March 23, 2014

Nation (2007) The Four Strands

strands

 

Nation, I. S. P. (2007). The Four Strands. Innovation in Language Learning and Teaching, 1(1), 1-12

I frequently recommend Nation’s Four Strands to balance language learning experiences, so I re-read Nation’s original article just to check my understanding.

Nation’s Four Strands of 25% meaning-focused input, 25% meaning-focused output, 25% language-focused learning, and 25% fluency development continue throughout language learning experiences with approximately equal time spent on each strand.

Meaning-focused input and output are similar: input is reading and listening and output is writing and speaking. To define activities as meaning-focused input and output, learners must be familiar with most of language (95-98% of vocabulary), genuinely interested in understanding input and conveying output, and have enormous quantities of input and output. Examples of meaning-focused input are reading news articles online every day or watching several seasons of a TV series, and examples of meaning-focused output are frequently talking in conversations or regularly updating a blog. Nation supports his ideas with research (including Krashen’s (1995) Input Hypothesis and Swain’s (2005) Output Hypothesis) and the time-on-task principle, i.e. simply the more you do something, the better you will be at doing it.

Language-focused learning is the deliberate learning of language features (e.g. pronunciation, spelling, vocabulary, grammar, discourse) and language learning strategies. To define activities as language-focused learning, learners must give deliberate attention to language features, process language in deep thoughtful ways, use spaced repetition for learning, and use features at appropriate levels that are used in other strands. Examples of language-focused learning are memorizing dialogues and using (online/app) dictionaries.

Fluency development focuses on using known language fast and automatically for all language skills. To define activities as fluency development, learners must be familiar with all of the language (100% of vocabulary), focus on understanding and/or conveying meaning, have a sense of urgency, and have enormous quantities of input and output. Examples of fluency development are quickly skim reading texts, 4/3/2 repetitious speaking activities, writing within limited time frames, and listening to TV presenters (e.g. Jamie Oliver) who speak fast!

Nation bases his Four Strands on ten sound language learning principles.

Learners need to
1. use enormous quantities of comprehensible input,
2. notice language during input,
3. use wide variety of genres during output,
4. use cooperative interaction,
5. learn language deliberately,
6. use language learning strategies,
7. develop fluency,
8. balance the Four Strands,
9. repeat useful language,
10. assess learning needs.

If you follow Nation’s simple framework, you’ll have good language learning.

March 22, 2014

Fiore (1989) procrastination

Fiore

Fiore, N. (1989). The now habit: A strategic program for overcoming procrastination and enjoying guilt-free play. London: Penguin Books.

 
So we’ve heard it all before: small pieces, set priorities, and JUST DO IT! But it ain’t that simple! Nobody procrastinates due to laziness or disorganization. We procrastinate to relieve stress from negative self-beliefs, resistance to authorities, imbalance of work and play, perfectionism, and fear of success and failure.

Failures to perfectionists are like paper cuts to hemophiliacs. Perfectionists equate average tasks with compete personal failure. However, procrastination protects us from self-criticism because we don’t have time to do our best.

Successes are often rewarded with more and harder work. Like high jumpers who have just cleared the bar, no time to rest, the bar is immediately raised. However, procrastination protects us by reserving energy for subsequent tasks.

Fiore believes that procrastination is a learned behaviour and can be unlearned.

1st. Become aware of avoidance behaviors, e.g. excessive preparation.

2nd. Focus on positive rewards, not negative punishments.

3rd. Reduce imagined risk. Anyone can walk at ground level along planks that are 10m long x 30cm wide x 10cm thick. But procrastinators raise planks high up between buildings, making tasks impossible and freezing with fear. But when buildings burst into flames, procrastinators rush across planks, with less self-judgment. Place safety nets under your planks.

4th. Accept consequences, and choose to do tasks your way.

5th. Improve self-talk. Replace ‘I must finish’ with ‘when I can start’, ‘this project is huge and important’ with ‘I can do one small part’, ‘I must be perfect’ with ‘I may make mistakes’, and ‘I don’t have time to play’ with ‘I must take time to play’!

6th. Plan tasks backwards. Start at deadlines, estimate all parts, including now.

7th. Schedule only play activities. Only record work after 30 minutes of uninterrupted on-task-time. No drinks. No Facebook. Start and complete 30 minutes and then break. I know can do anything I dread for 30 minutes. I say to myself, ‘okay 30 minutes, from now, go’, and then magically several hours pass. This simple mind-trick gets me on-task every time.

