Picture of virus under microscope

Research under the microscope...

The Strathprints institutional repository is a digital archive of University of Strathclyde research outputs.

Strathprints serves world leading Open Access research by the University of Strathclyde, including research by the Strathclyde Institute of Pharmacy and Biomedical Sciences (SIPBS), where research centres such as the Industrial Biotechnology Innovation Centre (IBioIC), the Cancer Research UK Formulation Unit, SeaBioTech and the Centre for Biophotonics are based.

Explore SIPBS research

The psychological dimension of transformation in teacher learning

MacLellan, Effie (2012) The psychological dimension of transformation in teacher learning. Teaching Education, 23 (4). pp. 411-428. ISSN 1047-6210

[img]
Preview
PDF (Transfromation in PCK)
Pre_print_T_formation_in_PCK.pdf - Preprint

Download (503kB) | Preview

Abstract

Against a background which recognises pedagogical content knowledge as the distinctive element of teacher competence/expertise, this theoretical essay argues for its central construct - that of transformation – to be understood by teachers and teacher-educators in psychological terms (as was originally proposed by Dewey). Transformation requires teachers to fashion disciplinary knowledge such that it is accessible to the learner. It is argued that for transformation to happen, teacher thinking must include a sophisticated grasp of cognition and metacognition if teachers are to be characterised as competent, let alone expert. This article is written within a context of considerable social and academic scrutiny in the United Kingdom of the form and content of professional teacher preparation and development. In recent years the contribution of psychological knowledge to teacher-education has been filtered through procedural lenses of how best to 'manage classrooms', 'assess learning', 'build confidence' or whatever without a matched concern for psychological constructs through which such issues might be interpreted; thus leaving teachers vulnerable in their professional understandings of learning and its complexities. That society now requires high-level cognitive engagement amongst its participants places cognitive and metacognitive demands on teachers which can only be met if they themselves are conceptually equipped.