DOI : https://doi.org/10.18517/ijaseit.13.2.16676

Designing Web-Based Knowledge Building for Pedagogical Content Knowledge Development of Prospective Teachers

- Yurniwati (1), Cecep Kustandi (2)
(1) Universitas Negeri Jakarta, Jl. Rawamangun Muka, Rawamangun, Jakarta 13220. Indonesia
(2) Universitas Negeri Jakarta, Jl. Rawamangun Muka, Rawamangun, Jakarta 13220. Indonesia
Fulltext View | Download
How to cite (IJASEIT) :
Yurniwati, -, and Cecep Kustandi. “Designing Web-Based Knowledge Building for Pedagogical Content Knowledge Development of Prospective Teachers”. International Journal on Advanced Science, Engineering and Information Technology, vol. 13, no. 2, Apr. 2023, pp. 760-6, doi:10.18517/ijaseit.13.2.16676.
Citation Format :
Prospective teachers need to be competent in teaching mathematics. Web-based Knowledge Building is designed to train prospective teachers to have knowledge and skills in teaching mathematics to elementary students. The research and development studies using the ILDF model consist of three phases: exploration, enactment, and evaluation. In the exploration phase, 175 prospective teachers respond 5 points Likert scale for need analysis. We get information that prospective teachers have moderate abilities and conceptual knowledge but high abilities in procedural knowledge. Also, they highly intend to improve their competence in teaching mathematics. They have high skills in learning in an online environment. In the enactment phase, the Moodle application was designed and developed Web-based building knowledge running by LMS. Arithmetic’s instruction course installed in LMS organized in 16 sessions and facilitated by document video, and quiz. The prototype was validated by three subject matter and three learning media experts. In the evaluation phase, the prototype was validated by 40 prospective teachers. The results were that the prototype has a higher score in easy to use, subject matter organizing, adequacy and breadth of subject matter, and benefit. In conclusion, web-based knowledge building is valid and appropriate for developing prospective teacher education. The web-based knowledge building is advantaged in information access, collaboration, knowledge construction, and learners’ responsibility in knowledge acquisition.

E. Vula and J. Kingji-Kastrati, “Pre-service Teacher Procedural and Conceptual Knowledge of Fractions,” pp. 111-123, 2018, doi: 10.1007/978-3-319-68342-3_8.

K. Adu-Gyamfi, C. S. Schwartz, R. Sinicrope, and M. J. Bossí©, “Making sense of fraction division: domain and representation knowledge of preservice elementary teachers on a fraction division task,” Math. Educ. Res. J., vol. 31, no. 4, pp. 507-528, 2019, doi: 10.1007/s13394-019-00265-2.

Y. Yao, S. Hwang, and J. Cai, “Preservice teachers’ mathematical understanding exhibited in problem posing and problem solving,” ZDM - Math. Educ., vol. 53, no. 4, pp. 937-949, 2021, doi: 10.1007/s11858-021-01277-8.

E. Thanheiser, “Brief Report: The Effects of Preservice Elementary School Teachers ’ Accurate Self- Assessments in the Context of Whole Number,” vol. 49, no. 1, pp. 39-56, 2018.

A. Appova and C. E. Taylor, “Expert mathematics teacher educators’ purposes and practices for providing prospective teachers with opportunities to develop pedagogical content knowledge in content courses,” J. Math. Teach. Educ., vol. 22, no. 2, pp. 179-204, 2019, doi: 10.1007/s10857-017-9385-z.

G. Almerich, J. Suí¡rez-Rodrí­guez, I. Dí­az-Garcí­a, and S. Cebrií¡n-Cifuentes, “21st-century competences: The relation of ICT competences with higher-order thinking capacities and teamwork competences in university students,” J. Comput. Assist. Learn., vol. 36, no. 4, pp. 468-479, 2020, doi: 10.1111/jcal.12413.

G. Chen, “A visual learning analytics (VLA) approach to video-based teacher professional development: Impact on teachers’ beliefs, self-efficacy, and classroom talk practice,” Comput. Educ., vol. 144, no. June 2019, p. 103670, 2020, doi: 10.1016/j.compedu.2019.103670.

Y. Yurniwati, “Pengembangan Model Web Based Blended Learning untuk Meningkatkan Kualitas Pembelajaran Geometri pada Mahasiswa PGSD,” no. March 2018, doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.23986.50887.

M. Scardamalia and C. Bereiter, Knowledge Building: Theory, Pedagogy, and Technology. Naw york: Cambridge University Press, 2006.

P. Mishra and M. J. Koehler, “Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge: A Framework for Integrating Technology in Teacher Knowledge,” Teach. Coll. Rec., vol. 108, no. 6, pp. 1017-1054, 2006.

D. R. Grieser and K. S. Hendricks, “Review of Literature: Pedagogical Content Knowledge and String Teacher Preparation,” Updat. Appl. Res. Music Educ., vol. 37, no. 1, pp. 13-19, Oct. 2018, doi: 10.1177/8755123318760970.

S. Trí¶bst, T. Kleickmann, F. Depaepe, A. Heinze, and M. Kunter, “Effects of instruction on pedagogical content knowledge about fractions in sixth-grade mathematics on content knowledge and pedagogical knowledge,” Unterrichtswissenschaft, vol. 47, no. 1, pp. 79-97, 2019, doi: 10.1007/s42010-019-00041-y.

