segall_pck_2004

8/3/2019 Segall_PCK_2004

1/16

Teaching and Teacher Education 20 (2004) 489504

Revisiting pedagogical content knowledge: the pedagogy of

content/the content of pedagogy

Avner Segall*

Teachers Education Museum, Michigan State University, 328, Erickson Hall, East Lansingmi 48824-1034, USA

Abstract

This paper revisits the prevalent concept of pedagogical content knowledge and examines how (and when) each of its

components works with/on/against the other in the production of meaning and experience in the educative process. Its

purpose is not simply to suggest that content and pedagogy need to come together to provide for powerful teaching

such an argument has already been forcefully made by those writing about pedagogical content knowledge in the last

two decadesbut, rather, to suggest that content and pedagogy are already interrelated and that powerful teaching

(and powerful means for learning to teach) are an outcome of recognizing that interrelationship. Using the literature

from critical pedagogy and cultural studies, this paper argues that teacher educations focus on pedagogical content

knowledge should move beyond the idea of teaching students how to pedagogize pedagogically free content to helping

them recognize the inherently pedagogical nature of content and its implications for (and in) teaching.r 2004 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction: Pedagogical content knowledge:

where do we go from here?

The term pedagogical content knowledge was

first introduced into the discourse of teacher

education by Lee Shulman in his PresidentialAddress at the 1985 annual meeting of the

American Educational Research Association. Cri-

ticizing both past and present accreditation and

certification procedures and standards for teach-

ing, Shulman claimed that while the former

exclusively monitored prospective teachers knowl-

edge of content and essentially ignored pedagogy,

the latter focused primarily on pedagogy with very

little attention to teachers content knowledge

(1986, p. 6). Resulting, teachers either knew

content and pedagogy became secondary and

unimportant, or they knew pedagogy and were

not held accountable for content (1986, p. 6).Addressing this dichotomy, Shulman did not

simply call for the inclusion of both knowledge

of general pedagogy and knowledge of subject

matter as equally important yet separately engaged

components of a teachers knowledge base.

Rather, he advocated the need to explore the

inherent relationship between the two through

what he termed pedagogical content knowledge.

Pedagogical content knowledge, according to

Shulman (1987), lies at the intersection of content

ARTICLE IN PRESS

*Tel.: +1-517-432-4874.

E-mail address: [email protected] (A. Segall).

0742-051X/$- see front matterr 2004 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.doi:10.1016/j.tate.2004.04.006

8/3/2019 Segall_PCK_2004

2/16

and pedagogy, in the transformation of content

into forms that are pedagogically powerful (p. 15).

Pedagogical content knowledge, Shulman adds,

represents the blending of content and peda-

gogy into an understanding of how particular

topics, problems, or issues are organized,

represented, yadapted yand represented for

instruction. Pedagogical content knowledge is

the category most likely to distinguish the

understanding of the content specialist from

that of the pedagogue. (p. 8)

Uniquely the domain of teachers, according to

Shulman, pedagogical content knowledge is what

allows for the meaningful blending of content and

pedagogy for teaching. Emphasizing the need to

examine the interaction between, and the blending

of, content and pedagogy as both come together to

educate, Shulman set forth a new focal point for

those involved in the education of teachers, a new

lens for those conducting research about it.1

Since its introduction more than a decade and a

half ago, pedagogical content knowledge has

become common currency in the literature in

and on teacher education. One needs only to

glance through (often simply look at titles or tablesof contents of) manuscripts, dissertations, journal

articles, and conference papers on teacher educa-

tion as well as at course syllabi in teacher

education to understand how deeply Shulmans

concept of pedagogical content knowledge hasimpacted the field. Yet while it has often been

cited, much used, seldom has the term or the lens it

provides for the educative endeavor been ques-

tioned, engaged critically (few exceptions are

Sockett, 1987; McEwan & Bull, 1991; Popkewitz,

1991, 1993). An examination, for example, of the

1996 Teacher educators handbook: Building a

knowledge base for the preparation of teachers

(Murray, 1996) points to Shulman as the fourth

most cited author2 of the close to 1500 authors in

the books author index, with an overwhelming

majority of those references made to his concept of

pedagogical content knowledge. Yet, while peda-

gogical content knowledge is vastly apparent

through in-passing citations of Shulman as author,

pedagogical content knowledge, as a category in

and of itself, appears only twice in the books

subject index. Pedagogy as a distinct concept does

not even qualify as a separate category in the index

of this handbook for teacher educators.

Although one example is obviously not repre-

sentative of an entire field, it may still be indicative

of two persisting, broader, issues which makerevisiting the concept of pedagogical content

knowledge timely, if not imperative. First, peda-

gogical content knowledge is a term still widely

circulating in the literature about teacher educa-

tion. As such, it deserves a closer look for what it

does and does not make possible. Though

originally based in the discourse on the professio-

nalization and improvement of teaching, the

concept of pedagogical content knowledge perme-

ates the boundaries of the knowledge base for

teaching by inviting an examination of a varietyof broad issues pertaining to the relationship

between content and pedagogy in education.

Second, most past and present examples of the

research literature revolving around pedagogical

content knowledge have tended to deal with how

the term can (and should) be applied to prepare

ARTICLE IN PRESS

1The mid-1980s witnessed a renewed interest in defining a

knowledge-base for teaching (Donmoyer, 1996). A variety of

models of/for teacher knowledge (i.e., Elbaz, 1983; Leinhardt &

Smith, 1985) codifying the knowledge, skill, understanding, and

technology for teaching were generated (Grossman, 1990, p. 5).

Holmes Group (1986), Carnegie Task Force on Teaching as a

Profession (1986), and the National Commission on excellence

in Teacher Education (1985) argued that state-of-the-art

teaching should be defined by the special knowledge at thecommand of good classroom practitioners (Palonsky, 1993, p.

7). Embedded in this discourse, centered around national

standards for the accreditation and certification of teachers and

the professionalization and improvement of teaching through

the construction of a knowledge base for teaching (Sockett,

1987, p. 208), and drawing upon the Holmes Group (1986) and

the National Commission on excellence in Teacher Education

(1985), Shulman (1987) generated a model of seven categories

of a teachers knowledge base. Among those categories,

Shulman claimed, pedagogical content knowledge is of

particular interest since it represents the blending of content

and pedagogy for teaching.

2That is, excluding contributing authors to this volume who

cite themselves.

A. Segall / Teaching and Teacher Education 20 (2004) 489504490

8/3/2019 Segall_PCK_2004

3/16

teachers and measure the appropriateness of their

practice; they have not, by and large, examined

what (and how) pedagogical content knowledge

does and does not measure while used as ameasuring tool for the pedagogical act. Third,

and closely related to the first two, the fact that

pedagogy is not considered a distinct category in

the volume examined is illustrative of the mostly

under-theorized nature of pedagogy in teacher

education, the disassociation of pedagogy from its

implication in knowledge, politics, power, and

discourse (Giroux, 1996, p. 43), and the reduction

of pedagogy to methods of instruction in class-

rooms.

