Abstract
The purpose of our work reported in this chapter is to shed light on the nature of the relations between teachers’ subject matter knowledge (SMK) and their understanding of how children learn that subject matter. The main thesis we present here is that teachers’ levels of SMK do not influence their understandings of children’s learning. This thesis runs counter to both common sense and the research literature.
The research reported here was supported by the United States-Israel Binational Science Foundation (Research Grant No. 92-00286) which was granted to authors Strauss and Berliner. Hanna Zelcer conducted parts of the research in partial fulfillment of requirements for an MA degree in the School of Education at Tel Aviv University. Authors Strauss and Ravid were her thesis guides. This is Working Paper No. 97-9 of the Tel Aviv University Unit of Human Development and Education.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Preview
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
References
Berman, R.A. and Ravid, D. (1995). The oral/literate continuum: Developmental and cross linguistic perspectives. Unpublished research proposal submitted to The Israel Science Foundation.
Boscolo, P. (1990). The construction of expository text. First Language, 10, 217–230.
Brophy, J. (Ed.) (1992). Advances in research on teaching (Vol. 2). Greenwich, CN: JAI Press.
Bruner, J.S. (1996). The culture of education. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Chafe, W. (1992). Information flow in speaking and writing. In P. Downing, S.D. Lima and M. Noonan (Eds.), The linguistics of literacy (pp. 19–29). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Clark, C.M. and Peterson, P. (1986). Teachers’ thought processes. In M.C. Wittrock, (Ed.), Handbook of research on teaching, 3rd edition (pp. 255–296). New York: MacMillan.
Goswami, U. and Bryant, P. (1992). Rhyme, analogy, and children’s reading. In P.B. Gough, L.C. Ehri and R. Treiman (Eds.), Reading acquisition (pp. 49–63). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Halliday, M.A.K. (1989). Spoken and written language. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Havelock, E. (1991). The oral-literate equation: A formula for the modern mind. In D.R. Olson and N. Torrance (Eds.), Literacy and orality (pp. 11–27). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Johnson-Laird, P.N. (1983). Mental models. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Levin, I., Share, D.L. and Shatil, E. (1996). A qualitative — quantitative study of preschool writing: Its development and contribution to school literacy. In C.M. Levy and S. Ransdell (Eds.), The science of writing: Theories, methods, individual differences and applications (pp. 271–293). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
McDiarmid, G.W., Ball, D.L. and Anderson, C.W. (1989). Why staying one chapter ahead doesn’t really work: Subject-specific pedagogy. In M.C. Reynolds (Ed.), Knowledge base for the beginning teacher (pp. 193–205). New York: Pergamon.
Norman, D.A. (1983). Some observations on mental models. In D. Gentner and A. Stevens (Eds.), Mental models (pp. 7–14). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Olson, D.R. (1994). The world on paper. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Ravid, D. and Malenki, A. (1996). The development of morphological awareness. Paper presented at the 7th International Congress for the Study of Child Language. Istanbul, Turkey.
Ravid, D., Strauss, S., Zelcer, H. and Berliner, D. (1996). Teachers’ understandings of subject matter knowledge and how children learn that subject matter. Journal of Educational Psychology.
Schwab, J. (1962). The concept of the structure of a discipline. Educational Record, 43, 197–205.
Shulman, L.S. (1986). Those who understand: Knowledge growth in teaching. Educational Researcher, 15, 4–14.
Shulman, L.S. and Quinlan, K.M. (1996). The comparative psychology of school subjects. In D.C Berliner and R.C Calfee (Eds.), Handbook of educational psychology. New York: MacMillan.
Stotsky, S. (1987). A comparison of the two theories about development in written language: Implications for pedagogy and research. In R.H. Samuels and S.J. Samuels (Eds.), Comprehending oral and written language (pp. 371–195). San Diego: Academic Press.
Strauss, S. (1993). Teachers’ pedagogical content knowledge about children’s minds and learning: Implications for teacher education. Educational Psychologist, 28, 279–290.
Strauss, S. (1996). Confessions of a born-again structuralist. Educational Psychologist, 31, 15–21.
Strauss, S. and Rozenberg-Meltser, H. (1996). Teachers’ and non-teachers’ mental models of children’s minds and learning. Unpublished Manuscript. Tel Aviv University, Tel Aviv, Israel
Strauss, S. and Shilony, T. (1994). Teachers’ models of children’s minds and learning. In L.A. Hirschfeld and S.A. Gelman (Eds.), Mapping the mind: Domain specificity in cognition and culture (pp. 455–473). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Strauss, S., Ravid, D., Magen, N. and Berliner, D.C. (1996). Relations between teachers’ subject matter knowledge, teaching experience, and their mental models of children’s minds and learning. Teaching and Teacher Education.
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 1999 Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Strauss, S., Ravid, D., Zelcer, H., Berliner, D.C. (1999). Relations Between Teachers’ Subject Matter Knowledge About Written Language and their Mental Models About Children’s Learning. In: Nunes, T. (eds) Learning to Read: An Integrated View from Research and Practice. Neuropsychology and Cognition, vol 17. Springer, Dordrecht. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-011-4826-9_16
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-011-4826-9_16
Publisher Name: Springer, Dordrecht
Print ISBN: 978-0-7923-5992-0
Online ISBN: 978-94-011-4826-9
eBook Packages: Springer Book Archive