Literature Review on "Teacher Knowledge"

[From 2018-2019 I worked on a Masters Dissertation in NIE on the epistemological concept of "Teacher Knowledge" under Dr Jina Ro. I abandoned this dissertation after Dr Ro left NIE to return to Korea (and had no desire to continue it myself). I thought I would share the only completed chapter of my dissertation (the Lit Review) should it be helpful for any Education scholars]

Chapter 2 Literature Review

Fenstermacher (1994) conducted a broad survey on education research literature on different conceptions of “teacher knowledge” or “knowledge for teaching”, and he found five different traditions or “research programmes” on “teacher knowledge”. Fenstermacher’s article remains seminal as the only such widely known survey, thus for our literature review, we will examine each of the 5 traditions identified and taxonomized by Fenstermacher. The 5 traditions are:

1. N.L. Gage and the American tradition of “Teacher Knowledge Base”

2. Elbaz, Connelly, Clandinin, and the tradition of “Personal Practical Knowledge”

3. Schon, Munby, Russell, and the tradition of “The Reflective Practitioner”

4. Lee Shulman and the tradition of “Pedagogical Content Knowledge”

5. Cochran-Smith & Lytle and the tradition of “Practitioner Inquiry”

2.1 The tradition of Nathaniel L. Gage and “Knowledge Base”

Among all the traditions of “Teacher Knowledge” being explored, the work of Nate Gage is the most “scientific” or “positivist” in nature. The work of Gage can be split into two periods – before and after the late 1980s. Gage was the editor of the first edition of AERA’s Handbook on Research on Teaching (1963) which was deeply influential in shaping much of the education research community in the use of scientific and quantitative methods in education research. (Berliner, 2004). When the “paradigm wars” erupted in the 1970-80s, Gage was one of foremost proponents defending quantitative and “positivistic” research (Gage, 1978; 1985).

By the late 1980s, Gage has changed his position somewhat. Drawing inspiration from Howe (1988) and the tradition of “philosophical pragmatism”, Gage developed a model of “process-product” research which he believes is able to accommodate different “paradigms” of education traditions, including post-positivistic traditions such as constructivism. Thus, Gage argues that instead of being necessarily incompatible, quantitative and qualitative research can actually be complementary research methods instead (Gage, 1989; 1999). However, what Gage failed to realise was that by having a cause-and-effect understanding in his “process-product” model, he revealed that he was unable to escape his own positivistic framework of thinking, which is ultimately incompatible with the tradition of “philosophical pragmatism” (Donmoyer, 2006).

While the work of Gage remains influential in education subdisciplines such as educational psychology and “school effectiveness studies” which still favour quantitative and “evidence-based” research (Berliner, 2004; Stringfield & Teddlie, 2004), Gage has abandoned the use of the term “knowledge base” by 1989 and has effectively bowed out of debate of what constitutes “teacher knowledge”.

The term “knowledge base” remains in use among educators and researchers as a loosely defined concept, and has been co-opted and used by the other traditions of “teacher knowledge” (Verloop, Van Driel & Meijer, 2001; Hiebert, Gallimore & Stiglier, 2002; Fernandez 2014).

It would be remiss not to highlight two recent trends in teacher education which are similar in spirit to Gage’s work, even though they are not historically linked. The first is the work of John Hattie on “visible learning” which was so popular it had even been called “the holy grail” of education research (Terhart, 2011). The second has been the ‘Learning Sciences’ movement, an interdisciplinary field of study combining insights from disciplines ranging from cognitive science, educational psychology, computer science, anthropology, sociology and neuroscience (Sawyer, 2005). Like Gage, both these movements are orientated in the process-product model, and may foreshadow a contemporary return to quantitative and “evidence-based” approaches to understanding “teacher knowledge” and teacher education.