To be sure, the introduction of the concept of

pedagogical content knowledge and its subsequent

engagement in the research literature have done

much to further our understanding of the relation-

ship between what teachers know, how they come

to know it, and, as a result, how they go about

teaching it. Much of that knowledge was generated

by those taking part in the Knowledge Growth in

Teaching Project at Stanford University and

thereafter (i.e., Grossman, 1990; Grossman &

Richert, 1988; Gudmundsdottir & Shulman,

1987; Wilson, Shulman, & and Richert, 1987;

Wilson & Wineburg, 1988; Wineburg & Wilson,1988). Exploring how teachers knowledge of

subject matter might help determine what and

how they teach, these studies have contributed

important insights into how deeper knowledge of

content helps teachers select the best metaphors,

examples, and explanations, the most appropriate

methods and techniques, and the most suited

curricular materials through which to engage

students with content and concepts in the dis-

ciplines (McDiarmid, Ball, & Anderson, 1996, p.

194) as well as foster ideas and patterns ofthinking parallel to knowledge and ways of

thinking in the academic disciplines (Feiman-

Nemser & Remillard, 1996, p. 74).

Opening a new lens to explore the educative

process (and what that might mean in the

preparation of teachers), the contributions of these

studies cannot be overemphasized. But while these

studies and those which followed have focused on

the importance of teachers making content in-

structional, they have not addressed the need for

teachers to read the inherently instructional

aspects of contentspecifically, subject-area

textsand what such readings might entail for

the practice of classroom teachers. Such anabsence, this paper will argue, becomes proble-

matic not only to how we prepare teachers but also

to the idea of pedagogical content knowledge itself

and its uses in teacher education.

Pedagogical content knowledge, claim Murray

and Porter (1996), is fundamentally about the

structures that confer meaning and understanding.

As such, they add, [d]iscussions of pedagogical

content knowledge are at the heart of the teacher

educators work and cannot be avoided (p. 163).

What should such discussions entail? While

discussions in the literature about pedagogical

content knowledge have focused on how teachers

and teacher educators work to integrate content

and pedagogy in classrooms, such discussions,

Wilson and McDiarmid (1996) suggest, should not

only focus on the integration of content and

pedagogy but also carefully examine their relation-

ship (p. 305).

To examine existing definitions of, and bound-

aries between, content and pedagogy underlying

the concept of pedagogical content knowledge,

this paper is concerned with the following ques-tions: What do content and pedagogy entail and

how do they interact on/with/against each other to

provide meaning and experience? Can content and

pedagogy be separated or are they inherently

imbued? What role do content specialists, sub-

ject-area texts, and teachers each play in the

process of making content pedagogical? Is peda-

gogy the domain of one and content the domain of

the other?

While much of the literature using pedagogical

content knowledge sees pedagogy as external tocontent per se, this paper argues that knowledge

is never per se, never for itself. Rather, it claims

that knowledge is always by someone and for

someone, always positioned and positioning and,

consequently, is always already pedagogical. Simi-

larly, while mainstream discourses in education

have tended to think of teachers as those initiating

the pedagogical act, what teachers pedagogize,

this paper suggests, is already pedagogically pre-

inscribed, not only to tell some thing to those

ARTICLE IN PRESS

A. Segall / Teaching and Teacher Education 20 (2004) 489504 491

8/3/2019 Segall_PCK_2004

4/16

involved in the educative process but also to tell it

in ways that engender some knowledge and

knowing rather than others. In that sense, texts

brought into the classroom are not finished worksof content awaiting pedagogical transformation;

they are, in and of themselves, pedagogical

invitations for learning. Working with or against

those invitations, teachers pedagogies do not

initiate the pedagogical act but add further

pedagogical layers to those already present in the

text. In other words, the instructional or pedago-

gical act does not begin with teachers in class-

rooms, nor does the content act end at the desk

of the subject-area scholar. Both produce pedago-

gical content knowledge, that is, content that is

always pedagogical and pedagogies that are always

content-full.

To explore the relationship between content and

pedagogy in that fashion, this paper invokes the

literature from critical pedagogy and cultural

studies. While these two areas of study have not

engaged pedagogical content knowledge specifi-

cally, they have theorized, extensively, the inter-

connectedness between knowledge and/as

pedagogy. Engaging different venues of inquiry

critical pedagogy mostly in and about institutional

education, cultural studies primarily outside ofitboth nevertheless share a common interest in

the pedagogical nature, process, and effects of

discourses and texts on the negotiation of know-

ing, subject-position, and identity. Concerned, as

they are, with how texts are used and how they

position users to use and be used by them, cultural

studies and critical pedagogy analyze texts, dis-

courses, and practices for how they function to

include or exclude certain meanings, produce or

prevent, circulate, and legitimate particular ways

of thinking, being, and imagining (Giroux, 1996,p. 48; Giroux, Shumway, Smith, & Sosnoski,

1996).

Much of the literature in critical pedagogy and

cultural studies used in this paper is not new. Yet,

although that literature has been around for more

than a decade, it has, by and large, been excluded

from the mainstream discourse in teacher educa-

tion. To date, these two discourses have either

dismissed, at worst ignored, each other. But in

order to allow teacher educators to re-think the

kind of relationship between content and peda-

gogy that pedagogical content knowledge does

(and, more importantly, could) make possible,

these opposing discourses must begin speakingwith each other rather than simply at or to one

another.

Although this paper uses these latter discourses

to disturb current understandings underlying

pedagogical content knowledge, my purpose is

not to criticize or dismiss what has thus far been

accomplished in the name of pedagogical content

knowledge. Nor, for that matter, is it in any way

intended to imply that the idea of pedagogical

content knowledge is no longer useful in teacher

preparation. On the contrary, the point of

departure of this paper is that discussions about

the inter/relation between pedagogy and content

are and must remain central to our thinking about

education. The intent of this paper, then, is to

connect current understandings about pedagogical

content knowledge to otherwhat I term criti-

calunderstandings about content and peda-

gogy and, in the process, open it to new

possibilities that might better reflect more of what

accounts for and what counts in the educative

process. I do so because I believe, as Shulman

(1988) himself did when he responded to Schons(1983, 1987) work on reflection, that (and here I

use Shulmans own words to say it by substituting

Shulmans name with that of Schons)

one of our obligations as a scholarly commu-

nity is, if we find [Shulmans] work [on

pedagogical content knowledge] meaningful

(and I do), to insist that it not remain isolated.

At every opportunity we must connect it with

other research traditions and activities withwhich we are familiar. The goal is not to rob

this work of its claimed uniqueness but, in fact,

to enhance the richness with which it can

interact with the other bodies of work in which

we engage. This has been one of the problems

encountered by many of us who read his work.

Neither we nor [Shulman] have done enough to

specify the links between his ideas and those of

many other theorists and practitioners in

education and related areas. (pp. 3132)

ARTICLE IN PRESS


8/3/2019 Segall_PCK_2004

5/16

To make those connections, this paper com-

prises three moves. The first focuses on pedagogy.

It begins by examining how pedagogy is currently

conceptualized in the discourse about pedagogicalcontent knowledge and then, using the literature

from critical pedagogy and cultural studies, moves

to broaden its definition. The focus of the second

move is content, specifically its manifestations

through subject-area texts. Using the broad

definition of pedagogy discussed in the first part,

this section examines the pedagogical nature of

subject-area textsthat is, how texts invite and

position its readers to know. The third section of

this paper discusses the implications of what was

raised in the first two sections for the work of

teacher education as it continues to use the notion

of pedagogical content knowledge in the prepara-

tion of teachers.