If you work with people who procrastinate, encourage choices, praise achievements and avoid criticism (procrastinators self-criticize enough). Ask for commitment not compliance, and express achievable objectives not overwhelming expectations.

I hope that helps. Veel succes.

March 16, 2014

Darling-Hammond (2006) teacher education

Darling-Hammond, L. (2006). Constructing 21st-century teacher education. Journal of Teacher Education, 57(3), 300-314.

I’ve been skim reading a few books on teacher education and so many refer to this article that it jumped to the top of my reading list.

Teaching is often viewed as simplistic by laypeople and novice teachers; however, teaching is non-routine, unpredictable and requires diverse and flexible teaching and reflective skills to handle diverse learners’ needs in increasingly complex contexts.

Novice teachers need to overcome three challenges. First, “the apprenticeship observation” (Lortie, 1975), i.e. past student learning experiences need to be separated from new learning to teach experiences. Second, “the problem of enactment” (Kennedy, 1999), i.e. more than just understand teaching, but be able to actually teach. Third, “the problem of complexity” (Jackson, 1974), i.e. “understand and respond to the dense and multifaceted nature of the classroom, juggling multiple academic and social goals requiring trade-offs from moment to moment (Darling-Hammond, 2006).

Teacher education must address the influence of previous teaching observations, perceived separation of theory and practice, limited cultural perspectives, and the need for multiple tasks in complex settings. In addition, teacher education must focus on knowledge about learning and learners, and skills for curriculum development, classroom management, teaching and assessment. To achieve this, teacher education programs need to use a clear single vision for theory and practice; have transparent achievement standards; integrate theory and extensive, intensive, reflective practice (Ball & Cohen,1999); use real cases and research; confront assumptions; work together with schools to improving learning, teaching and teacher education.

Although novice teachers enter teaching with existing beliefs from student learning experiences, many teacher educators argue that novice teachers who have teaching experience are better prepared to integrate the theory and practice of teacher education (Baumgartner, Koerner, & Rust, 2002; Denton, 1982; Henry, 1983; Ross, Hughes, & Hill, 1981; Sunal, 1980). However, many short cut programs designed for working novice teachers minimize teaching and curriculum theory and focus on survival needs. Furthermore, novice teachers frequently demand classroom management strategies instead of improving teaching and curriculum knowledge, a lack of which may cause classroom difficulties (Shields et al., 2001).

March 13, 2014

Claxton (2008) inside/outside schools

Claxton Claxton, G. (2009). What’s the point of school? Rediscovering the heart of education. Oxford: Oneword Publications.

I read Claxton for relief from my heavy-going reading list, but Claxton’s comparison of learning inside and outside schools was worth reading.

Claxton says schools offer learning just-in-case for its own sake in narrow pre-graded pieces, with prejudged students achievement levels, and smooth learning that avoids mistakes. Whereas, learning outside schools is just-in-time for real achievement in broad complex ungraded contexts, with gradual increasing skills, and steep zigzagging learning filled with risks. Learners outside schools are curious, collaborative, and seek unknown answers.

Historically, schools are monasteries and factories.  As monasteries, schools preside over knowledge, select knowledge, sever knowledge into subjects, dispense knowledge, and examine knowledge. As factories, schools forge standardized subject production lines for batches of students to manufacture workers who will do the bidding of authorities. Successful students copy, memorize and reproduce (soon outdated) knowledge, but are not prepared for our messy complex real-world. However, Claxton proposes Epistemic Apprenticeships with guides who role model learning and encourage learners to be curious, resilient, balance creativity with logic, handle feedback, approach problems calmly, and be emotionally engaged.  Learners need responsibilities, respect, reality, choices, challenges, and collaboration, which is what I strive for, but many students still demand spoon-feeding and prefer to regurgitate pre-packaged knowledge.

I live outside my original learning culture, and even after ten years, occasional culture-clashes surprise me. Here many teachers appear to believe in the fixed intelligence and predetermined achievement levels that Claxton is so against. Beliefs are powerful self-fulfilling prophecies. For me, the basic core of teaching is believing people can learn and then helping people learn. Piaget defines intelligence as knowing what to do when you don’t know what to do. Intelligence is not what learners can do easily: intelligence is how learners respond to unknown and difficult situations. Grit, resilience and perseverance are better predictors of performance than IQ tests. Believing in labels as valid and fixed only encourages people to give up in difficult situations (the Pygmalion effect).