2.2 Elbaz, Connelly & Clandinin and the tradition of “Personal Practical Knowledge”

Elbaz (1983), Connelly & Clandinin (1986, 1987) first brought attention to the education research community the importance of investigating the stories or narratives of teachers, and the term “personal practical knowledge” was coined to describe the kind of ‘knowledge’ unearthed from teachers from the process of what would be later known as “narrative inquiry” (Connelly & Clandinin, 1990). Narrative Inquiry would grow to become an important research methodology over the past three decades, not only in education, but in disciplines as varied as psychology, law, medicine, anthropology, sociology, history, philosophy and economics (Kim, 2016). Because of the widespread use of narrative inquiry, quite a lot of scholarship was put into developing its theoretical underpinnings, which include theories from Critical Theory, Critical Race Theory, Feminist Theory, Phenomenology, Poststructuralism, Dewey and Bakhtin (Kim, 2016).

The most common critique of personal practical knowledge is the question: how do “mere” stories elevate itself into the category of knowledge (Sarbin,1986; Fenstermacher 1994)? Some others have labelled “personal practical knowledge” as “descriptive knowledge” instead of “normative knowledge” (Orton, 1996a). The responses of Connelly & Clandinin (1996) to such critique helps clarify how they understand “teacher knowledge”. Using some real-life examples from their research, they show that “good teaching” was not something universal, objective and intuitive, and the same teacher conducting the same lesson in the same classroom may be evaluated as “good” or “poor” under two different school leaders. They conclude that what “good teaching” is or is not is totally dependent on the socially constructed “professional knowledge landscape” which the teaching takes place in, and therefore normative questions about teaching were moot. But rather, what is research worthy is uncovering such “professional knowledge landscapes” and how they interact with individual teachers’ “personal practical knowledge”.

In this sense, Orton was perhaps right to term “personal practical knowledge” as descriptive and not normative, and Connelly & Clandinin would probably respond that all knowledge is “merely” descriptive and there is no such thing as “objectively” normative knowledge. This reveals that Connelly and Clandinin operate firmly within poststructuralist and postmodern convictions about what “knowledge” can or cannot be. This begets another question, that of “so what is the point of researching personal practical knowledge” and how is it not just some kind of navel gazing (Munro, 1998)? Kim (2016) suggests that narrative inquiry is both descriptive and interventionist (and maybe more), and such research is not merely for scholarly interest, but ultimately invested in bringing about greater social good.

2.3 Donald Schön and the tradition of “Reflective Practioner”

Donald Schön introduced the concept of the “reflective practioner” as a result of his own studies on professionals such as architects, psychotherapists and engineers, and his conclusion that the prevailing view of “technical rationality” does not adequately explain what these professionals do. According to Schön, these professionals do not tap on their knowledge of research-based theory to solve their professional problems, but instead tap on the experience of their everyday actions. Thus, Schön formulates a new “epistemology of practice”, centred around concepts such as “knowing-in-action”, “reflecting-in-action” and “reflecting-in-practice”. To Schön, reflection is the means by which knowledge that the practioner “knows” in the body, obtained via daily practice, is explicitly brought into the mind, capable of being articulated and rendered epistemically accessible to self and to others (Schön, 1983, 1987, 1991).

Tom Russell and Hugh Munby (Schön, 1991; Russell & Munby, 1992) were the first education researchers to apply Schön’s concepts into education, but “reflective practice” and “reflective teaching” became so popular in education that within a decade it had reached a “buzzword” status where every teacher is asked to “reflect” but there exist much confusion and ambiguity what this “reflection” is supposed to be (Hébert, 2015).

While Schön hoped that his work would be able shift the paradigm of understanding “knowledge” away from the positivistic framework of “technical rationality” into a “experiential-intuitive” paradigm, critics have argued that Schön’s attempt has actually failed to do so due to the philosophical incoherence of his “epistemology-in-practice” (Gilroy, 1993, 1996; Newman, 1999). A particular astute observation by Hébert (2015) was that Schon’s determination to articulate a working model of “epistemology of practice” already reveals his inability to escape thinking in a positivistic framework, and thus is still trapped in “technical rationality”. Instead of abandoning “reflective practice” however, Hébert argues that educators should surpass Schön in our commitment to abandon positivism, and to consider the work of phenomenological education researchers such as Max van Manen (1991, 1995, 2007) for a better basis of “reflective practice”.

