Running Head: THEORY-PRACTICE SYNERGY 1

Knowledge Application Essay

Historically, schools of education have struggled to define the appropriate balance
between content knowledge (CK), pedagogical knowledge, dedication to teaching, and skills in
managing a classroom (Fraser, 2007). Although traditional programs have struggled with this
balance, there have been reform-minded educators, such as John Dewey, who have argued that
candidate teachers (CTs) need to have a firm grasp on all of these skills and areas of knowledge.
He proposed creating a balance between CK, pedagogical knowledge, dedication to teaching,
and skills in managing a classroom by preparing CTs in laboratory schools.
Pedagogical content knowledge (PCK) has also been incorporated into the discussion as
an important form of knowledge for teachers. Over the past three decades, this term has been
revised and refined and is today widely considered an essential component of teachers
knowledge, but the best way to balance PCK with the other forms of knowledge needed by
teachers is still debated. Many teacher education programs seek to accomplish this balance
through a combination of coursework and clinical experiences, which ideally allow candidates to
learn about PCK in theory and apply their learning in practice in classroom situations. However,
there continues to be a disconnect between the theory of PCK that is learned in university
coursework and the practice that is needed to teach in a classroom (Zeichner, 2010).
Teacher preparation programs that are able to implement practice-based teacher
education, which merges theory and practice, may be able to enhance the learning of the CTs.
Although many of the arguments made in this paper are equally legitimate for elementary and
secondary CTs, the focus herein is on CTs preparing to be elementary teachers.
A History of PCK
THEORY-PRACTICE SYNERGY 2
The debate in the U.S. about what teachers should know: CK versus pedagogical
knowledge, can be traced back to the 1800s. For instance, teacher certification tests from five
states from the 1800s were primarily focused on teachers CK, with fewer than ten percent of the
questions addressing teachers pedagogical knowledge (Shulman, 1986). By the 1980s, state
evaluation systems largely focused on teachers pedagogical knowledge. Additionally, the A
Nation at Risk report found that the teacher education curriculum included too many courses in
educational methods and not enough in content courses. Specifically, they found that of the
1350 institutions surveyed that trained teachers, 41% of elementary CTs time was spent in
methods courses (National Commission on Excellence in Education, 1983).
This debate over pedagogical versus CK sparked Shulman (1986) to coin the term
pedagogical content knowledge (PCK), specifically defined as going beyond subject matter
knowledge to the dimension of subject matter knowledge needed for teaching. He described this
kind of knowledge as an understanding of what makes specific topics challenging and what
strategies can be most effective in overcoming students misconceptions. Since Shulman
introduced PCK in 1986, his conceptualization of the term has undergone some criticism. It has
been criticized for: (a) the lack of empirical and theoretical grounding as a distinct category of
teacher knowledge; (b) being too static a view of teacher knowledge, seeming to imply that
teachers can acquire PCK independently of the classroom; (c) being too narrowly defined as
teachers knowledge of instructional strategies and students misconceptions; and (d) being
normative (Depaepe, Verschaffel, & Kelchtermans, 2013).
In an effort to address some of the aforementioned criticisms, some researchers have
further conceptualized CK and PCK (e.g., Ball, Thames, & Phelps, 2008; Marks, 1990).
Specifically, Marks (1990) studied eight fifth grade teachers teaching of equivalent fractions.
THEORY-PRACTICE SYNERGY 3
Marks (1990) coded 32 interviews for these eight teachers using constant comparative analysis.
His analysis suggested that PCK could be divided into four components: subject matter for
instructional purposes, students understanding of the subject matter, media for instruction in the
subject matter (i.e., texts and materials), and instructional processes for the subject matter
(Marks, 1990, p. 4). Furthermore, Marks (1990) underscored the importance of the incorporation
of PCK into the preparation of CTs: If it is important for teachers to learn about content-specific
pedagogy in methods courses at the university, then it should be equally important that they work
to develop their PCK in the schools (p. 10).
Perhaps the most influential reconceptualization of PCK in math was the combining of
CK and PCK into mathematical knowledge for teaching (MKT; Ball et al., 2008). Ball et al.
(2008) sought to address the criticism that PCK as conceptualized by Shulman had no empirical
basis. They built a practice-based theory of mathematical knowledge for teaching by
determining what math knowledge teachers needed based on what math knowledge they used in
practice (Ball & Bass, 2003). They found that the MKT used by teachers could be looked at as
CK and PCK as posited by Shulman, but that these two kinds of knowledge could further be
divided into common, horizon, and specialized content knowledge, and knowledge of content
and students (KCS), teaching (KCT), and curriculum (KCC; Ball et al., 2008). KCS refers to an
understanding of both students and math, so that teachers can anticipate where students may
have difficulty. KCT refers to an understanding between the math content and the pedagogical
issues that affect student learning. Lastly, KCC was added to the diagram because it had been
incorporated in Shulmans initial conceptualization of PCK (Ball et al., 2008). These categories
of knowledge were based on the practices of teachers (Ball et al., 2008). The multidimensionality
of teachers CK and PCK was further verified by factor analyses (Hill, Schilling, & Ball, 2004).
