Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-dk4vv Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-26T03:35:24.380Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Finnish Product Development Teachers’ Perceptions of their Pedagogical Content Knowledge in Higher Education

Part of: Design Education

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  26 July 2019

Elina Mäkelä ,
Petra Auvinen  and
Tero Juuti

Abstract

Core share and HTML view are not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the ‘Save PDF’ action button.

The paper concerns the Finnish product development teacherś perceptions on their pedagogical content knowledge in higher education settings. The aim is to describe and analyse what kind of pedagogical content knowledge the teachers have and, therefore, to provide a better understanding of the type of knowledge unique to product development teaching. The model of pedagogical content knowledge used here includes the components of product development content knowledge, pedagogical knowledge and pedagogical content knowledge. Based on seven teacher interviews, the main content knowledge concerns the process of product development, its different phases and methods as well as the usage of different software programs. The teachers use diverse teaching methods and their attitude towards educational technology is mostly positive. Course learning outcomes and working life are acknowledged when planning teaching, but only a few teachers take curriculum into account and participate in curriculum design. Even though the teachers use different evaluation methods in teaching, new ways of evaluation are needed. This may be something that innovative educational technology tools can make possible.

Keywords

EducationKnowledge managementResearch methodologies and methodsPedagogical content knowledgeQualitative research
Type
Article
Information
Proceedings of the Design Society: International Conference on Engineering Design , Volume 1 , Issue 1 , July 2019 , pp. 609 - 618
Creative Commons
Creative Common License - CCCreative Common License - BYCreative Common License - NCCreative Common License - ND
This is an Open Access article, distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives licence (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/), which permits non-commercial re-use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is unaltered and is properly cited. The written permission of Cambridge University Press must be obtained for commercial re-use or in order to create a derivative work.
Copyright
© The Author(s) 2019