2.4 Lee Shulman and the tradition of “Pedagogical Content Knowledge”

The concept of Pedagogical Content Knowledge (PCK) was first introduced by Lee Shulman in his 1985 Presidential Address to American Educational Research Association (Shulman, 1986), where he described PCK as “the most regularly taught topics in one's subject area, the most useful forms of representation of those ideas, the most powerful analogies, illustrations, examples, explanations, and demonstrations-in a word, the ways of representing and formulating the subject that make it comprehensible to others.” The core concept of PCK was that teachers do not just need to know content knowledge and pedagogical knowledge, but a special kind of knowledge (i.e. PCK) which is able to transform content knowledge into good classroom teaching. Since then, much scholarly attention has been paid to the concept of PCK (Berry, Friedrichsen & Loughran, 2015), and it remains influential today, even spawning the concept of Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge (TPACK) which is deeply influential concept in researchers of education technology (Mishra & Koehler, 2006). That said, due to the sprawling and divergent nature of PCK research, some PCK researchers complain that the PCK construct itself has been too inconsistently and vaguely applied, and PCK research still has many important unanswered questions, such as articulating the relationship between PCK and teacher practice as well as student learning (Abell, 2008).

In recent interviews (Berry, Loughran & van Driel, 2008), Lee Shulman had described the historical origin of PCK as a response to the prevalent research on teaching in the 1980s, which was then dominated by “process-product” paradigms inspired by N.L. Gage. PCK was proposed by Shulman to contrast against prevalent models in two ways: PCK was a more “cognitivist” model as opposed to Gage’s “behaviourist” approach; and PCK was domain-specific (highlighting the importance of content knowledge of teachers), as opposed to prevalent models which were more generic and proposed similar strategies for teachers of different subjects and levels (Berry, Friedrichsen & Loughran, 2015).

It is particularly interesting to note what Shulman himself considered to be the weaknesses of the PCK construct 30 years after its introduction, which he articulated in a speech to the PCK summit in 2012. Shulman listed 4 weakness: (1) PCK did not incorporate non-cognitive aspects of teaching, such as affect, motivation, moral judgement and moral reasoning, (2) PCK told teachers how and what to think, but not how and what to act, (3) PCK did not pay enough attention to factors relating to social and cultural context, (4) PCK was not able to give direction on how to measure teacher or student outcomes (Berry, Friedrichsen & Loughran, 2015).

A different kind of critique of PCK comes from Deng (2007), who argues that transforming content to classroom teaching is not just a pedagogical task, but a curricular task. In other words, before the teacher steps into the classroom, a lot of “content transformation” had already taken place by the school curriculum, and the subject matter and curriculum theorists consulted in crafting the school curriculum. In light of this PCK cannot be truly considered the link between the “raw subject matter” to classroom pedagogy, but at best it is a link between some kind of partially-transformed and already-processed curricular content (through the hands of subject matter experts, curriculum theorists and school administrators) to classroom teaching. A related critique comes from Segall (2004) who argues that “content knowledge” and “pedagogical knowledge” were never two distinct and “pure” categories in the first place, and the “content” and “pedagogy” presented in each classroom is intricately shaped by a “social reality” which had been already constructed for the teacher and the student. Similarly, Barwell (2013), doing research on the PCK of mathematics teachers, questions the assumptions underlying PCK that knowledge is “categorizable, measurable and as represented in the teacher’s mind” (pg 599), and advocates abandoning PCK altogether in favour of adopting “discursive psychology” for research on teaching mathematics.

