RUNNING HEAD: Applying the Pedagogical Reasoning Process to Classroom Planning and

Analysis of Teaching

Applying the Pedagogical Reasoning Process to Classroom Planning and Analysis of

Teaching

Khadeane. T. Wilson

The University of the West Indies

EDPH5001: Overview of Foundations in Education

ID: 620117304

March 10, 2024

Shulman’s Pedagogical Reasoning Process

Introduction
Renowned psychologist in the field of education Lee Shulman, transformed our
knowledge of successful teaching by putting out the idea of the knowledge base of teaching. He
believed that in order to promote meaningful learning experiences, teachers need to acquire a
variety of aspects of knowledge. These aspects included the closely interrelated parts of the
knowledge base of teaching such as mainly the content knowledge (CK), pedagogical knowledge
(PK), pedagogical content knowledge (PCK), student knowledge, and curriculum knowledge.
Content knowledge, as he defines it, is the full comprehension of a subject, whereas
pedagogical knowledge is the collection of teaching methods and strategies that educators use to
teach said subject. PCK then is the integration of pedagogical and content knowledge to assist
teachers in efficiently teaching a variety of students. Additionally, student knowledge entails
identifying individual variances in their skills, and learning habits so that lessons can be
customized appropriately. Lastly, school policies, and curriculum requirements are all included
in the curriculum knowledge. Equally crucial is the use of his proposed model for pedagogical
reasoning. This model covers 6 primary domains and or steps : comprehension, transformation,
instruction, evaluation, reflection and new comprehension (Shulman 1987).
This paper will analyze the case of Colleen, an English teacher who saw literature as
broadly interpretive and interactive. Her case will be used as an approach in analyzing Shulman's
approach to teaching and learning. Through her teaching style we will reflect on his idea of the
teaching knowledge base and pedagogical reasoning processes teachers must use for an effective
lesson.

Keywords: Knowledge-base, Pedagogical Content Knowledge, Content Knowledge,

pedagogical knowledge, pedagogical reasoning process

1
Shulman’s Pedagogical Reasoning Process

Part 1(i): How does the case on Colleen reflect aspects of the knowledge-base of
teaching?
Among Shulman’s (1987) case studies of teachers being highlighted as examples of his
theory on the knowledge-base of teaching, the psychologist looked at the example of Grossman's
(1985) observed Literature teacher named Colleen. It was evident throughout the case study, that
the difference in how she taught literature vs grammar was due to her lack of preparation and
knowledge for grammar. The case study greatly demonstrated the importance of having all
aspects of the knowledge base for effective teaching and learning.

Content Knowledge (CK)

According to Shulman, the phrase "content knowledge" in learning and teaching as
mentioned, refers to a teacher's in-depth knowledge of the subject area they are teaching. It
includes knowledge of facts plus any additional information, theories and ideas of the subject
that the students will learn (Shulman, 1987).
From the case study, we can see that Colleen demonstrated the idea or importance of
content knowledge through a strong understanding of English literature. Given that she has a
master's degree in English, it was clear that she is knowledgeable about the topic. Furthermore,
her love of literature and her ease in delivering the lesson with an emphasis on engaged learning
were clear indicators of CK. It demonstrated her excellent understanding of the subject, with the
texts she teaches and their broader cultural contexts. Her depth of content knowledge enabled her
to select texts that are meaningful and relevant to her students' lives and to facilitate rich
discussions that deepen their understanding of the material.
Similar to Shulman's views regarding the necessity of content knowledge for teachers,
Darling-Hammond & Baratz-Snowdon (2005) believe that in order to satisfy the learning
requirements of their students, teachers should be knowledgeable about the subjects they are
teaching. During literature, we see Colleen met the requirements of her students; however, due to
her lack of knowledge, she was unable to meet their needs when teaching grammar.
This is the downside to this case as we see where the needs of students to improve their
learning experience is dismissed. We see that her lack of preparation and content knowledge
would then further shine light on why teachers need to be comfortable and knowledgeable of the
topics and content to be taught, as this affects how it is received and your learning outcome. This

2
Shulman’s Pedagogical Reasoning Process

gives light to studies from Finlayson et al., (1998) and Hashweh (1987) who stated that
“teachers who lack content knowledge face difficulties and do not have confidence in their
teaching”.