2. What pedagogy?

How one defines pedagogywhat it does and

does not entail; how, when, and by whom is it

enacteddetermines not only ones understand-

ings of pedagogy itself but also how knowledge is

understood in relation to pedagogy, how the twocombine to produce pedagogical content knowl-

edge, and what kind of pedagogical content

knowledge emerges as a result. Exploring those

issues, I first examine how pedagogy is perceived,

and what role it currently occupies in the notion of

pedagogical content knowledge. I then move to

explore other notions of pedagogy and the

opportunities those afford to broaden the relation-

ship between content and pedagogy while using

the notion of pedagogical content knowledge.

Though the literature on pedagogical contentknowledge does not address those issues explicitly,

indirect answers can be derived by examining the

role ascribed to pedagogy in the definition and

context of pedagogical content knowledge. Con-

tent, according to Shulman (1986) is the domain of

scholars, pedagogy the domain of teachers. Peda-

gogical content knowledge, writes Shulman (1987)

goes beyond knowledge of subject matter per-se

to the dimension of subject matter knowledge for

teaching (p. 9). Teaching, is the transformation of

content into pedagogical forms (p. 15). Teachers,

Shulman (1986) adds, need to find

the most useful forms of representation of [the

subject areas] ideas, the most powerful analo-gies, illustrations, examples, explanations, and

demonstrationsin a word, the ways of repre-

senting and formulating the subject that make it

comprehensible to others. (p. 9)

Embedded in this model are several under-

standings regarding the substance, place, and role

of pedagogy and its relation to content in

pedagogical content knowledge. Speaking to the

process through which teachers should combine

content and pedagogy to make learning powerful

and meaningful, this model calls for a complex

understanding of the pedagogical act; one which,

as Beyer, Feinberg, Pagano, and Whitson (1989)

have pointed out, implicitly denies the legitimacy,

even as a matter of conceptual convenience, of the

forced disjuncture between thought and action and

content and method (p. 9). My focus, then, is not

as much on what is included in current under-

standings of pedagogy within pedagogical content

knowledge but on what is excluded and how what

is excluded limits the ways one can think about the

interaction between content and pedagogy inclassrooms.

As the model advocated by Shulman attempts to

integrate content and pedagogy in what teachers

can (and should) do in classrooms, assumptions

about the different nature of content and peda-

gogy underlying this model might in fact work to

keep content and pedagogy apart. Prominent

among them are assumptions about pedagogy.

Specifically, that pedagogy is not only separated

from contentcontent is the domain of scholars,

pedagogy the domain of teachersbut, and as aconsequence, that pedagogy is equated with school

learning, restricted to the work of classroom

teachers. Although pedagogical content knowl-

edge intends to blend content and pedagogy

together, it seems that blending is more the

carrying out of one on the other. There is an

apparent division of labor whereby scholars in the

discipline provides content while teachers provide

pedagogy. Prior to entering the classroom, it is

assumed, content in the disciplinesthat which

ARTICLE IN PRESS


8/3/2019 Segall_PCK_2004

6/16

was produced by scholarsfloats free of, pre-

exists pedagogical agency and representation (I

address that issue in the next section).

No one would deny that teachers engage inpedagogy, that their work is inherently pedagogi-

cal in nature. Nor would anyone question that

good teachers, as Shulman and his colleagues

suggest, ought to know their disciplines and

identify the best examples and explanations that

allow students to engage disciplinary content in

meaningful ways. But having established that

teachers work is pedagogical, the question re-

mains whether pedagogy extends what teachers do

in classrooms. In other words, is pedagogy solely

the domain of teachers? Is it restricted to what is

done in school? Or can pedagogy be perceived in

other terms, ones that extend the boundaries of

institutional education? And, if the answer is in the

affirmative, what implications might that have

regarding the interaction between content and

pedagogy in what teachers should be doing in

classrooms?

Although in the mainstream literature in educa-

tion pedagogy has been confined within class-

rooms, it has been conceived more broadly

elsewhere. Viewed from a critical perspective,

pedagogy is considered wider than the relation-ships that go on in schools (Bernstein, 1996, p.

17). Infused by postmodern and poststructural

understandings that view knowledge not only as

always positioned but also as always positioning,

critical pedagogy and cultural studies expand the

idea of pedagogy. They not only think of

pedagogy in terms that exceed classrooms but also

explore pedagogy in classrooms in a broader

fashion. Pedagogy, then, according to Simon

(1992) is a process through which we are

encouraged to know, to form a particular way ofordering the world, giving and making sense of it

(p. 56). Regardless of whether it takes place in or

out of schools, the practice of pedagogy, according

to Simon is an attempt to influence experience and

subjectivity. Broadly conceived, then, pedagogy

would be inherent in any message, contained in

any form of action, structure, or text, inside or

outside of schools, that organizes someones

experience as well as organizes that someone to

experience the world in particular ways. As a

mode of organizing and regulating symbolic

productive practices, Simon adds, pedagogy

attempts to influence the way meanings are

absorbed, recognized, understood, accepted, con-firmed, and connected as well as challenged,

distorted, taken further, or dismissed (p. 59).

While not diminishing pedagogys concern with

whats to be done? in classrooms, Giroux and

Simon (1988) explain, pedagogy is more than the

integration of curriculum content, classroom

strategies and techniques, a time and space for

the practice of those strategies and techniques, and

evaluation purposes and methods. Rather, they

stress, pedagogy organizes a view of, and specifies

particular versions of what knowledge is of most

worth, in what direction we should desire, what it

means to know something, and how we might

construct representations of ourselves, others, and

the world (p. 12).

Exploring pedagogy in that fashion highlights

the broad, on-going, regulative nature of peda-

gogy. The pedagogical act, which, according to

Bernstein (1996) takes place in any environment in

which cultural productionreproduction takes

place, operates, simultaneously, on three interre-

lated levels: distributing forms of consciousness

through the distribution of different forms ofknowledge; regulating the formation of specific

discourses; and transmitting criteria. All of which,

Bernstein concludes, operate at the level of

producing a ruler for consciousness (pp. 4243).

How do those various, interrelated levels of the

pedagogical act operate in the educative context?

In Why is pedagogy important? Lusted (1986/

1992), in an often quoted answer, points out that,

as a concept, pedagogy draws our attention to the

process through which knowledge and knowing

are produced. Pedagogy, Lusted explains,

addresses the how questions involved not

only in the transmission or reproduction of

knowledge but also in its production. Indeed, it

enables us to question the validity of separating

these activities so easily by asking under what

conditions and through what means we come

to know. How one teaches is therefore of

central interest but, through the prism of

pedagogy, it becomes inseparable from what is

ARTICLE IN PRESS


8/3/2019 Segall_PCK_2004

7/16

being taught and, crucially, how one learns.

(p. 85)

Engaging how one teaches as inseparable from

what one teaches, a distinction between pedagogy

and content is untenable. With meanings flowing

back and forth from what is said or read to what

and how things are done (Cherryholmes, 1988, p.

9), pedagogy cannot be considered simply a

method, an after thought applied to content.