I’ll re-read Building Learning Power soon.

 

February 28, 2014

Stepanek (2014) EAP creatively

Stepanek, I. (2014, February). Implementing creativity in language learning: A practical guide. Paper presented at conference 28. Arbeitstagung des AKS, Vorsprung durch Sprachen, Fremdsprachenausbildung an den Hochschulen, Technischen Universität Braunschweig, Germany.

Starting this blog has surpassed my expectations. I am in the habit of writing: it’s now normal for me to write every day. I’ve finally changed my mantra (after nearly 20 years of academic study) from “I HATE writing!” to “No worries, just write”. I trust learning through huge hours of practical experience, so am sure my writing style and speed will improve over time.

I’m at a foreign language learning conference in Braunschweig, Germany: 28. Arbeitstagung des AKS. The main conference language is German, so I’m limited to attending the occasional presentations in English, but I’ve have just been inspired by “Implementing creativity in language learning: A practical guide” from Libor Stepanek, Masaryk University Language Center, Brno, Czech Republic. Libor bases his teaching methods and learning processes on ideas about creativity from Robinson, Csikszentmihalyi, de Bono, Torrance, Treffinger, Runco, and Gillford among others. He aims to move learners from clear to unclear situations, and from clear to unclear solutions, breaking down students’ barriers of perception, tricking students into using and developing a variety of creative skills, specifically creative fluency, flexibility, originality, and elaboration. I need to talk it him, but somehow he has obtained management approval of a huge university (43,000 students, with approx. 10,000 language center students) to teach without a prepared syllabus, flexibly, using the multidisciplinary class groups as active communities of practice. Libor uses creative practical activities to raise students’ awareness of language, and language learning processes and strategies. He expects time-consuming extensive listening and reading outside of the classroom as students source and select language learning materials for the current learning group. I’m impressed: I’d work on his team.

See Libor’s blog here: www.eapcreatively.blogspot.cz

February 27, 2014

Whitton (2010) digital game learning

WhittonWhitton, N. (2010). Learning with digital games: A practical guide to engaging students in higher education. London: Routledge.

 

 

I was curious to read Whitton’s ideas because I’ve investigated vocabulary learning in digital games, but I was surprised by issues relevant to my current research.

Whitton disagrees with Prensky (2001) that generations are digital natives or immigrants: labeling generations is not helpful but limiting. Ability to use technology is not fixed: exposure level and time affect competency and confidence. Whitton also reminds us to consider people involved, organizational issues, the learning context, and nature of technology whe using learning technologies. She offers ideas about how to evaluate the suitability of learning-technologies, based on accessibility and usability.

Whitton summarises general and adult learning theories, which I’m listing as a reminder to revise the originals. It’s time to start writing parts of my thesis: general, adult, digital and community learning!

– Knowles’ (1998) theory of adult learning, andragogy, including purpose, control, awareness of diversity, practical applications, and tasked- focus.
– Savery and Duffey’s (1995) constructivism model, including situated cognition, cognitive puzzlement, social collaboration.
– Grabinger et al (1997) and Land & Hannafin (2000) assertion that online learner-centered learning is influenced by constructivism principles, including support taking responsibility, present multiple views, encourage ownership, offer relevant learning, based on real-life experiences, support collaboration, use multiple digital-tools and rich media.
– Kolb’s (1984) Experimental Learning Cycle, including actively planning, reflecting and integrating theories.
– McConnell (2000) and Palloff & Pratt (2003) state that social constructivism facilitates collaborative learning, allows people to work to their strengths, develops critical thinking skills and creativity, validates ideas, and values different learning styles, preferences, perspectives, and skills.
– Vygotsky’s (1978) social constructivism states that learning occurs first socially and the later individually, and the Zone of Proximal Development is between what learners can do autonomously and with support and guidance.
– Lave & Wagner (1991) Communities of Practice are apprenticeships and learning groups’ norms, processes and identity.
– McConnell (2006) discusses online learning communities.
– Boud & Feletti (1991) define problem-based learning as collaborative solving of real-world, multidiscipline problems, where teachers are facilitators not experts.
– Bloom (1956) separates learning into psycho-motor, affective and cognitive domains, and further defines cognitive for step-by-step objectives as knowledge, comprehension, application, analysis, synthesis, and evaluation.
– Anderson & Krathwohl’s (2001) revision of Bloom’s taxonomy is remembering, understanding, applying, analyzing, evaluating, and creating.