Despite the critics, PCK scholars continue to research and to develop increasingly robust models of PCK. After Shulman spoke of the 4 weaknesses of PCK in the 2012 PCK Summit, the summit attendees responded by constructing a new model which they termed Teacher Professional Knowledge and Skills (TPK&S) (Figure 3.1 below). It is noteworthy that the summit attendees (mainly researchers in the field of science education) saw themselves as working towards a “knowledge base” for all teachers, found it worthwhile to construct a comprehensive model which can be universally applied across all contexts, and believed that the insights of PCK critics such as Schön, Cochran-Smith & Lytle can actually be assimilated into their framework (Berry, Friedrichsen & Loughran, 2015).

2.5 Cochran-Smith and Lytle and the tradition of “Practitioner Inquiry”

Cochran-Smith and Lytle never articulated their own theory of “Teacher Knowledge”, but by explicitly rejecting the formal-practical divide and in denouncing “evidence-based education” and a “knowledge base for teaching” (Cochran-Smith & Lytle, 2009) they had already made serious claims on what kinds of “teacher knowledge” was or was not legitimate. Perhaps, the clearest way to understand Cochran-Smith & Lytle’s understanding of “teacher knowledge” is to observe their response to critics, particularly Fenstermacher (1994). Fenstermacher’s criticisms arise from the philosophical position that for something to be considered “knowledge” instead of merely “belief”, there has to be some kind of justification or warrant which grants knowledge its elevated epistemological status. Traditionally, the “formal knowledge” vs “practical knowledge” divide exists because it was much easier to obtain philosophical justification for “formal knowledge” than for “practical knowledge”. Fenstermacher’s criticisms towards Cochran-Smith and Lytle are primarily about their inability to articulate any form of justification at all, which renders their “teacher knowledge” back down into mere “teacher beliefs”. Cochran-Smith and Lytle (1998) prepared an extensive reply to Fenstermacher’s criticisms with three counter-arguments.

The first counter-argument is to reject the formal-practical dichotomy by arguing that “neither the activity of teaching nor the knowledge generated by teacher research is captured by this dualism” (pg 24). Teaching and teacher research, they argue, is not merely about “how to do things, the right place and time to do them, or how to see and interpret events related to one’s actions”, i.e. the merely “practical” aspects of teaching. But teaching and teacher research also include “how students and teachers construct the curriculum, co-mingling their experiences, their cultural and linguistic resources, and their interpretive frameworks” including the “having their interpretative frameworks informed by…social, political, historical and cultural contexts”. Cochran-Smith and Lytle argue that the work that teachers do when they do research in their own classrooms is so complex and multi-faceted that to deem it “practical knowledge” is overly simplistic. A lot of that research work resembles the kind of work which would have deemed as “formal knowledge”, but there is no clear-cut distinction as to when “practical knowledge” ends and “formal knowledge” begins. Thus, they argue that the formal-practical dichotomy is an over-simplification, and ultimately unhelpful concept in the context of teaching and teaching research.

The second argument claims that the formal knowledge – practical knowledge dichotomy places formal knowledge as “higher status” compared to practical knowledge given how it is not bound by the local and the particular, and hence “practical knowledge” might even be reduced to something trivial. Cochran-Smith & Lytle opposes such a characterisation, and accuses it of being ethically flawed the same way a male academic may trivialise the work of feminist scholars because they were unable to appreciate the female perspective.

Cochran-Smith & Lytle’s third counter-argument is the most serious one – that Fenstermacher’s approach to philosophical epistemology is deeply misguided in its belief that it is objective, dispassionate and apolitical. Fenstermacher’s position, they argue, has already been challenged in a wide variety of disciplines in the natural and social sciences. And by insisting to maintain old models of epistemology to the new field of teacher knowledge and teacher research, he “fails to entertain the possibility that the relationships of teacher research and professional knowledge may truly be new territory, not easily or usefully charted according to the legends and boundaries of old maps” (pg 27). They evoke feminist research methodologies as an example of how a new epistemology breaks tradition from the past, yet is valuable in generating legitimate knowledge. They argue that education is undergoing something similar, and hence needs a similar break from older epistemologies.