Rather, pedagogy and content become one. Con-

ceiving of them as one opens the possibility for

educators and teacher educators to examine not

only how people and issues are represented in

subject-area texts but also how audiences are

constructed and constituted as they are invited,pedagogically, to interact with those texts.

Further, it invites those involved in the educative

process, as Grossberg (1994) suggests, to look

into the social relations of discourse, into the

ethics of enunciation and to the different possible

enunciative positions content-area texts brought

into classrooms construct for ourselves and our

students (p. 17).

3. How content?

[Texts] are composed of signs; but what they do

is more than use these signs to designate things.

yIt is this more that we must reveal and

describe. (Foucault, 1972; cf. Young, 1981, p. 9)

How do content and pedagogy come together to

educate? Who is responsible for, and initiates,

each? There are fundamental differences between

the subject matter knowledge necessary for teach-

ing and subject matter knowledge per se, claim

Grossman, Wilson, and Shulman (1989, p. 24).Such differences, they note, were first recognized

by Dewey who stated that [e]very study of subject

thus has two aspects: one for the scientist as

scientist; the other for the teacher as teacher. These

two aspects are in no sense opposed or conflicting.

But neither are they immediately identical (pp.

285286). Content, according to Shulman (1986),

is the domain of subject-area specialists, pedagogy

is the domain of teachers. While subject-area

specialist may know more about the discipline,

Shulman claims, they do not possess that special

knowledgepedagogical content knowledge

which teachers have (or should have); knowledge

which, through using a variety of techniques ormethods, transforms content per se into content

for teaching. While some of what teachers need

to know about their subjects overlaps with the

knowledge of scholars of the discipline, claim

Grossman et al. (1989),

teachers also need to understand their subject

matter in ways that promote learning. y

Scholars create new knowledge in the discipline.

Teachers help students acquire knowledge with-

in a subject area. (p. 24)

McEwan and Bull (1991) challenge the separa-

tion made between content per se and pedagogical

content knowledge, a separation in which

teachers need to be concerned about whether

their representations of subject matter are

teachable to others; scholars, by implication,

do not (p. 319). All content, McEwan and

Bull claim, as a pedagogical dimension

and all subject-matter knowledge is pedagogical

(p. 318). They explain

[T]here is no such thing as pure scholarship,

devoid of pedagogy. The scholar is no

scholar who does not engage an audience

for the purpose of edifying its members.

yscience, or any other form of scholarship

for that matter, is an inherently pedagogic

affair. yideas are themselves intrinsically

pedagogic. yExplanations are not only of

something; they are also always for someone.

(pp. 331332)

Scholars, as McWilliam and Taylor (1996) pointout, produce out of a desire to teach, to tell, to

relate some thing to some body (p. vii). As such,

McEwan and Bull (1991) add, scholars need to be

concerned with the comprehensibility and teach-

ability of their assertions and ensure their repre-

sentations find a meaningful place in others webs

of belief. In other words, the justification of

scholarly knowledge is inherently a pedagogical

task, and scholars must engage in the sort of

pedagogical thinking supposed by Shulman to be a

ARTICLE IN PRESS


8/3/2019 Segall_PCK_2004

8/16

hallmark of pedagogic reasoning (p. 324). Scho-

larship and teaching, McEwan and Bull conclude,

are connected through their unity of purpose

the common aim of the communication ofideasnot divided by any formal differences.

y [and] scholarship is no less pedagogic in its

aims that teaching. Subject matter is always an

expression of a desire to communicate ideas to

others. (p. 331)

To consider curriculum texts as content per se,

devoid of pedagogy, is to view language or

discourse not as distributors, regulators of con-

sciousness but as neutral conduits of unproblema-

tized meaning (Kincheloe, 1993, p. 43). Yet it is

through language and textual devices that we come

to consciousness, negotiate meaning and identity,

and explore the world. Discourse, Jackson-Lears

(1985) implies, plays a powerful pedagogical role

as it serves to mark the boundaries of permissible

discourse, discourage the clarification ofy alter-

natives (cf. Giroux, 1988, p. 191). When engaging

curriculum materialssubject-area textsstu-

dents learn about the subject but, as Scholes

(1985) points out, the student also learns how to

produce a specific kind of discourse, controlled by

a specific scientific paradigm, which requires him[sic] to be constituted as the subject of that

discourse in a particular way and to speak through

that discourse of a world made by the same

controlling paradigm (pp. 131132; cf. Cherry-

holmes, 1988, p. 158).

When language is treated unproblematically,

texts tend to be regarded as product rather than

for their pedagogical productivity. Although in

such cases the framing of the pedagogical act is less

visible, as Bernstein (1996, p. 28) puts it, than that

of an apparent teacher standing in the front of theclassroom, texts, nevertheless, never cease their

pedagogical functions. For, as Young (1981)

points out, a text is productivity y Even when

written (fixed), it does not stop working, main-

taining a process of production (pp. 3637).

Content area texts not only permit but encou-

rage those they engage to feel, value and learn

about the world in certain ways. They do so by

providing readers a selectively constructed social

realitysocial knowledge and social imagery

and establish a position from which viewers are

able to perceive the world and their own realities

and those of others within that world. Engaging in

forms of discursive, moral, and social regulation,content area texts brought into the classroom

occupy an inescapable pedagogical role by con-

stituting and regulating the limits of consciousness

and modalities of self (Bernstein, 1996, p. 84).

Without claiming that texts have one singular

authorized meaning or that authors ultimately

control meaning-making through their authorial

invitations, what a text utters and how it utters, as

Hall (1986) claims, limits, and influences the links

that can be made between it and its readers (cf.

Fiske, 1989, p. 146). Any authorial decisionto

show this rather than that, to show this in relation

to that, to say this about thatis, according to

Hall (1997) a choice about representation. And

each choice has consequences both for what

meanings are produced and for how meaning is

produced (p. 8; cf. Werner, 2000, p. 196).

Textual devices allow texts to appear natural

and given. Such devices may include

the use of captions, questions, titles and sub-

titles, metaphors and analogies, footnotes, the

over generalized we or theyyor any other

strategy designed to keep the story compelling

and seamless, and hence unquestioned. Repro-

ductions of photographs and historical paint-

ings may be used to make the story persuasive

and believable by rendering events visually

present, confirming their authenticity and im-

plying that they happened in the way the text

suggests. (Werner, 2000, p. 206)

Textual devices, then, while not controlling

meaning, contribute to readers meaning-making

by positioning readers to engage the text and someelements within the text rather than others in

particular ways. Consequently, what a teacher says

and does or what or how a text utters are both

invitations to inquiry. And although students may

(and do) make their own meanings of either of

those invitations and often produce different, even

oppositional meanings and ways of coming to

make meaning, such invitations, nevertheless,

direct students to specific explorations. As peda-

gogical devices, texts, as do teachers, regulate the

ARTICLE IN PRESS


8/3/2019 Segall_PCK_2004

9/16

relationship between the possible, the potential,

and the actual in the educative process. In that

sense, even though there is a difference of kind and

degree between a teachers pedagogy and a textspedagogy, both are nonetheless equally pedagogi-

cal.

Texts used as curriculum materials do not,

however, only provide students with content

per se; they provide them with particular content.