Pedagogical Knowledge (PK)

Recall, Shulman (1987) states pedagogical knowledge is the teaching strategies, methods
and approaches that facilitate student learning. As stated by Barnett & Hodson (2001) a skilled
teacher can adapt their teaching to the setting, taking into account the students, content, resources
and other aspects, all of which contribute to making sure the students feel confident enough to
learn.
Colleen was versed in a variety of methods for teaching literature. The case focused on
her concept of literature as a subject open to interpretation and interaction, allowing for
differentiated learning and the use of a range of teaching strategies. One of these strategies was
close reading, Colleen led her pupils through by giving them passages from books and asking
them to consider the author's use of language and literary devices. She posed thoughtful
questions and fostered debates that go into greater depths of meaning, modeling the use of close
reading techniques.
Another method was the use of Socratic seminars as a collaborative learning strategy
where she fostered creative writing exercises, with students exploring texts through use of music.
Students engaged in meaningful dialogue, shared diverse perspectives, and constructed deeper
understandings of the lyrics they chose allowing them to better articulate their thoughts, insights,
and reactions to literary texts. All of these were used and seen to engage her students and
promote critical thinking and analysis.
From these techniques we see the effectiveness of pedagogical knowledge mentioned by
Shulman represented here. But was all of Colleen’s PK used to facilitate student learning? When
we look at her techniques and the use of her pedagogical knowledge in her approach to teaching
lessons on grammar, we see themes of underdevelopment as the ‘facilitating student learning’
that pedagogical knowledge promotes, falls short.
We see evidence of this underdevelopment as here, though techniques where used, they
matched her anxiety and content knowledge in not encouraging or helping the students grasp the
content better. She shifted from using scaffolding and group learning to a deliberately didactic

3
Shulman’s Pedagogical Reasoning Process

style, in an attempt to hide her lack of subject-matter expertise by fostering a rigorous 'teacher-
directed' environment. We can say therefore that her teaching style of grammar did not facilitate
an effective use of pedagogical knowledge.

Pedagogical Content Knowledge (PCK)

It became clear that, in order to facilitate optimal teaching and learning, pedagogical and
content knowledge are actually heavily dependent on one another. This scenario highlights
Shulman's belief that educators should constantly strive to strike a balance between the two. She
held a master's degree in English, as previously indicated, and was qualified to teach literature,
but her grasp on grammar was lacking. Her marriage of her pedagogical material with her
knowledge of the content made the literature class lively and student-focused, which encouraged
learning. Here, in order to provide her pupils with relevant learning experiences, Colleen used
her content knowledge in conjunction with pedagogical knowledge.
She therefore needed to understand that teaching grammar can only be successful for her
if she grasps that learning and teaching are continuous, not because you have graduated and now
working means that you have stopped learning. To teach an effective lesson, you improve your
knowledge of the subject and techniques because as the world gets older, theories, ideas,
techniques get younger. From this we can say, perhaps Colleen must bridge the divide between
her PK and CK in order to attain full PCK in grammar, just as she achieved for literature.

Pedagogic Pedagogical Content

al Content Knowledg
Knowledg Knowledge e

Knowledge of learners and their characteristics

Another aspect of the knowledge-base of teaching as proposed by Shulman was to
understand your students and know their characteristics and traits. From the case study, we can
see that, in fact, for both subjects, Colleen showed a thorough comprehension of the interests and
educational requirements of her students.
In order to make sure that every student feels seen and involved in the learning process,
she considers the many viewpoints and knowledge of her pupils while choosing texts and

4
Shulman’s Pedagogical Reasoning Process

creating lesson plans for literature. In contrast, for grammar, she altered her teaching method to
be less engaged and more detached since she anticipated that pupils would have questions that
she might not be able to respond to. One example of this is the young boy she knew that she
needed to avoid eye contact as he was an interactive and curious learner.

Knowledge of Curriculum
According to Shulman (1987) , having knowledge of the curriculum is being conscious
of the larger educational setting in which one teaches. This encompasses the tools given to teach
from community standards, school policies, and curricular requirements. It involves using the
curriculum to find means and ways to establish a welcoming and well planned learning
environment that embodies the subject.With Colleen, her teaching of literature showed a sense of
comfortability and knowledge of the curriculum and the content being taught, while we see for
grammar, she mentioned where she had no preparation to teach it, her knowledge of the
curriculum just as of the content being taught, was not extensive. Being a novice teacher, she
was not prepared in her understanding and grasp of how the subject is expected to be taught
based on standards, policies and expectations.