THEORY-PRACTICE SYNERGY 4
Depaepe et al. (2013) reviewed 60 articles that examined PCK in math. They found that
studies that examined PCK from a static perspective typically used tests to measure CTs PCK,
while researchers who viewed PCK as a dynamic construct typically captured evidence of
teachers application of PCK through observations, interviews, lesson plans, and logbooks. Some
of the major findings from the articles reviewed include:
There were gaps in teachers and CTs PCK in a variety of math topics.
CTs PCK was more procedural than conceptual.
CTs PCK varied across different math topics, supporting a topic-specific model of PCK.
CK was a necessary, though not sufficient condition for PCK.
Teachers with more education in math had a larger correlation between CK and PCK.
Good PCK was needed for effective instruction.
A course for preschool CTs enhanced their CK, PCK, and their students learning.
Teaching experience had a positive effect on PCK.
Studies showed mixed results regarding teachers PCK and their level of education.
Teachers PCK varied by country.
Several intervention studies successfully taught PCK to CTs through a variety of
formats, including discussion of video cases, use of a particular textbook, field
experiences, the inclusion of CK in training, structured interviews, cooperative learning,
and group discussions.
All of these findings support the importance of PCK for good instruction and the importance of
experience working with students for teachers to develop their PCK. Both a static and a dynamic
view of PCK have strengths and weaknesses, and that observations of teachers should be coupled
THEORY-PRACTICE SYNERGY 5
with stimulated recall interviews using video of teachers instruction to inquire as to teachers
choices and justifications (Depaepe et al., 2013).
The Theory-Practice Divide
A focus on PCK as the theory that CTs need to know without direct connection to
practice has reinforced the theory-practice divide (Grossman, Hammerness, & McDonald, 2009).
If TEs teach PCK in the university and then send the CTs into schools, they may not have the
opportunities to practice these skills, even in the professional development school model
(Zeichner, 2010). Teacher preparation needs to be rooted not only in theory about how to teach
but in opportunities to practice this theory.
Fraser (2007) described the evolution of the purposes of different teacher education
institutions (e.g., normal schools, teacher institutes, teacher colleges, and universities) and
intimated that the university teacher education programs were the least focused on the practical
aspects of teaching. He posited that this was likely related to their desire to achieve the status of
research universities. Around the same time as university departments of education were
forming, John Dewey (2008/1904) was arguing that candidate teachers (CTs) should engage in
practical classroom work to help them better understand the theory that they were learning.
Dewey established a laboratory school with the University of Chicago based upon the premise of
using practice to make theory real (Tanner, 1997).
In spite of Deweys work, there continues to be a disconnect between the theory that is
learned in university coursework and the practice that is needed to teach in a classroom (e.g.,
Darling-Hammond, 2006; Grossman et al., 2009; Moore, 2003; Levine, 2006; Yayli, 2008).
Today, university coursework for CTs can typically be divided into three categories: content
courses in the colleges of the arts and sciences, foundations of education courses, and methods of
THEORY-PRACTICE SYNERGY 6
teaching courses. Methods of teaching courses focus on teaching CTs the practical tools (i.e.
practices, strategies, and relationships) needed to meet the needs of their students in different
content areas (i.e., PCK; Grossman et al., 2009). Grossman et al. (2009) argue that methods
courses are divorced from practice because the focus is on learning about practical tools rather
than how to enact them. It is not only the segmentation of candidate teachers coursework that
contributes to the fragmentation that plagues teacher education (NCTAF, 1996), but also the
separation of the theory of PCK that is learned in the methods courses and the practice of PCK
that is observed in the CTs field experiences (Lampert & Ball, 1998).
Practice-Based Teacher Education: A Theory-Practice Synergy
Traditional university-based teacher preparation programs have employed an application
of theory model whereby CTs learn about a theory in their coursework and then apply this theory
in schools as part of their field experiences (Tom, 1997). Often the cooperating teachers with
whom the CTs work in the schools are unaware of the theory taught in the university courses,
and similarly, the university course instructors are often unfamiliar with the classrooms in which
the CTs are placed to study practice (Zeichner, 2010; Zeichner & McDonald, 2011). Even when
universities and schools collaborate under the professional development school model, there is
still evidence of fragmentation between theory and practice (Zeichner & McDonald, 2011).
Currently, there is a movement in teacher education towards practice-based teacher
education (PBTE), which aims to help CTs learn important teaching practices and understand the
theory behind them, helping them to see the synergy between theory and practice (Grossman et
al., 2009; Zeichner, 2010; Zeichner & McDonald, 2011). At the University of Washington,
Seattle, faculty of the content methods courses have moved their courses into urban partner
schools (Zeichner & McDonald, 2011). It is not just the location of the courses within the
THEORY-PRACTICE SYNERGY 7
schools that is impactful, but the practices used by the university faculty to emphasize the theory-
practice synergy, including (a) candidates observing and debriefing with K-12 teachers, (b)
university faculty modeling lessons or working with students using specific teaching practices,
(c) candidates rehearsing alone or in small groups some of these same practices, and (d)
debriefing the teaching and sometimes reteaching (Zeichner & McDonald, 2011, p. 48).