Brought into the classroom as subject-area materi-

als, textswhether textbooks, worksheets, news-

paper articles, film or video, software programs,

and so onpresent particular versions of the

discipline, of reality, truth, and of what (and how)

it means to know something. As such, they are

important creators and mediators of knowledge

and knowing (Masterman, 1993, p. 11). Using

language and symbol, icon and image, signal and

sound, texts produce representations of the . . .

world, images, descriptions, explanations and

frames for understanding how the world is and

why it works as it is said and shown to work

(Hall, 1981; cf. Alvarado, Gutch, & Wollen, 1987,

p. 200).

Any (and all) of the authors and producers of

those texts are first and foremost storytellers. They

tell selected stories in well-established and com-prehensible codes of a world that is reconstructed,

represented, packaged, and shaped in ways that

inform students, pedagogically, what and how to

enquire, what knowledge is of most worth, and

how one goes about collecting and verifying

knowledge and presenting it as truth. (see

Alvarado, 1992; Masterman, 1985; Signorielli,

1993). And while the ability of the text to hide

the ideology inherent in its politics of selection and

appear natural (often neutral) as it resonates with

familiar sense- and meaning-making structuresstudents have come to know (and accept), we

must explore a text not only for what it says, even

for how it says it, but also for what that saying

doesthat is, for how it invites readers to know,

think, imagine.

Drawing attention not only to what a text says

but to how it is organized to make its particular

claims to knowledge and how the latter influences

readers production of meaning is a significant

pedagogical move. It shifts the focus of learning

from explaining or interpreting texts in order to

determine what they really mean to questioning

how texts came to be what they are (Cherry-

holmes, 1988, p. 33) and do what they do.Texts, however, act pedagogically not simply by

telling readers some thing or even by telling it to

them in particular ways. Texts also position

readers to read them in particular ways, from

particular positions. This is what Kress (1989), as

Luke (1995) points out, refers to as reading

positions. Through a range of textual devices,

Luke adds, texts construct and position an ideal

reader. They do so by telling the reader, how,

when, and where to read as they stipulate a

selective version of the world and of being and

doing in that world and by positioning some

readers as inside and outside of, visible and

invisible in that world (p. 18).

Masterman (1985) points out that texts offer

readers positions from which they are invited to

see experience (and to see and experience) in

particular ways. While speaking about visual

media texts, what Masterman points to applies

equally to any text. Audiences (readers), Master-

man explains,

are compelled to occupy a particular physical

position by virtue of the positioning of the

camera. Identifying and being conscious of this

physical position should quickly reveal that we

are also being invited to occupy a social space.

A social space is also opened for us by the texts

mode of address, its setting, and its format.

Finally, the physical and social spaces which we

are invited to occupy are linked to ideological

positionsnatural ways of looking and

making sense of experiences. (p. 229)

Ellsworth (1990), building on Masterman, ex-amines how narrative structures of film (indeed,

any text) solicit from viewers particular kinds of

involvement in the unfolding of the films story or

discourse. She asks how the telling of the story

encourage readers/viewers to identify with some of

the characters and their points of view, desires,

experiences, relations with other characters? She

questions how the physical and narrative posi-

tions offered viewers open up and invite them to

occupy particular social positions within race,

ARTICLE IN PRESS


8/3/2019 Segall_PCK_2004

10/16

gender, and class dynamics (p. 15). Ellsworth

concludes that in order to make sense of a film

(any text) on its own terms,

the viewer must be able to adoptif onlyimaginatively and temporarilythe social, po-

litical, and ideological interests that are the

conditions for the knowledge it constructs. In

this way the films discourse seeks to engage the

viewer not only in the activity of knowledge

construction, but in the construction of knowl-

edge from a particular social, political, and

ideological point of view. (p. 13)

Subject-area texts, then, are not pedagogically

innocent. They are more than what

Shulman referred to as the materia medica

of the teaching profession. Instead they are

and ought to be considered as the materia media

of the profession and discipline; materia,

which, through mediation, create a world rather

than simply re-present it. As creators of a real

they open some worlds for teachers and students

while shutting down others, avail some opportu-

nities for inquiry about that particular world while

eliminating others. To that extent, subject-area

texts are, and must be considered, inherently

pedagogical.

4. Discussion

Now that we have begun to realize its

[pedagogical content knowledges] centrality,

teacher educators, including faculty in

both arts and sciences departments and colleges

of education, must encourage the reunion

of pedagogy and content. (Grossman et al.,

1989, p. 32)

Advocating that making the relationship be-

tween content and pedagogy more transparent is

central to the work of teacher education, this

paper questions neither the importance nor the

relevancy of the concept of pedagogical content

knowledge itself. Instead, it examines the defini-

tions of content and pedagogy underlying current

uses of pedagogical content knowledge and raises

questions about the ability of those particular

definitions to facilitate what pedagogical content

knowledge intended to make possible. Emphasiz-

ing the need to re-conceptualize the existing (or,

more appropriately, non-existing) relationship

between content and pedagogy at the time (themid-1980s), Shulman and his colleagues high-

lighted the centrality of the relationship between

content and pedagogy both in and to a meaningful

educative process. In so doing, they encouraged

teacher educators to re-examine how knowledge of

content influences (and can be further used to

influence) ones pedagogy. But while the idea of

pedagogical content knowledge continues to re-

main fundamental to the thoughtful blending of

the what and the how of teaching, the

definitions of pedagogy and content (and the

boundaries between them) underlying pedagogical

content knowledge seem restrictive; they do not

invite an examination of the various ways in which

content and pedagogy may already be interrelated,

even before either enters the classroom. Conceiv-

ing of pedagogy solely as that which is carried out

by teachers, by definition restricts the ways in

which teachers can (and should) think about the

relationship between content and pedagogy

where one ends and one begins, what and who

activates them, how they operate together to direct

meaning.Showing that (and how) the relationship be-

tween content and pedagogy is more complex, the

boundaries between them more porousin fact,

that they leak into and through each other long

before one enters the classroommy hope was to

broaden the definitions presently used in teacher

education regarding how content and pedagogy

come together to educate. What, then, might

broadening the definitions of pedagogy and con-

tent mean in teacher education? How, for example,

does thinking about texts brought into the class-room as already pedagogical allow teacher educa-

tors to re-think what we currently do (and/or do

not do) with pedagogical content knowledge as we

prepare teachers? And how can the idea of

pedagogical content knowledge itself be used to

incorporate (and address) elements of the pedago-

gical act which currently are, by and large,

excluded from consideration?

To be sure, nothing offered in this paper

diminishes the importance of furthering teachers

ARTICLE IN PRESS


8/3/2019 Segall_PCK_2004

11/16

acquisition of pedagogical content knowledge in

its current formthat is, knowing their subject-

areas from a pedagogical perspective (Wilson,

Shulman, & Richert, 1987) and understandingwhat students find confusing or difficult and

having alternative explanations, models, and

analogies to represent core concepts and pro-

cesses (Feiman-Nemser, 2000, p. 10). Nor does it

negate the primary role teachers have in creating

pedagogical opportunities for learning. What it

does mean, however, is that whether teachers

recognize it or not, the pedagogies they design are

not (and should therefore not be considered as)

isolated from the pedagogical invitations for

learning embedded in the materials they bring

into their classrooms. Consequently, thinking

about pedagogy in teacher education must incor-

porate a wider lens; one that explores the impact of

the pedagogy already embedded in texts on the

kinds of pedagogy teachers can and should use

when asking students to engage those texts. In

other words, thinking of the pedagogies enacted by

teachers as the first and only layer of pedagogy to

structure learning not only ignores a variety of

aspects pertaining to how students are already

invited to know but also eliminates opportunities

for both teachers and students to examine howwhat they do and do not learn is dependent, in

part, on the pedagogical invitations they are faced

with even before teachers pedagogy begins.