Cochran-Smith and Lytle write in their ending paragraph,

“the point here is not to develop a new set of standards to determine whether teacher research is ‘good’ or ‘good enough’ but to figure out more contextually what it means to be ‘good’ and what teacher research might be ‘good for’. The point is not to determine whether teacher research ‘counts’ but what it counts for, not whether it is ‘interesting’, but whose interests in serves.” (pg 33)

This is written clearly in the idiom of “critical pedagogy”, following the tradition of education thinkers such as Paulo Freire, Henry Giroux, Michael Apple and others. This tradition eschews that the view that “what good education is” is simple, universal and intuitive, but rather it is a hegemonic concept imposed by those in power and advocates that teachers and teaching researchers critically explore if not actively subvert incumbent conceptions of “good education”, for the goal of greater social justice. Years later, Fenstermacher will term this the “emancipationist” approach to understanding education, and would contrast this with two other approaches – the “executive” approach, and the “facilitator” approach – as three separate worldviews of understanding education. (Fenstermacher & Soltis, 2009).

2.6 The work of Robert Orton

While I was doing research for this paper, I stumbled upon the work of Robert Orton III. Orton’s obscurity is likely due to his early death in 1998 (at the age of 43) and hence the lack of volume of his scholarship. Nevertheless, he has already published some significant and important work on the concept of “Teachers Knowledge” which is well worth exploring here.

Orton distinguishes between “foundationalist” and “genetic” view of knowledge, and argues for the genetic view noting that in follows in the tradition of thinkers as diverse as Popper, Piaget, Vygotsky and Dewey (Orton, 1996a). Orton then goes on to show that the genetic view of knowledge is already widely accepted insofar as understanding students as learners, and is the basis of the widely embraced constructivist pedagogies. However, when it comes to teachers as learners, there has been much difficulty articulating a properly genetic conception of teacher knowledge. A particularly striking illustration given by Orton is the teacher who believes in genetic knowledge for student learning and adopts constructivist pedagogy, but how the teacher comes to such knowledge in the first place (i.e. that constructive pedagogy is indeed good for the students) is usually not articulated in terms of the teacher’s own constructivist formation of knowledge. Orton’s proposal is to adopt an Aristotelian sense of “practical argument”: a teacher has many beliefs about education, but the teacher’s beliefs obtain justification to become “teacher knowledge” when the teacher has engaged with “practical argument” with a community of other teachers, making her own beliefs about education explicit, and arguing for them with socially accepted good reasons.

In the corresponding dialogue with Douglas Roberts (Roberts 1996, Orton 1996b) they discuss a polarization within the teaching research community, with “imposition” (e.g. stressing the power of PCK or a knowledge base) and “abandonment” (e.g. stressing the power of rich narratives) as the two extremes camps, and how best to mitigate this polarization. Roberts position is to pick some kind of middle ground between the two, but Orton prefers to adopt a “abandonment” position when training experienced teachers (but not so for student teachers), drawing an analogy that when a teacher educator (or researcher) engaging with an experienced teacher is similar to when two groups of people from different cultures interact to understand each other’s culture better. Orton does however, accept Roberts critique that one problem that potentially plagues these kinds of education discourse is a sharp dichotomy drawn between “normative” and “descriptive” teacher knowledge where such a distinction could be much more blurred.

Elsewhere (Orton, 1996c, 1998), Orton discusses how conceptions of teacher knowledge school could possibly develop a system for positively impacting student learning (instead of merely impacting teacher cognition). Orton then discusses three possible pathways on how teacher knowledge can be linked to student learning: as “rules of skill”, as “counsels of prudence” or as “commands of morality”. While he believes that all three pathways are needed, the existence of the third pathway highlights that teaching is not merely a means to an end, but a moral activity, and only by embracing a “Hippocratic Oath” for teachers, can there be a firm link established between teacher knowledge and student learning. Orton articulates that this remains true across different paradigms of teaching, whether the teacher is a behaviourist, constructivist or critical pedagogue.