February 27, 2014

Kear (2011) online communities

Kear

Kear, K. (2011). Online and social networking communities: A best practice guide for educators. New York: Routledge.

The internet is not transmission and reception. Users are not passive: they learn interactively and create supportive communities using email lists, newsgroups, podcasts, e-portfolios, social bookmarking, media sharing, chat rooms, instant messaging, conferencing, virtual worlds, shared documents, micro-blogging, VoIP, discussion forums, social network, wikis, and blogs. Digital communication is synchronous and/or asynchronous, private or public, and shared one-to-one, one-to-many or many-to-many. Digital tools constantly evolve and converge, are convenient, flexible, collaborative, can mimic face-to-face contact, engaging, community building, and integrative with everyday life. However, digital-technologies can discourage participation, be impersonal, delay responses, and be overwhelming (information-overload/failure to filter). Formal digital-learning is improved by making navigation simple and transparent, encouraging social participation, providing face-to-face meetings, integrating online activities with everyday activities and assessments. Be aware that learners’ ages, attitudes to studying (deep and/or surface), topic, and discussion and skill development affect learning.

Communities were based around locations; however, people linked by shared beliefs, values, purposes, practices and interaction are communities: “network of interpersonal ties that provide sociability, support, information, belonging, and social identity” (Wellman, 2001), and include digital groups (Preece, 2000; Palloff & Pratt, 1999; Renningar & Shumar, 2002; McConnell, 2006). Online communities are groups (mutual commitment) or networks (known/unknown connections) or collectives (aggregations/actions performed by unconnected individuals) (Dron, 2007; Wiley, 2007). Traditionally information is filtered then published; however, internet information is published and then filtered (Shirky, 2008). Digital communities use stygmergy, contributions from many to develop something valuable.

Communities of practice have mutual engagement, joint enterprise, shared repertoire: members share common purposes, initially observe, actively learn through ‘legitimate peripheral participation, and develop identity (Wenger, 1998). Social presence is required to be perceived as real in digital contexts (Gunawardena & Zittle, 1997). Digital learning communities integrate social, cognitive and teaching activities by including open communication, group cohesion and affective responses. Communities of inquiry move through a cognitive trigger-event, exploration, interaction, resolution cycles (Garrison et al, 2000). The Conversational Framework explains dialogue, interaction, and feedback (Laurillards, 2009). The Five Stages Model explains learning with digital-communication: access and motivation, online socialization, informal exchange, knowledge construction, development/reflection (Salmon, 2004).

February 24, 2014

Selwyn (2011) education & technology

Selwyn

 

 

 

 

 

Selwyn, N. (2011). Education and technology: key issues and debates. London: Continuum.

I recommend reading Education and technology: ‘the’ comprehensive overview that questions how technology-use affects education.

Education is formal learning provided by an institution, usually structured, assessed and credentialized (Selwyn, 2012). Formal learning is managed by educational institutes (Rogers, 2003); whereas, informal learning is controlled by learners outside intuitions without external criteria (Livingstone, 2000). Learning is a “means to acquire a new skill or insight” (Illich 1973) and is frequently viewed as a product or process. Selywn briefly explains Behaviourist theories as passive and externally-shaped process; Constructivist theories as exploration and meaning-making; Sociocultural theories as situated within cultural contexts; Bloom’s (1956) psychomotor, affective and cognitive domains;  Situated learning as peers co- constructing knowledge; and Sfard’s (1998) learning through participation. Education is not isolated, but intertwined with families, income, gender, race, households, workplaces,  institutes, communities, cultures, commercial markets, national states and global economies.

Technology in education includes artifacts and devices, activities and practices, and social contexts (Lievrouw & Livingstone, 2002).  Previously, technology was used to seek and access information; however, currently technology enables social interaction, any time any place, and interlinks to other technologies. Information is networked and remains unfinished in a constant state of development by multiple users.