Neglecting to address those aspects first reduces

pedagogy to that which takes place in schools and

second avoids a recognition of the impact of the

outside world on what takes place in schools.

If we want teachers and students to read their

world (both inside and outside of school) critically,

then thinking of that outside world as pedagogical

is a good place to begin. For when we do not thinkof, for example, MTV, newspapers, film, or

disciplinary school knowledge as pedagogical, we

will not be inclined to examine them as such. That

is, we might disagree with what such texts tell us

yet believe the way they tell it has little to do with

the stories being told or the opportunities we, as

readers, have to make meaning of (and in) them.

Moreover, if we want students and teachers not

only to read the world critically but to better

understand how they are positioned by others

textbook writers, curriculum designers, media

professionalsto read (and read in) the world,

then exploring the pedagogical nature of texts

becomes imperative.Teachers often see texts not as a collection of

codes and signs that invite readers to know but

as a neutral conduits of meaning. (Kincheloe,

1993). This not only obscures the human relations

inherent in the construction of texts (Alvarado &

Ferguson, 1983) but neglects to address the human

relations they attempt to produce as readers

engage them. What we have, then, are representa-

tions whose functions as pedagogical devices

remain, by and large, obscure to teachersthose

who perhaps most need to understand those

pedagogical functions and make them transparent

to others.

To explore those latter, pedagogical dimensions

requires a mechanism that not only critically

inquires into what stories are told in curricular

materials and who those stories privilege and why

(something many teachers already do). What is

also required is a mechanism that, at the same

time, examines the pedagogical impact of such

stories (and the mechanism that make them

possible) on students ability and desire to

construct particular knowledge and ways ofknowing and being in the world. In other words,

while it is important to invite students to

interrogate which (and the various ways in which)

curricular representations are constructed, such an

approach is insufficient to explore how curricular

representations create, mobilize, and secure parti-

cular norms, dispositions and desires (Giroux,

1994). What this entails in not only a movement

from the question What does a text mean? to

How it come to have a meaning? but, further, to

the question What meanings does a text makeboth possible (and impossible) through its parti-

cular invitations for learning?

To conceive of pedagogical content knowledge

in terms of what has been suggested in this paper,

we must regard it more than a matter of teachers

knowing their subject matter and using that

knowledge to invoke (even) the best pedagogy to

make such knowledge instructional. Making con-

tent instructional means more than applying

pedagogy to it; it also implies examining what

ARTICLE IN PRESS


8/3/2019 Segall_PCK_2004

12/16

pedagogical layers are already imbued in it and

considering the degree to which one ought to work

with/against those pedagogical invitations as one

considers ones own pedagogy as a teacher.Therefore, while teacher education should, no

doubt, continue teaching prospective teachers

how to make content instructional, it must

surely also include ways of examining how content

is already instructional and instructing. That is,

teacher education should focus not only on how to

teach prospective teachers how to manage ideas

and theories in the classroom (Shulman, 1987, p.

1); it should also help them explore how the use of

those ideas and theories in classrooms manages

those who attempt to engage them.

As radical as such an approach might seem to

some proponents of pedagogical content knowl-

edge in its current formulation, this approach

mainly extends rather than reformulates what has

already been considered within the realm of

pedagogical content knowledge. Take, for exam-

ple, the pedagogical nature of representation.

While what I am calling for emphasizes different

questionsones which, in line with critical peda-

gogy, pertain to issues of power, knowledge, and

the politics of representationthan those nor-

mally asked in teacher education, a focus on thepedagogical nature of representation is not in-

herently antithetical to some of the more recent

discussions within the literature on pedagogical

content knowledge that have moved beyond the

original, more static understandings about the

relationship between content and pedagogy. In

fact, and without diminishing the real differences

between critical pedagogy and mainstream ap-

proaches to teacher education, this more recent

mainstream literature illustrates that the difference

between the two areas, at least with regard to thepedagogical nature of representation, is perhaps

not as much of kind as it is of where (and which)

pedagogical aspects of representation ought to be

examined.

The idea of representation, according to

McDiarmid et al. (1989), highlights the fact that

the representations teachers select and the strate-

gies they use to engage them may both intention-

ally and unintentionally convey messages to

pupils about both the substance and nature of

the subjects they teach (p. 194, 197). While the

representations McDiarmind et al. have in mind

are the metaphors, analogies, and examples used

by teachers to represent concepts in the discipline,can we not assume that similar strategies and

forms of representation are embedded in the

curricular texts authors construct to advance a

particular disciplinary concept? Such a possibility

did not escape McDiarmind et al. Every explana-

tion, every worksheet, every computer program,

they write, necessarily represents something

about the substance and nature of subject matter

knowledge to pupils (p. 198). Indeed, each of

themas any other text brought into the class-

roomnot only represents something about the

substance and nature of subject matter to students

but also invites them to create representations

(and, as I have explained earlier, not only any but

specific representations) of what knowledge is of

most worth within the subject area, what it means

to know something in the subject area and how

one goes about obtaining such knowledge and

constructing it into new representations. In other

words, representations of subject matter are

pedagogical; they do not only tell students some-

thing about the world, they also position them to

know of and be in the world in some ways ratherthan others. In that sense, strategies used by

authors, just like those used by teachers, are

intended to teach. As pedagogical devices, both

sets of strategies, to use Popkewitz (1987, p. 340),

impose ways learners are to give shape and

organization to their consciousness. Yet while the

pedagogical nature of teachers representations

and teaching strategies has been recognized and

addressed in the literature about pedagogical

content knowledge, a comparable focus on the

pedagogical nature of the strategies used byauthors of texts brought into classrooms has, by

and large, been missing.

Mere content knowledge, Shulman (1986)

suggests, is likely to be as useless pedagogically

as content-free skill (p. 8). And Grossman et al.

(1989) suggest that [g]ood teachers not only know

their content but know things about their content

that make effective instruction possible (p. 24).

As a teacher educator who teaches a social studies

methods course to prospective teachers I can only

ARTICLE IN PRESS


8/3/2019 Segall_PCK_2004

13/16

concur with that statement. But what my work

with those students has also taught me is that

among the things they ought to know about the

content is something they have yet to thinkaboutthe pedagogical nature of content and

the implications of such knowledge for (and in)

their future teaching in schools. After all, is it not

feasible to ask that one of the things teachers

should know in order to make effective instruction

is the instructional nature of knowledge? Would it

not make sense that as teachers consider the kinds

of pedagogical layers they wish to establish for

students engagement with content that they also

examine the pedagogical layers already present in

that content?