Biblography

Abell, S. K. (2008). Twenty years later: Does pedagogical content knowledge remain a useful idea?. International Journal of Science Education, 30(10), 1405-1416.

Anderson, G. L., & Herr, K. (1999). The new paradigm wars: Is there room for rigorous practitioner knowledge in schools and universities?. Educational researcher, 28(5), 12-40.

Barwell, R. (2013). Discursive psychology as an alternative perspective on mathematics teacher knowledge. ZDM, 45(4), 595-606.

Berliner, D. C. (2014). Toiling in Pasteur's quadrant: the contributions of NL Gage to educational psychology. Teaching and Teacher Education, 20, 329-340

Berry, A., Loughran, J., & van Driel, J. H. (2008). Revisiting the roots of pedagogical content knowledge.

Berry, A., Friedrichsen, P., & Loughran, J. (Eds.). (2015). Re-examining pedagogical content knowledge in science education. Routledge.

Connelly, F. M., & Clandinin, D. J. (1985). Personal practical knowledge and the modes of knowing: Relevance for teaching and learning. In E. Eisner (Ed.), Learning and teaching the ways of knowing (84th yearbook of the National Society for the Study of Education, pp. 174-198). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Connelly, F. M., & Clandinin, D. J. (1987). On narrative method, biography and narrative unities in the study of teaching. The Journal of Educational Thought (JET)/Revue de la Pensée Educative, 130-139.

Connelly, F. M., & Clandinin, D. J. (1990). Stories of experience and narrative inquiry. Educational researcher, 19(5), 2-14.

Cochran‐Smith, M., & Lytle, S. L. (1998). Teacher research: The question that persists. International Journal of Leadership in Education Theory and Practice, 1(1), 19-36.

Cochran-Smith, M., & Lytle, S. L. (2009). Inquiry as stance: Practitioner research for the next generation. Teachers College Press.

Deng, Z. (2007). Transforming the subject matter: Examining the intellectual roots of pedagogical content knowledge. Curriculum Inquiry, 37(3), 279-295.

Donmoyer, R. (2006). Take my paradigm… please! The legacy of Kuhn’s construct in educational research. International Journal of Qualitative Studies in Education, 19(1), 11-34.

Elbaz, F. L. (1983). Teacher thinking: A study of practical knowledge. London: Croom Helm.

Fernandez, C. (2014). Knowledge base for teaching and pedagogical content knowledge (PCK): Some useful models and implications for teachers’ training. Problems of Education in the 21st Century, 60.

Fenstermacher, G. D. (1994). Chapter 1: The knower and the known: The nature of knowledge in research on teaching. Review of research in education, 20(1), 3-56.

Fenstermacher, G. D., & Soltis, J. F. (2009). Approaches to teaching. Teachers College Press.

Gage, N.L. (1963). The handbook of research on teaching. Chicago: Rand-McNally.

Gage, N.L. (1978). The scientific basis of the art of teaching. New York: Teachers College Press.

Gage, N.L. (1985). Hard gains in the soft sciences. Bloomington, IN: Phi Delta Kappa.

Gage, N.L. (1989). The paradigm wars and their aftermath a “historical” sketch of research on teaching since 1989. Educational researcher, 18(7), 4-10.

Gage, N.L. (1999). Theory, norms, and intentionality in process–product research on teaching. In R.J.Stevens (Ed.), Teaching in American schools (pp.57–80).Upper Saddle River, NJ: Merrill.

Gilroy, P. (1993) Reflections on Schön: an epistemological critique and a practical alternative, in P. Gilroy & M. Smith (Eds) International Analyses of Teacher Education, pp. 125-142. Abingdon: Carfax Publishing Company.