Technology can change learning processes: making learning accessible, affordable, flexible, and active (McLoughlin & Lee, 2008); enabling self-management of learning; encouraging reflective and reflexive practice (Beck-Gernsheim, 1996), promoting critical thinking (Bugeja, 2006), and providing interaction for learning communities. Online communities of practice enable learners to share knowledge in social, informal ways. Learning can now be discovered rather than delivered and negotiated rather than prescribed. We are moving towards user-driven education  (Edson, 2007), where learners seek own learning instead of institutes proving education (Collis & Gommer, 2001).  Learning-technologies may finally challenge persistent educational structures, identified by Illich in 1971, that encourage reliance on educational institutes, discourage self-management of learning, and reinforce societies’ inequalities. Here’s to the future of learning-technologies that may facilitate a change in learning cultures.

February 22, 2014

Reid (2011) teacher education

Reid, J. (2011). A practice turn for teacher education? Asia-Pacific Journal of Teacher Education, 39(4), 293-310.

Reid argues for alternative professional teacher-education, specifically practice-experiences, to address limitations and integrate teacher-education models. Reid justifies her need to change teacher-education by reminding us of our problems.

Education strives to improve and reform, appearing to be continually frustrated with current teaching practice and fascinated with cutting-edge teaching practice (Carlgren, 1998). We have to remember that teaching practice resists change because it is ‘rhizomatic’: new-ways of teaching are off-shoots from old-ways of teaching that live on and on and on (Phelan & Sumsion, 2008). Basically, 20th Century learner-teachers practice teaching in 19th Century schools with 21st Century children and learning contexts (Britzman, 2009).

In addition, novice teachers are not really inexperienced teachers because they have observed teaching for at least a decade: this familiarity makes it difficult to perceive and accept new ways of teaching. Using an apprenticeship model of teacher-education, on-going generations of teachers remain essentially unchanged. We need to critically examine teaching practice as something strange and foreign, rather than unquestionably repeat existing practice. Reid states that learner-teachers need to feel like novices through deconstruction of core practices, which are modeled, explained, rehearsed, and evaluated. Leraner-teachers need to practice separate skills in simplified contexts, before simultaneously applying multiple skills in complex learning contexts. In-line with Grossman (1991, 2008, 2009), ultimately Reid seeks to integrate theory and practice (and praxis and rational action) to improve the teacher-learning and education-development.

Finally a few quick definitions of essential terms. Aldrich (2006) describes teacher-education models as apprenticeship or training or disciplinary study. Dreyfus (1980) defines teacher-education as consisting of initial teacher education (for novice teachers), transitional teacher education (for advanced beginners and competent performers), and continuing teacher education (for proficient performers and experts).

February 18, 2014

Rushton & Suter (2012) learning reflection

RushtonSuterRushton, I. & Suter, M. (2012). Reflective practice for teaching in lifelong learning. Maidenhead: Open University Press.

Focusing on practical applications, UK policies, and detailed cases, the authors see reflection as a cyclic process that allows teachers to think backwards and forwards to improve learners’ experiences and achievement. They define levels of reflection as technical (daily in immediate learning context), organizational (longer-term in management/organization context), and critical (persistent in social/political context). They consider learning contexts as too complex to apply prescriptive, one-size-fits-all solutions and require teachers to integrate theory and practice (including using action research) to make professional judgments. They identify problems as learner-teachers’ reluctance, low confidence, and ignorance of use of reflective processes; teachers’ tick-the-box attitude and shallow results; and  management’s intermittent and compulsory use.

This book briefly present several theorists:

– Aristotle describes knowledge as techne (to make something), episteme (theoretical knowledge) and phronesis (practical wisdom).

– Dewey (1933) outlines his five steps of feel difficulty, locate and define, suggest solutions, develop suggestions, and experiment, which leads to accept or reject.

– Gadamer (1980) says that individuals are inseparable from their culture and history, and are unable to be objective.

– Schön (1983)asserts that teaching is messy and complex and not easily aligned to theories. Teachers must combine reflection in action, practical and personal knowledge, and knowing in action.

– Kolb (1984) demands that learning should be relevant and use concrete experience, reflective observation, abstract conceptualization, and active experimentation.

– Boud, Keog, Walking (1985) describe experimental refection as replay experience, reflect on experience, and respond to experience.