Overall, when we discuss the ways in which the case on Colleen highlights Shulman’s
knowledge-base of teaching, we see that Colleen was able to create dynamic and engaging
learning experiences that support student learning and growth in literature. Her teaching of both
literature and grammar -though not as strong- exemplified the interconnected nature of content
knowledge, pedagogical knowledge, PCK, knowledge of students, and knowledge of the
educational context, as proposed by Shulman.

Part 1 (ii): Evidence of Shulman’s pedagogical reasoning and action process.

According to Shulman, pedagogical reasoning is determining how well students
comprehend material, choosing the best teaching tactics based on evaluation, and continuously
assessing and modifying your teaching to suit students' needs. It involves 6 main steps:
comprehension, transformation, instruction, evaluation, reflection and new comprehension
(Shulman, 1987). From the teachings of Colleen, we can see examples of these reasoning
processes being played out.

5
Shulman’s Pedagogical Reasoning Process

According to Shulman, in the comprehension step, teachers analyze the students' past
knowledge, possible misconceptions, and present knowledge of the content. It is evident that
Colleen starts in the same way, diagnosing her students' literary comprehension. In order to
properly adjust her instruction, she evaluated her students' interests, prior knowledge, and
learning preferences. Colleen was able to pinpoint places where students would require more
assistance or clarification thanks to this diagnostic step. She modified her lessons, for instance,
when students had trouble understanding complicated concepts or the motivations of the
characters.
The lack of use of this process can be seen however, when she teaches grammar, Colleen
avoided engagement with the students and forms of introductory activities , as she herself was
not confident nor had prior-knowledge of the subject and so we see that certain misconceptions
would not have been clarified as it ought to be. Perhaps then if she had utilized this process, there
may have been fewer need to avoid eye-contact with students as both teacher and learner would
have a better understanding of the topics or lessons.
The transformation phase is the use of instructional strategies to teach. According to
Shulman, this is where teachers have to first diagnose students' comprehension levels before
choosing the best instructional strategies and tactics to transform the material. When teaching
literature, Colleen makes good use of the transformation process. She gets to know her students
by engaging with them in conversation to choose the right teaching strategies and instructional
techniques. She selected books and texts carefully, created engaging exercises, and led
discussions that encouraged critical thinking and in-depth examination of the subject.
Contrastly, we see this step not being followed with her grammar class. We see that from
her not knowing the content, but knowing the nature of the students to ask questions, the
techniques she chose to use did not allow for the ease of learning. This is because students were
‘boxed in a corner’ and not allowed to fully grasp the topics. She chose “a didactic
transformation of knowledge; using teacher-directed, swiftly paced combination of lecture
tightly controlled recitation” in her transformation process, which evidently will not aid to
transform the minds of the learner.
Additionally, we have instruction steps where you utilize effective activities and actively
teach the lesson. Teachers monitor students' answers throughout this process, assessing
understanding and clearing up any misunderstandings or ambiguities with follow-up questions

6
Shulman’s Pedagogical Reasoning Process

and feedback. This is exactly what we witness when we watch Colleen's literary lessons; she
keeps an eye on her students' progress. In order to assess understanding and clear up any
misunderstandings or ambiguities that might have risen; she encouraged participation and
interaction and gave them feedback. Next we have the evaluation step, where teachers monitor
student learning and see how effective your use of the pedagogical content knowledge was. From
this case study, we saw implementation of other steps more than we saw evaluation. But we do
see instances during the teaching of literature where she probed students for their understanding
of different phrases from the texts she was using. Nevertheless, Colleen would not have known if
her technique in literature was effective without proper evaluation and similarly, she would know
if students are gravely affected by her technique with grammar.
This now brings us to the reflection step. Here teachers assess the effectiveness of our
teaching strategies and identify areas for improvement (Shulman, 1987). This allows teachers to
refine their pedagogical approaches and enhance student learning outcomes over time. With
Colleen, she only merely reflected on why she avoided eye-contact with students and why she
taught the lesson of grammar in that way. However, we do not see where she had proper
reflection on her teaching techniques for both subjects and made advancements to make changes.
But had Colleen utilized this step, perhaps she may have been better able to counteract her
anxiety with grammar and improve her teaching for both lessons.
Lasty is the step of new comprehension. Shulman defines this as the step where there is a
“new beginning”. This ecompasses the dynamic nature of teaching and learning and the
relevance of self reflection for professional growth and effectiveness of learning. Considering
however, that Colleen is a new teacher and has just started both subjects, the process of reflection
was not depicted which therefore means neither was new comprehension. Nevertheless, it is
evident from her passion for literature and confessions of her deliberately didactic teaching style
for grammar, Colleen will be able to gain new comprehension and be an all around effective
teacher.
Part ll : Reflection from Darling-Hammond and Baratz-Snowden as a Non-Teacher
Darling-Hammond and Baratz-Snowden outlined three broad, related knowledge
frameworks that new teachers need to grasp, these are: knowledge of learners, knowledge of the
subject and having an understanding of teaching.