Admittedly, such an approach would require a

double epistemological shift; one which pertains

not only to how teacher educators conceive of the

idea of pedagogical content knowledge itself but

one which pertains to the entire project of teacher

preparation. To think of pedagogical content

knowledge as making content pedagogical and,

at the same time, as an exploration of the already

always pedagogical nature of knowledge necessi-

tates a shift across initial teacher educationboth

inside and outside of colleges of education.

Focusing on the pedagogical nature of content inteacher education means going beyond (indeed

against) the current division of labor between

colleges of education and colleges outside of

education; a division in which prospective teachers

acquire content area knowledge in colleges outside

of education while receiving courses on pedagogy

(which in the best of cases incorporate the idea of

pedagogical content knowledge) in colleges of

education.

If we think of pedagogical content knowledge

not simply as learning how to make contentinstructional but as examining the instructional

nature of content, where should such a concept be

addressed in the current division of labor? Should

it be part and parcel of studying subject-area

content? Or should it be addressed (together with

an overly crowded list of issues), after the fact, in

colleges of education? While the limited space of

this paper does not allow me to explore program-

matic issues, such questions inevitably return us to

Shulmans initial point in his presidential address

about the problematics of separating subject

matter knowledge and pedagogy in the prepara-

tion of preservice teachers.

After all, not only is pedagogyin general, orthe specific pedagogy of the instructorignored as

a significant force in courses outside of colleges of

education, so is the idea that the content taught in

those colleges is pedagogical. Teaching in pre-

service education classes then requires a double

functionone which includes what was excluded

from students learning but should have been

discussed in content area courses as well as what

teacher educators are expected to teach tradition-

ally: the pedagogical aspects which are particular

to teaching. Teacher education, in that case, is not

only about teaching students how to make content

instructional; it is also about examining the

instructional nature of content and what that

means for what teachers need to do with that

knowledge as they plan their own pedagogical

layer to be added to it.

Understanding that content has pedagogical

dimensions that are important when teachers

consider instruction in classrooms raises addi-

tional questions about the idea that more content

courses will make better teachers. As in the case of

many other conversations about the relationshipbetween what student teachers get outside and

inside colleges of education, the discussion should

address the substance of what prospective teachers

receive (and do not receive) in their disciplinary

courses, not the number of credits they received.

For courses about content to be meaningful for

prospective teachers they must learn to examine

how pedagogy relates to content in the content

they learn in those courses.

Although this poses various epistemological

(and subsequently, pedagogical, perhaps evenorganizational) challenges, these challenges should

not be a reason to abandon the project. As

pedagogic devices, subject-area texts regulate the

relations between the possible, the potential and

the actual. They provide readers with a selectively

constructed social realitysocial knowledge and

social imageryand establish a position from

which readers are able to perceive the world and

their own realities and those of others within that

world.

ARTICLE IN PRESS


8/3/2019 Segall_PCK_2004

14/16

The purpose of extending the notion of peda-

gogical content knowledge to include such issues

is, to borrow from Eagletons (1983) discussion of

literary criticism, to show curricular texts as theycannot (or do not wish to) show themselves, to

manifest the conditions of their making and those

they invite others to make about which such texts

and teachers who use them are necessarily silent.

At issue, then, are finding ways for preservice

education to both have prospective teachers learn

how to organize knowledge for students to

experience while simultaneously examining how

knowledge is organized to be experienced (Giroux,

1996). Incorporating a broader notion of pedago-

gical content knowledge in learning to teach

should work to make possible understandings that

address, as Gore (1993) suggests, not only the

relation of the learner to the text (content), but

also the relationship between the who (agent), the

what (content), and the how (process), that

influence what is learned or acquired (p. 127).

To foster those levels of learning among its

prospective teachers, teacher education, needs, to

borrow once more from Gore, to be more publicly

reflexive in its own classroom and through its own

curriculum both about the pedagogies argued for

and the pedagogies of arguments made (p. 127).

References

Alvarado, M. (1992). The question of media studies. In M.

Alvarado, & O. Boyd-Barrett (Eds.), Media education: An

introduction (pp. 9496). London: The British Film In-

stitute.

Alvarado, M., & Ferguson, B. (1983). The curriculum, media

studies and discursivity: A reconsideration of educational

theory. Screen, 24(3), 2034.Alvarado, M., Gutch, G., & Wollen, T. (1987). Learning the

media: An introduction to media teaching. London: Macmil-

lan.

Bernstein, B. (1996). Pedagogy, symbolic control and identity:

Theory, research, critique. London: Taylor & Francis.

Beyer, L. E., Feinberg, W., Pagano, J. A., & Whitson, J. A.

(1989). Preparing teachers as professionals: The role of

educational studies and other liberal disciplines. New York:

Teachers College Press.

Carnegie Task Force on Teaching as a Profession (1986). A

nation prepared: Teachers for the 21st century. Washington

DC: Carnegie Forum on Education and the Economy.

Cherryholmes, C. H. (1988). Power and criticism: Poststructural

investigations in education. New York: Teachers College

Press.

Donmoyer, R. (1996). The concept of a knowledge base. In F.

B. Murray (Ed.), The teacher educators handbook:Building a knowledge base for the preparation of teachers

(pp. 92119). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Eagleton, T. (1983). Literary theory: An introduction. Minnea-

polis: University of Minnesota Press.

Elbaz, F. (1983). Teacher thinking: A study of practical

knowledge. New York: Nichols Publishing.

Ellsworth, E. (1990). Educational films against critical peda-

gogy. In E. Ellsworth, & M. H. Whatley (Eds.), The ideology

of images in educational media: Hidden curriculums in the

classroom (pp. 1026). New York: Teachers College Press.

Feiman-Nemser, S. (2000). From preparation to practice;

designing a continuum to strengthen and sustain teaching.

Paper commissioned by the Strengthening and SustainingTeaching Project (SST). New York: Bank Street.

Feiman-Nemser, S., & Remillard, J. (1996). Perspectives on

learning to teach. In F. B. Murray (Ed.), The teacher

educators handbook; Building a knowledge base for the

preparation of teachers (pp. 6391). San Francisco: Jossey-

Bass.

Fiske, J. (1989). Understanding popular culture. London:

Routledge.

Foucault, M. (1972). The order of discourse. R. Young

(Ed.) (1981), Untying the text: A post-structuralist reader

(pp. 4878). London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.

Giroux, H. A. (1988). Schooling and the struggle for public life:

Critical pedagogy in the modern age. Minneapolis: Uni-

versity of Minnesota Press.Giroux, H. A. (1994). Living dangerously: Identity politics and

the new cultural criticism. In H. A. Giroux, & P. McLaren

(Eds.), Between borders: Pedagogy and the politics of cultural

studies (pp. 4555). New York: Routledge.

Giroux, H. A. (1996). Is there a place for cultural studies in

colleges of education? In H. A. Giroux, C. Lankshear,

P. McLaren, & M. Peters (Eds.), Counter narratives:

Cultural studies and critical pedagogies in postmodern spaces

(pp. 4158). New York: Routledge.

Giroux, H.A., Shumway, D., Smith, P., & Sosnoski, J. (1996).

The need for cultural studies: Resisting intellectuals and

oppositional public spheres. Available from: http://en-

g.hss.cmu.edu/theory/need.htmlGiroux, H. A., & Simon, R. I. (1988). Schooling, popular

culture, and a pedagogy of possibility. Journal of Education,

170(1), 926.