References

Anderson, G. (1990), Fundamentals of Educational Research, The Falmer Press, Hampshire.Google Scholar
Antić, Z. (2017), “The effects of professional development and teacher education on students’ learning outcomes”, The Journal of Teaching English for Specific and Academic Purposes, Vol. 5 No. 4, pp. 619–627. https://doi.org/10.22190/JTESAP1704619AGoogle Scholar
Assarroudi, A., Heshmati Nabavi, F., Armat, M.R., Ebadi, A. and Vaismoradi, M. (2018), “Directed qualitative content analysis: the description and elaboration of its underpinning methods and data analysis process”, Journal of Research in Nursing, Vol. 23 No. 1, pp. 42–55. https://doi.org/10.1177/1744987117741667Google Scholar
Atkins, L. and Wallace, S. (2012), Qualitative Research in Education, SAGE Publications, London. http://doi.org.helios.uta.fi/10.4135/9781473957602.n6Google Scholar
Bagley, S.S. and Portnoi, L.M. (2016), “Higher Education and the Discourse on Global Competition: Vernacular Approaches Within Higher Education Policy Documents”, In: Zajda, J. and Rust, V. (Eds.) Globalisation and Higher Education Reforms, Springer, Cham, pp. 23–37. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-28191-9Google Scholar
Berliner, D.C. (2001), “Learning about and learning from expert teachers”, International Journal of Educational Research, Vol. 35 No. 5, pp. 463–482. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0883-0355(02)00004-6Google Scholar
Brophy, S., Klein, S., Portsmore, M. and Rogers, C. (2008), “Advancing Engineering Education in P-12 Classrooms”, Journal of Engineering Education, Vol. 97 No 3, pp. 369–387. https://doi.org/10.1002/j.2168-9830.2008.tb00985.xGoogle Scholar
Elo, S. and Kyngäs, H. (2008), “The qualitative content analysis process”, Journal of Advanced Nursing, Vol. 62 No. 1, pp. 107–115. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2648.2007.04569.xGoogle Scholar
Galletta, A. (2013), Mastering the Semi-Structured Interview and Beyong: From Research Design to Analysis and Publication, New York Univeristy Press, New York.Google Scholar
Grossman, P.L. (1990), The Making Of A Teacher. Teacher Knowledge and Teacher Education, Teachers College Press, New York.Google Scholar
Hsieh, H-F. and Shannon, S.E. (2005), “Three Approaches to Qualitative Content Analysis”, Qualitative Health Research, Vol. 15 No. 9, pp. 1277–1288. https://doi.org/10.1177/1049732305276687Google Scholar
Jolly, H., Brodie, L. and Midgley, W. (2012), “Understanding Best Practice in Engineering Education Using the Concept of Pedagogical Content Knowledge”, 23rd Annual Conference of the Australasian Association for Engineering Education 2012, Melbourne, Victoria, Engineers Australia, pp. 387–395.Google Scholar
Juuti, T. and Rättyä, K. (2015), “Teaching academic writing based on professional roles”. Paper presentation at NoFa5 – the 5th Nordic conference on subject education, Helsinki, 27-29 May 2015.Google Scholar
Juuti, T., Rättyä, K., Lehtonen, T. and Kopra, M-J. (2017), “Pedagogical Content Knowledge In Product Development Education”, 19th International Conference on Engineering and Product Design Education, Oslo, Norway, 7-8 September 2017, The Design Society, Scotland, pp. 483–488.Google Scholar
Kind, V. (2009), “Pedagogical content knowledge in science education: perspectives and potential for progress”, Studies in Science Education, Vol. 45 No. 2, pp. 169–204. https://doi.org/10.1080/03057260903142285Google Scholar
Koehler, M.J. and Mishra, P. (2009), “What Is Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge?”, Contemporary Issues in Technology and Teacher Education, Vol. 9 No. 1, pp. 60–70.Google Scholar
Kyngäs, H. and Vanhanen, L. (1999), “Content analysis (Finnish)”, Hoitotiede, Vol. 11 No. 1, pp. 3–12.Google Scholar
Ball Loewenberg, D., Thames, M.H. and Phelps, G. (2008), “Content Knowledge for Teaching. What Makes It Special?”, Journal of Teacher Education, Vol. 59 No. 5, pp. 389–407. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022487108324554Google Scholar
Magana, A.J., Brophy, S.P. and Bodner, G.M. (2012), “Student Views of Engineering Professors Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge for Integrating Computational Simulation Tools in Nanoscale Science and Engineering”, International Journal of Engineering Education, Vol. 28 No. 5, pp. 1033–1045.Google Scholar
Maya, J. and Gómez, E. (2015), “How Design Is Taught? A Survey Of Approaches, Models and Methods”, 17th International Conference on Engineering and Product Design Education, Loughborough, UK, 3-4 September 2015, The Design Society, Scotland, pp. 612–617.Google Scholar
Mayring, P. (2000), “Qualitative Content Analysis”, Forum: Qualitative Social Research, Vol. 1 No. 2, Available at: http://www.qualitative-research.net/index.php/fqs/article/view/1089/2386 (26 November 2018).Google Scholar
Mishra, P. and Koehler, M.J. (2006), “Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge: A Framework for Teacher Knowledge”, Teachers College Record, Vol. 108 No. 6, pp. 1017–1054.Google Scholar
Park, S. and Oliver, J.S. (2008), “Revisiting the Conceptualisation of Pedagogical Content Knowledge (PCK): PCK as a Conceptual Tool to Understand Teachers as Professionals”, Research in Scinece Education, Vol. 38 No. 3, pp. 261–284. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11165-007-9049-6Google Scholar
Potter, W.J. and Levine-Donnerstein, D. (1999), “Rethinking validity and reliability in content analysis”, Journal of Applied Communication Research, Vol. 27 No. 3, pp. 258–284. https://doi.org/10.1080/00909889909365539Google Scholar
Shulman, L. (1986), “Those Who Understand: Knowledge Growth in Teaching”, Educational Researcher, Vol. 15 No. 2, pp. 4–14. https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X015002004Google Scholar
Shulman, L. (1987), “Knowledge and Teaching: Foundations of the New Reform”, Harvard Educational Review, Vol. 57 No. 1, pp. 1–23. https://doi.org/10.17763/haer.57.1.j463w79r56455411Google Scholar
Snape, D. and Spencer, L. (2003), “The Foundations of Qualitative Research”, In: Ritchie, J. and Lewis, J. (Eds.) Qualitative Research Practice. A guide for Social Science Students and Researchers, SAGE, London, pp. 1–23. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-28191-9Google Scholar
Stake, R.E. (1995), The Art of Case Study Research, SAGE Publications, Thousand Oaks.Google Scholar
Wenger, E., McDermott, R. and Snyder, W.M. (2002), Cultivating Communities of Practice, Harvard Business School Press, Boston.Google Scholar
Woodside, A.G. (2010), Case Study Research: Theory. Methods. Practice. Emerald, Bingley.Google Scholar