7
Shulman’s Pedagogical Reasoning Process

Darling-Hammond and Baratz-Snowden (2005) stated that knowledge of the learner

simply highlights how students learn. It ecompasses the knowledge teachers must have of their
students, their traits, prior knowledge and learning challenges. To begin a lesson, objectives must
be formed but to form an objective the audience must be well known. I now know the
importance of this, it allows for a more measurable objective and a more effective lesson,
knowing the cognitive, psychomotor and affective levels of my students will better help with my
approach to each lesson. I now know through these frameworks and more the need for
incorporation of students’ interests in each topic to keep their focus while fostering an
environment for learning. Most students will be a mix of visual and audio learnings, knowing
how they learn and the challenges they may face with learning will help also with how I plan my
assessment items.
In the words of my favorite Scientist Albert Einstein, it is unfair to judge a fish's true
abilities when the test is a measure of how fast it can climb a tree, it will grow up thinking it is
stupid. The presence of a teacher shapes the development of the child, it is even more clear now
how to help carve the minds of our students by showing them that they matter far more in the
relationship of teacher and student than believed. As a new teacher, I will seek to impart the need
for student-centered methods when planning and delivering my lessons, encouraging my students
to also take control of their learning process through active participation.
Another important takeaway is having a grasp on the curriculum itself. According to
Darling-Hammond and Baratz-Snowden, this is more than knowledge of the content or following
a set of guidelines. They posited that a new teacher must know how to plan a lesson accordingly
to facilitate student learning and meet standards. I have come to know that knowing the
curriculum requires a comprehension of the guiding ideas and concepts as well as how they
apply to students' daily learning and larger social context. Through this framework, I will aim to
utilize the curriculum for effective teaching and learning. I will seek to use it to enable me to
design meaningful learning experiences, support student engagement and foster a more positive
and supportive learning environment in my classrooms.
Thirdly, Darling-Hammond and Baratz-Snowden (2005) also put forward the need to
understand teaching. Teaching to me, is the act of imparting knowledge of skills, values,
attitudes and or facts. This is accomplished by providing instructions and guidelines that
encourage critical thinking and problem solving. Darling-Hammond and Baratz-Snowden (2005)

8
Shulman’s Pedagogical Reasoning Process

just as Shulman (1987) says that teachers need to have in-depth pedagogical content knowledge,
classroom management and proper planning. I know as an aspiring teacher, I have a lot to learn
and I know from this that formal training is very important. I will seek to gain and improve
knowledge and skills to be an effective teacher, developing and enabling PCK into my lessons
and be the best teacher I am able to be for my students.

9
Shulman’s Pedagogical Reasoning Process

References
Barnett, J., & Hodson, D. (2001). Pedagogical context knowledge: Toward a fuller
understanding of what good Science teachers know. Science Education, 85(4), 426-453.
Darling-Hammond, L., & Baratz-Snowden, J. (2005). A Good Teacher in Every
Classroom: Preparing the Highly Qualified Teachers Our Children Deserve (Vol. 4, pp.
114-132). Graduate School Education.
Finlayson, H., Lock, R., Soares, A., & Tebbutt, M. (1998). Are we producing teaching
technicians or Science educators? The consequences of differential demands on trainee
Science teachers. Educational Review, 50(1), 45-54.
Hasweh, M. Z. (1987). Effects of subject-matter knowledge in the teaching of biology
and physics. Teaching and Teacher Education, 3(2), 109-120.
Nathan, M.J., Koedinger, K., & Alibali, M.W. (2001). Expert Blind Spot : When Content
Knowledge Eclipses Pedagogical Content Knowledge.
Shing , C. L., Saat , R. B. M., & Loke, S. H. (2015). The Knowledge of Teaching –
Pedagogical Content Knowledge (PCK) . The Malaysian Online Journal of Educational
Science, 3(3), 41–43.
Shulman, L. S. (1987). Knowledge and teaching: Foundations of the new reform.
Stanford University Review.

10