– Habermas (1987) seeks a democratic society that accepts all stakeholders voices. He defines human interaction as strategic and instrument interaction (focus on success) or communicative action (focus on understanding).

– Tripp (1993) explores critical incidents, questioning what happened, to who, where, and teachers’ reactions.

– Brookfield (1995) discusses critical reflection, including paradigmatic, prescriptive, and casual assumptions, from the perspectives of self, students, colleagues, and literature.

– Carr (1995) explains critical social science as common-sense conformity, applied science research, practical approaches with reflection/professional judgment, critical approaches to increase rational autonomy).

February 16, 2014

Brookfield (1995) critical reflection

Brookfield

 

 

 

 

 

 

Brookfield, S. D. (1995). Becoming a critically reflective teacher. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

I wish I’d read Brookfield 20 years ago: life changing! In just 300 pages, Becoming a critically reflective teacher gives a broad overview of critical reflection and overflows with theories and antidotes that forced me to take my thinking about learning and teaching to the next level.

General reflection focuses on examining assumptions, our taken-for-granted beliefs. Brookfield classifies assumptions at a variety of depths: at the surface casual assumptions (simple predictive understandings, uncovered easily), then digging down to prescriptive assumptions (expected behavior, obligations, processes), and deeply hidden paradigmatic assumptions (appear as objective reality, resist recognition).

Critical reflection examines power-dynamic assumptions and hegemonic assumptions. Power-dynamic assumptions reveal “how the dynamics of power permeates all educational processes” (p. 9) and hegemonic assumptions appear to work favourably for the majority, but in long term hinder them and instead help powerful minorities.

To reveal assumptions, we examine ourselves autobiographically (as learners and teachers), from students’ and colleagues’ perspectives, and through theoretical literature. Brookfield shares strategies to facilitate critical reflection (pp. 71-227) and introduces the reflective-risks of imposter syndrome, cultural suicide, lost innocence and roadrunning (pp. 229-245).

Several ideas are relevant to TESOL teachers working in foreign language learning contexts.

– The development of authentic voice (p. 47) could be hindered if teachers use second languages professionally and are, therefore, disempowered.

– Genuine learning (p. 50) could be common for teachers learning second languages.

– Role-modelling risk taking (p. 102) could be common for teachers learning second languages.

– Critical reflection as a social process (p. 141) could use digital communication and online communities instead of face-to-face communication and contexts.

– Good Practice Audits (including problem formation, individual and collective analysis of experience, and compilation of suggestions for practice) (p. 160) or parts thereof could be conducted informally without instruction.

– Cultural norms that influence identity and experience (p. 214) could be easier to recognize if teachers have been removed from their original cultures.

February 14, 2014

Shulman (1986) teaching-knowledge

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

Shulman describes knowledge needed for teaching. He rejects “He who can, does. He who cannot, teaches” and instead asserts that ‘Those who can, do. Those who understand, teach’. He criticizes separating subject knowledge and general pedagogical knowledge, and simplifying complex teaching contexts. Shulman’s research examined teacher-education programs and interviewed novice teachers for two years. He focused on key events (i.e. How do teachers teach something they have not yet learned? How do teachers adapt and improve poor learning materials?) to investigate how  teaching-knowledge develops. Shulman defines teaching-knowledge as content knowledge, pedagogical content knowledge, and curricular knowledge.

– Content knowledge includes theory and practice of subject-knowledge, justification of subject-knowledge, and knowledge of relationships between subjects.

– Pedagogical content knowledge is based on research and experience and includes subject-teaching knowledge, valuable topics, useful explanations and examples, and students’ preconceptions.

– Curricular knowledge includes knowledge of learning-materials, and knowledge of relationships between subject curriculums.

He outlines a framework of knowledge as propositional knowledge, case knowledge, and strategic knowledge.

– Propositional knowledge includes principles from research, maxims from general knowledge, and norms based on ethics. Propositional knowledge is concise, simplified and often forgettable.

– Case knowledge includes prototypes that show theory, precedents that show principles, and parables that show values. Cases are examples of genre, not a single antidote, specifically described with clear boundaries, memorable, and can combine case types.

– Strategic knowledge is the flexibility to reason, reflect, judge, and act within complex context with multiple conflicting factors.

Shulman argues that teacher-education needs to include content knowledge, pedagogical content knowledge, and curricular knowledge, and use research and cases from diverse contexts.