Although PBTE is a fairly new practice, there is evidence that CTs are able to more successfully
apply the theory they learned in their methods courses to their practice with students (Zeichner &
McDonald, 2011). The ideas behind PBTE are very similar to the philosophy espoused by
Dewey at the turn of the twentieth century.
Teacher education programs need to strive to build CTs understanding of the theory-
practice synergy. In order to help CTs understand the practical applications of PCK in the
present classroom context, practice needs to be infused into the teacher education curriculum.
Theory and practice, when correctly brought together, can create a synergy that enhances the
PCK of CTs, setting them up to be effective teachers.



THEORY-PRACTICE SYNERGY 8
References
Ball, D. L., & Bass, H. (2003). Toward a practice-based theory of mathematical knowledge for
teaching. In B. Davis & E. Simmt (Eds.), Proceedings of the 2002 annual meeting of the
Canadian Mathematics Education Study Group (pp. 3-14). Edmonton, Alberta, Canada:
Canadian Mathematics Education Study Group (Groupe Canadien dtude en didactique
des mathmatiques).
Ball, D. L., Thames, M. H., & Phelps, G. (2008). Content knowledge for teaching what makes it
special? Journal of Teacher Education, 59(5), 389407. doi:10.1177/0022487108324554
Darling-Hammond, L. (2006). Assessing teacher education: The usefulness of multiple measures
for assessing program outcomes. Journal of Teacher Education, 57(2), 120138.
Depaepe, F., Verschaffel, L., & Kelchtermans, G. (2013). Pedagogical content knowledge: A
systematic review of the way in which the concept has pervaded mathematics educational
research. Teaching and Teacher Education, 34, 1225. doi:10.1016/j.tate.2013.03.001
Dewey, J. (2008/1904). The relation of theory to practice in education. In M. Cochran-Smith, S.
Feiman-Nemser, D. J. McIntyre, & K. E. Demers (Eds.), Handbook of research on
teacher education: Enduring questions in changing contexts, (3rd ed.). pp. 787-799.
Fraser, J. W. (2007). Preparing Americas teachers: A history. New York, NY: Teachers College
Press.
Grossman, P., Hammerness, K., & McDonald, M. (2009). Redefining teaching, re-imagining
teacher education. Teachers and Teaching, 15(2), 273289.
doi:10.1080/13540600902875340
THEORY-PRACTICE SYNERGY 9
Hill, H. C., Schilling, S. G., & Ball, D. L. (2004). Developing measures of teachers mathematics
knowledge for teaching. The Elementary School Journal, 105(1), 1130.
doi:10.1086/428763
Lampert, M., & Ball, D. L. (1998). Teaching, multimedia, and mathematics: investigations of
real practice. New York: Teachers College Press.
Levine, A. (2006). Educating school teachers (Report #2). Washington, DC: The Education
Schools Project. Retrieved from http://www.edschools.org/teacher_report.htm
Marks, R. (1990). Pedagogical content knowledge: From a mathematical case to a modified
conception. Journal of Teacher Education, 41(3), 311.
doi:10.1177/002248719004100302
Moore, R. (2003). Reexamining the field experiences of preservice teachers. Journal of Teacher
Education, 54(1), 31-42. doi: 10.1177/0022487102238656
National Commission on Excellence in Education. (1983). A nation at risk: The imperative for
educational reform: A report to the nation and the Secretary of Education, United States
Department of Education. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.
National Commission on Teaching & Americas Future (NCTAF). (1996). What matters most:
Teaching for Americas future. New York, NY.
Shulman, L. S. (1986). Those who understand: Knowledge growth in teaching. Educational
Researcher, 15(2), 4-14. (AERA Presidential Address).
Tanner, L. N. (1997). Deweys laboratory school: Lessons for today. New York: Teachers
College Press.
Tom, A. R. (1997). Redesigning teacher education. Albany, NY: State University of New York
Press.
THEORY-PRACTICE SYNERGY 10
Yayli, D. (2008). Theorypractice dichotomy in inquiry: Meanings and preservice teacher
mentor teacher tension in Turkish literacy classrooms. Teaching and Teacher Education,
24(4), 889900. doi:10.1016/j.tate.2007.10.004
Zeichner, K. (2010). Rethinking the connections between campus courses and field experiences
in college- and university-based teacher education. Journal of Teacher Education, 61(1-
2), 8999. doi:10.1177/0022487109347671
Zeichner, K., & McDonald, M. (2011). Practice-based teaching and community field experiences
for prospective teachers. In A. Cohan & A. Honigsfeld (Eds.), Breaking the mold of
preservice and inservice teacher education: innovative and successful practices for the
21st century (pp. 4554). Lanham, Md: Rowman & Littlefield Education.