and metacognitive reflections. International Journal of Science Education, 22, 303–323.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Marton, F., & Saljö, R. (1976a). On qualitative differences in learning: I-Outcome and process. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 46, 4–11.Google Scholar
  45. Marton, F., & Saljö, R. (1976b). On qualitative differences in learning: II-Outcome as a function of the learner's conception of the task. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 46, 115–127.Google Scholar
  46. Mayer, R. E. (1975). Information processing variables in learning to solve problems. Review of Educational Research, 45(4), 525–541.Google Scholar
  47. Mayer, R. E., & Greeno, J. G. (1972). Structural differences between learning outcomes produced by different instructional methods. Journal of Educational Psychology, 63(12), 165–173.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Mayer, R. E., & Wittrock, M. C. (1996). Problem-solving transfer. In D. C. Berliner & R. C. Calfee (Eds.), Handbook of educational psychology (pp. 47–62). New York: Macmillan.Google Scholar
  49. McKeown, M. G., & Beck, I. L. (1990). The assessment and characterisation of young learners' knowledge of a topic in history. American Educational Research Journal, 27, 688–726.Google Scholar
  50. Munby, H., Russell, T., & Martin, A. K. (2001). Teachers' knowledge and how it develops. In V. Richardson (Ed.), Handbook of research on teaching (4th ed., pp. 877–904). Washington, DC: American Educational Research Association.Google Scholar
  51. NCEE. (2006). Tough choices for tough times: The report of the new commission on the skills of the American workforce. National Center on Education and the Economy. Retrieved December 18, 2006, from http://
  52. OECD. (2005). Teachers matter: attracting, developing and retaining effective teachers. Paris: Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development.Google Scholar
  53. Perkins, D. N., & Salomon, G. (1994). Transfer of Learning. In T. Husen & G. Postlethwaite (Eds.), International encyclopedia of education (2nd ed., pp. 6452–6457). Oxford, England: Pergamon Press.Google Scholar
  54. Phillips, D. C. (1997). Telling the truth about stories. Teaching and Teacher Education, 13, 101–109.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Putnam, R. T., & Borko, H. (1997). Teacher learning: Implications of new views of cognition. In B. J. Biddle, T. L. Good, & I. Goodson (Eds.), International handbook of teachers and teaching (Vol. II, pp. 1223–1296). Dordrecht: Kluwer.Google Scholar
  56. QSR. (2002). QSR NUD*IST (N6) (Version V 6.0 [computer software]). Melbourne, Australia: QSR International Pty. Ltd.Google Scholar
  57. Rowe, K. (2002). The importance of teacher quality. Retrieved September 19 2007, from http://www.cis.
  58. Schön, D. A. (1988). Educating the reflective practitioner. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.Google Scholar
  59. Shulman, L. S. (1986a). Paradigms and research programs in the study of teaching: A contemporary perspective. In M. C. Wittrock (Ed.), Handbook of research on teaching (3rd ed., pp. 3–36). New York: Macmillan.Google Scholar
  60. Shulman, L. S. (1986b). Those who understand: Knowledge growth in teaching. Educational Researcher, 15(2), 4–14.Google Scholar
  61. Shulman, L. S. (1987). Knowledge and teaching: Foundations of a new reform. Harvard Educational Review, 57, 1–22.Google Scholar
  62. SPSS. (2001). SPSS categories reference guide. Chicago: Author.Google Scholar
  63. Sternberg, R. J. (1999). Intelligence as Developing Expertise. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 24, 359–375.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Sternberg, R. J. (2000). Practical intelligence in everyday life. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  65. Stodolsky, S. (1988). The subject matters: Classroom activity in math and social studies. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  66. Sweller, J. (1991). Some modern myths of cognition and instruction. In J. B. Biggs (Ed.), Teaching for learning: The view from cognitive psychology (pp. 71–83). Hawthorn, Victoria, Australia: Australian Council for Educational Research.Google Scholar
  67. Trigwell, K., Prosser, M., & Taylor, P. (1994). Qualitative differences in approaches to teaching first year university science. Higher Education, 27, 75–84.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. Tulving, E. (1972). Episodic and semantic memory. In E. Tulving & W. Donaldson (Eds.), Organisation of memory (pp. 381–403). New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
  69. Tulving, E., & Craik, F. M. (Eds.). (2000). The Oxford handbook of memory. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  70. U.S. Department of Education. (2007). Building on results: A blueprint for strengthening the No Child Left Behind Act. Section 1119 (a) 1) Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education.Google Scholar
  71. U.K. Department for Education and Skills. (2006). 5-Year strategic plan executive summary: Primary and Secondary National Strategies: U.K. Department for Education and Skills. Retrieved December 18, 2006, from
  72. Wenger, E. (1998). Communities of practice. Learning, meaning, and identity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  73. White, R. T. (1979, November). Describing cognitive structure. Paper presented at the annual conference of the Australian Association for Research in Education, Melbourne, Australia.Google Scholar
  74. White, R. T., & Gunstone, R. F. (1980). Converting memory protocols to scores on several dimensions. Paper presented at the annual conference of the Australian Association for Research in Education, Sydney, Australia.Google Scholar
  75. White, R. T., & Gunstone, R. F. (1992). Probing understanding. London: Falmer Press.Google Scholar
  76. White, R. T., & Mayer, R. E. (1980). Understanding intellectual skills. Instructional Science, 9, 101–127.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  77. Wittrock, M. C. (1990). Generative processes of comprehension. Educational Psychologist, 24, 345–376.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2009

Authors and Affiliations

  • Michael J. Lawson
    • 1
  • Helen Askell-Williams
    • 1
  • Rosalind Murray-Harvey
    • 1
  1. 1.School of EducationFlinders UniversityAdelaideAustralia

Personalised recommendations