Gore, J. M. (1993). The struggle for pedagogies: Critical

and feminist discourses as regimes of truth. New York:

Routledge.

Grossberg, L. (1994). Introduction. In H. A. Giroux, & P.

McLaren (Eds.), Between borders (pp. 128). New York:

Routledge.

Grossman, P. L. (1990). The making of a teacher: Teacher

knowledge and teacher education. New York: Teachers

College Press.

ARTICLE IN PRESS

http://eng.hss.cmu.edu/theory/need.htmlhttp://eng.hss.cmu.edu/theory/need.htmlhttp://eng.hss.cmu.edu/theory/need.htmlhttp://eng.hss.cmu.edu/theory/need.html

8/3/2019 Segall_PCK_2004

15/16

Grossman, P. L., Wilson, S. M., & Shulman, L. S. (1989).

Teachers of substance: Subject matter knowledge for

teaching. In M. C. Reynolds (Ed.), Knowledge base for the

beginning teacher (pp. 23360). Oxford, UK: Pergamon Press.

Grossman, P. L., & Richert, A. E. (1988). Unacknowledgedknowledge growth: A re-examination of the influence

of teacher education. Teaching and Teacher Education, 4,

5362.

Gudmundsdottir, S., & Shulman, L. (1987). Pedagogical

content knowledge in social studies. Scandinavian Journal

of Education, 31, 5970.

Hall, S. (1981). The Whites of their eyes: Racist ideologies and

the media. In G. Bridges, & &R. Brunt (Eds.), Silver linings:

Some strategies for the eighties. London: Lawrence and

Wishart.

Hall, S. (1986). On postmodernism and articulation: An

interview with Stuart Hall. L. Grossberg (Ed.). Journal of

Communication Inquiry, 10(2), 4560.Hall, S. (1997). Introduction. In S. Hall (Ed.), Representation:

Cultural representations and signifying practices (pp. 111).

London: Sage.

Holmes Group (1986). Tomorrows teachers: A report of the

holmes group. East Lansing, MI: Holmes Group.

Kincheloe, J. L. (1993). Toward a critical politics of teacher

thinking: Mapping the postmodern. Westport, CT: Bergin &

Garvey.

Kress, G. (1989). Linguistic processes in sociocultural practice.

Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.

Lears, T. J. (1985). The concept of cultural hegemony:

Problems and possibilities. American Historical Review, 90,

569570.

Leinhardt, G., & Smith, D. (1985). Expertise in mathematicsinstruction: Subject matter knowledge. Journal of Educa-

tional Psychology, 77(3), 241271.

Luke, A. (1995). Text and discourse in education: An

introduction to critical discourse analysis. Review of

Research in Education, 21 (pp. 348). Washington DC:

AERA.

Lusted, D. (1986/1992). Why pedagogy? In M. Alvarado, & O.

Boyd-Barrett (Eds.), Media education: An introduction (pp.

8588). London: British Film Institute. (Originally pub-

lished in Screen, 27(5), 710, 1986).

Masterman, L. (1985). Teaching the media. London: Comedia.

Masterman, L. (1993). The media education revolution.

Canadian Journal of Educational Communication, 22(1),514.

McDiarmid, G. W., Ball, D. W., & Anderson, C. W. (1989).

Why staying one chapter ahead doesnt really work:

Subject-specific pedagogy. In M. C. Reynolds (Ed.), Knowl-

edge base for the beginning teacher (pp. 193205). Oxford,

UK: Pergamon Press.

McEwan, H., & Bull, B. (1991). The pedagogic nature of

subject matter knowledge. American Educational Research

Journal, 28(2), 316334.

McWilliam, E., & Taylor, P. G. (1996). Preface. In E.

McWilliam, & P. G. Taylor (Eds.), Pedagogy, technology,

and the body (pp. viiviii). New York: Peter Lang.

Murray, F. B. (Ed.) (1996). The teacher educators handbook:

Building a knowledge base for the preparation of teachers.

San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Murray, F. B., & Porter, A. (1996). Pathway from the liberal

arts curriculum to lessons in the schools. In F. B. Murray(Ed.), The teacher educators handbook; Building a knowl-

edge base for the preparation of teachers (pp. 155178). San

Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

National Commission on excellence in Teacher Education

(1985). A call for change in teacher education. Washington

DC: American Association of Colleges of Teacher Educa-

tion.

Palonsky, S. B. (1993). A knowledge base for social studies

teachers. The International Journal of Social Education, 7(3),

723.

Popkewitz, T. S. (1987). Knowledge and interest in curriculum

studies. In T. S. Popkewitz (Ed.), Critical studies in teacher

education: Its folklore, theory, and practice (pp. 335354).London & New York: Falmer Press.

Popkewitz, T. S. (1991). A political sociology of educational

reform: Power/knowledge in teaching, teacher education, and

research. New York: Teachers College Press.

Popkewitz, T. S. (1993). US teacher education reforms:

Regulatory practices of the state, university, and research.

In T. S. Popkewitz (Ed.), Changing patterns of power: Social

regulations and teacher education reform (pp. 263301).

Albany: State University of New York Press.

Scholes, R. (1985). Textual power. New Haven, CT: Yale

University Press.

Schon, D. A. (1983). The reflective practitioner: How profes-

sionals think in action. New York: Basic Books.

Schon, D. A. (1987). Educating the reflective practitioner:Toward a new design for teaching and learning in the

professions. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Shulman, L. S. (1986). Those who understand: Knowledge

growth in teaching. Educational Researcher, 15(2), 414.

Shulman, L. S. (1987). Knowledge and teaching: Foundations

of the new reform. Harvard Educational Review, 57(1),

122.

Shulman (1988). The dangers of dichotomous thinking in

education. In P. P. Grimmett, & G. L. Erickson (Eds.),

Reflection in teacher education (pp. 3138). New York:

Teachers College Press.

Signorielli, N. (1993). Television, the portrayal of women, and

childrens attitudes. In G. L. Berry, & J. K. Asamen (Eds.),Children & television: Images in a changing sociocultural

world (pp. 229242). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

Simon, R. I. (1992). Teaching against the grain: Texts for a

pedagogy of possibility. New York: Bergin & Garvey.

Sockett, H. T. (1987). Has Shulman got the strategy right?

Harvard Educational Review, 57(2), 208219.

Werner, W. (2000). Reading authorship into texts. Theory &

Research in Social Education, 28(2), 193219.

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. 104124). London: Cassell.

ARTICLE IN PRESS


8/3/2019 Segall_PCK_2004

16/16

Wilson, S. M., & Wineburg, S. S. (1988). Peering at history

from different lenses: The role of disciplinary perspectives in

the teaching of American history. Teachers College Record,

89(4), 525539.

Wilson, S. M., & McDiarmid, G. W. (1996). Something old,something new: What do social studies teachers need to

know?In. In F. B. Murray (Ed.), The teacher educators

handbook: Building a knowledge base for the preparation of

teachers (pp. 295319). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Wineburg, S. S., & Wilson, S. M. (1988). Models of wisdom in

the teaching of history. Phi Delta Kappan, 70(1), 5058.

Young, R. (1981). Untying the text: A post-structuralist reader.London: Routledge.

ARTICLE IN PRESS


segall_pck_2004

Documents