Y. Lee, R. M. Capraro, and M. M. Capraro, “Mathematics Teachers’ Subject Matter Knowledge and Pedagogical Content Knowledge in Problem Posing,” Int. Electron. J. Math. Educ., vol. 13, no. 2, 2018, doi: 10.12973/iejme/2698.

T. Scheiner, M. A. Montes, J. D. Godino, J. Carrillo, and L. R. Pino-Fan, “What Makes Mathematics Teacher Knowledge Specialized? Offering Alternative Views,” Int. J. Sci. Math. Educ., vol. 17, no. 1, pp. 153-172, 2019, doi: 10.1007/s10763-017-9859-6.

M. Alexander and D. R. Byrd, “Investigating special education teachers knowledge and skills: Preparing general teacher preparation for professional development,” J. Pedagog. Res., vol. 4, no. 2, pp. 72-82, 2020, doi: 10.33902/jpr.2020059790.

S. Liepertz and A. Borowski, “Testing the Consensus Model: relationships among physics teachers’ professional knowledge, interconnectedness of content structure and student achievement,” Int. J. Sci. Educ., vol. 41, no. 7, pp. 890-910, 2019, doi: 10.1080/09500693.2018.1478165.

B. Rittle-Johnson, “Iterative development of conceptual and procedural knowledge in mathematics learning and instruction,” Cambridge Handb. Cogn. Educ., pp. 124-147, 2019, doi: 10.1017/9781108235631.007.

J. A. Van de Walle et al., Primary and middle years mathematics”¯: teaching developmentally. Pearson Australia, 2019.

T. í–sterman and K. Brí¥ting, “Dewey and mathematical practice: revisiting the distinction between procedural and conceptual knowledge,” J. Curric. Stud., vol. 51, no. 4, pp. 457-470, 2019, doi: 10.1080/00220272.2019.1594388.

H. Zulnaidi and S. N. A. S. Zamri, “The effectiveness of the geogebra software: The intermediary role of procedural knowledge on students’ conceptual knowledge and their achievement in mathematics,” Eurasia J. Math. Sci. Technol. Educ., vol. 13, no. 6, pp. 2155-2180, 2017, doi: 10.12973/eurasia.2017.01219a.

K. Neumann, V. Kind, and U. Harms, “Probing the amalgam: the relationship between science teachers’ content, pedagogical and pedagogical content knowledge,” Int. J. Sci. Educ., vol. 41, no. 7, pp. 847-861, 2019, doi: 10.1080/09500693.2018.1497217.

J. Gess-Newsome, J. A. Taylor, J. Carlson, A. L. Gardner, C. D. Wilson, and M. A. M. Stuhlsatz, “Teacher pedagogical content knowledge, practice, and student achievement ” ,” Int. J. Sci. Educ., vol. 41, no. 7, pp. 944-963, 2017, doi: 10.1080/09500693.2016.1265158.

S. Norton, “The relationship between mathematical content knowledge and mathematical pedagogical content knowledge of prospective primary teachers,” J. Math. Teach. Educ., vol. 22, no. 5, pp. 489-514, 2019, doi: 10.1007/s10857-018-9401-y.

L. Harasim, “Collaborativist (aka Online Collaborative Learning or OCL) Pedagogies in Practice,” Learn. Theory Online Technol., pp. 142-155, 2017, doi: 10.4324/9781315716831-8.

L. Darling-Hammond, “Teacher education around the world: What can we learn from international practice?,” Eur. J. Teach. Educ., vol. 40, no. 3, pp. 291-309, 2017, doi: 10.1080/02619768.2017.1315399.

T. Plomp and N. Nieveen, “An Introduction to Educational Design Research,” 2007.

A. Atmacasoy and M. Aksu, “Blended learning at pre-service teacher education in Turkey: A systematic review,” Educ. Inf. Technol., vol. 23, no. 6, pp. 2399-2422, 2018, doi: 10.1007/s10639-018-9723-5.

Y. Copur-Gencturk, “Teachers’ conceptual understanding of fraction operations: results from a national sample of elementary school teachers,” Educ. Stud. Math., vol. 107, no. 3, pp. 525-545, 2021, doi: 10.1007/s10649-021-10033-4.

V. Borji, F. Radmehr, and V. Font, “The impact of procedural and conceptual teaching on students’ mathematical performance over time,” Int. J. Math. Educ. Sci. Technol., vol. 52, no. 3, pp. 404-426, 2021, doi: 10.1080/0020739X.2019.1688404.

L. M. Desimone and M. S. Garet, “Best practices in teachers’ professional development in the United States,” Psychol. Soc. Educ., vol. 7, no. 3, pp. 356-369, 2015, doi: 10.25115/psye.v7i3.516.

Creative Commons License

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.

Authors who publish with this journal agree to the following terms:

    1. Authors retain copyright and grant the journal right of first publication with the work simultaneously licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution License that allows others to share the work with an acknowledgement of the work's authorship and initial publication in this journal.
    2. Authors are able to enter into separate, additional contractual arrangements for the non-exclusive distribution of the journal's published version of the work (e.g., post it to an institutional repository or publish it in a book), with an acknowledgement of its initial publication in this journal.
    3. Authors are permitted and encouraged to post their work online (e.g., in institutional repositories or on their website) prior to and during the submission process, as it can lead to productive exchanges, as well as earlier and greater citation of published work (See The Effect of Open Access).