The knowledge base articulated by Shulman is not science specific and can be applied to any subject taught. An educator must have a synthetic understanding of course content and wisdom how to facilitate that knowledge. Shulman argues for tiers of synthetic understanding which fall under measurable subtypes: 1) course content to be learned; 2)the use of tools and pedagogical techniques used; 3) the building of a psychological research base and professional development to improve age-appropriate learning. The fourth is the most important to teaching and, as pointed out by Shulman, the most difficult to study empirically: the wisdom of practice.
A teacher may have an encyclopedic depth of content knowledge, but is unable to organize that knowledge through the use of materials and pedagogical techniques. Conversely, a teacher may have both the content knowledge and in-class instruction skill set, but illiterate of the unique developmental needs and hesitant to adapt to a growing literature base. I would argue, content knowledge is the most basic of these skills and the least amount of weight should be placed in this area compared to the other two tiers when assessing teacher performance. That is not to say content knowledge should be ignored altogether.
A technologically savvy or inquiring educator can find the facts or content knowledge needed to fill in the gaps in his/her learning. In fact, the ability to learn from outside sources is an effective teaching tool to give students. I find pedagogical techniques, differentiated instruction, use of the multiple intelligences, student-centered instruction and use of technology in the classroom is a more effective and dynamic teaching trait and should be given more weight than the scholarly knowledge of the course material.
On a relatively equal playing field with teaching practices is the immersion of understanding a growing literature base of schooling, teaching and student’s developmental learning. No teacher is perfect nor is his style and, as Shulman said, teaching is a learned profession. A teacher must be willing to improve on the base content knowledge and in-class presentation of the materials. The teacher should also be mindful of the studies into brain research and youth development. It could be argued this is the most important staple in Shulman’s three pillars of a teacher’s knowledge base because it deals with the future improvement of education – while content knowledge deals with what is already known (past learning) and the present utilization of materials and practices.
Finally, Shulman introduces the abstract principle of “wisdom of practice,” the most difficult to gather from objective empirical data. Shulman is correct in his analysis that some working combination of the first three pillars (content knowledge, use of materials and practices, future research) are needed for effective decision making and the need for articulation of best practices is paramount. His fear of a strict code of such practices is real. Such a strict code can prove counterproductive because each teacher, young, experienced, gifted or inept, has overlapping, unique styles. One teacher’s effective approach may be ineffective for another. What are we measuring effectiveness against? Standardized test scores? Formative and summative assessments? Individual improvement? Are we picking winners and losers? Do these best practices produce positive results for all students regardless of race, age, socio-economic status, intellectual capacity, disability?
Shulman does attempt to classify wisdom-of-practice into six categories which reflect a similar model of how information is learned, stored and conserved. On the most concrete level is comprehension. Comprehension of subject matter must then be transformed into institutional understanding – the preparation of material, the representation of that material, the selection of what is taught and the adaptation to individual student needs. Next, a teacher must be able to teach the material using effective classroom management strategies, pedagogical theories, student-centered instruction, small-group work, etc. The teacher must then evaluate student understanding and knowledge construction while also reflecting on the practices used during preparation and instruction. Finally, the teacher must use those self-assessments and assessments of students for teacher improvement.
Let me be clear. A teacher’s working knowledge base is not determined solely by content knowledge. It is the working preparation, instruction, assessment and reflection based on a progressive research base which, according to Shulman’s model, makes an effective and improved teacher. How you evaluate such a complex daily system is difficult to place in a systematic code of what is acceptable and unacceptable. The art of teaching cannot be squeezed into a strict table of yes and no answers, but is best as an annotated anthology of best practices which allow malleable and open-minded educators, with a strong concrete skill set and the student’s interests and developmental needs and interests in mind, to flourish.
Shulman, L. (1987) . Knowledge and Teaching: Foundations of the New Reform. Harvard Education Review. 57 (1).
