Subject Matter: Meaningful Learning In Technology Education

2006 ◽  
Vol 2 (4) ◽  
pp. 13-18
Author(s):  
Ossi Autio ◽  
Author(s):  
Bharti Tandon

More than three decades ago, Shulman introduced the concept of Pedagogical Content Knowledge (PCK) to describe the ways of representing and formulating the subject matter to make it comprehensible to others. It involves understanding of how particular subject matter topics and issues are organized and represented in order to teach in an effective way. It also involves understanding the needs and struggles of the students. Shulman (1987) identified PCK as one of seven categories of teachers’ knowledge which is essential for providing meaningful learning experiences to all students including children with disabilities. This calls for special educators in inclusive settings to possess the knowledge and skills to implement PCK in teaching all students. There is no global PCK model; researchers have explained it differently in terms of components in the field. This paper attempts to explain the concept of PCK, its importance for special educators teaching in co-teaching and two models of PCK namely Shulman’s Model and Ball’s Model.


Author(s):  
Deborah A. Scigliano

The practice of online mentoring, known as telementoring, provides a powerful tool to facilitate meaningful learning. It is based upon the traditional roles of mentoring, yet, it goes beyond temporal and spatial boundaries. The majority of telementoring models involve subject matter experts and students who engage in projects to further learning. Successful telementoring projects involve both content-centered processes as well as effective telecommunication processes. When these elements combine, students engage in opportunities for inquiry and deep learning and telementors experience satisfaction for sharing their knowledge and facilitating the growth of student learning.


PMLA ◽  
1935 ◽  
Vol 50 (4) ◽  
pp. 1320-1327
Author(s):  
Colbert Searles

THE germ of that which follows came into being many years ago in the days of my youth as a university instructor and assistant professor. It was generated by the then quite outspoken attitude of colleagues in the “exact sciences”; the sciences of which the subject-matter can be exactly weighed and measured and the force of its movements mathematically demonstrated. They assured us that the study of languages and literature had little or nothing scientific about it because: “It had no domain of concrete fact in which to work.” Ergo, the scientific spirit was theirs by a stroke of “efficacious grace” as it were. Ours was at best only a kind of “sufficient grace,” pleasant and even necessary to have, but which could, by no means ensure a reception among the elected.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document