Gilroy, P. (1996) Meaning Without Words: philosophy and non-verbal communication. Aldershot: Avebury.

Grossman, P. L. (1990). The making of a teacher: Teacher knowledge and teacher education. Teachers College Press, Teachers College, Columbia University.

Hébert, C. (2015). Knowing and/or experiencing: a critical examination of the reflective models of John Dewey and Donald Schön. Reflective Practice, 16(3), 361-371.

Hiebert, J., Gallimore, R., & Stigler, J. W. (2002). A knowledge base for the teaching profession: What would it look like and how can we get one?. Educational researcher, 31(5), 3-15.

Howe, K. R. (1988). Against the quantitative-qualitative incompatibility thesis or dogmas die hard. Educational researcher, 17(8), 10-16.

Kim, J. H. (2016). Understanding narrative inquiry: The crafting and analysis of stories as research. Sage publications.

Mishra, P., & Koehler, M. J. (2006). Technological pedagogical content knowledge: A framework for teacher knowledge. Teachers college record, 108(6), 1017.

Munro, P. (1998). Subject to fiction: Women teachers' life history narratives and the cultural politics of resistance. McGraw-Hill Education (UK).

Newman, S. (1999). Constructing and critiquing reflective practice. Educational Action Research, 7(1), 145-163.

Orton, R. E. (1996a). How can teacher beliefs about student learning be justified?. Curriculum Inquiry, 26(2), 133-146.

Orton, R. E. (1996b). Discourse communities of teachers and therapeutic philosophy: A response to douglas roberts. Curriculum Inquiry, 26(4), 433-438.

Orton, R. E. (1996c). Teacher beliefs and student learning. Philosophy of Education Archive, 318-325.

Orton, R. E. (1998). How can teacher reasoning be practical?. Educational Theory, 48(2), 175.

Sarbin, T. R. (1986). The narrative as a root metaphor for psychology. In T.R. Sarbin (Ed.), Narrative psychology: The storied nature of human conduct (pp. 3-21). New York, NY: Praeger

Sawyer, R. K. (Ed.). (2005). The Cambridge handbook of the learning sciences. Cambridge University Press.

Segall, A. (2004). Revisiting pedagogical content knowledge: the pedagogy of content/the content of pedagogy. Teaching and teacher education, 20(5), 489-504.

Schön, D. (1983). The reflective practitioner. New York, NY: Basic Books.

Schön, D. (1987). Educating the reflective practitioner. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Schön, D. (1991). The reflective turn: Case studies in and on educational practice. New York, NY: Teachers College Press.

Shulman, L. S. (1986). Those who understand: Knowledge growth in teaching. Educational researcher, 15(2), 4-14.

Roberts, D. A. (1996). Epistemic Authority for Teacher Knowledge: The potential role of teacher communities—a response to Robert Orton. Curriculum Inquiry, 26(4), 417-431.

Russell, T.L., Munby, H. (Eds). (1992). Teachers and Teaching: From classroom to reflection. London: Falmer.

Stringfield, S., & Teddlie, C. (2004). The multiple roles of NL Gage in the creation of educational effectiveness fields. Teaching and Teacher education, 20(4), 397-404.

Terhart, E. (2011). Has John Hattie really found the holy grail of research on teaching? An extended review of Visible Learning. Journal of curriculum studies, 43(3), 425-438.

Van Manen, M. (1991). The tact of teaching. London, ON: The Althouse Press.

Van Manen, M. (1995). On the epistemology of reflective practice. Teachers and Teaching: Theory and Practice, 1, 133–150.

Van Manen, M. (2007). Phenomenology of practice. Phenomenology and Practice, 1, 11–30

Verloop, N., Van Driel, J., & Meijer, P. (2001). Teacher knowledge and the knowledge base of teaching. International journal of Educational Research 35(5), 441-461.