ARTICLE IN PRESS

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Teaching and Teacher Education

Teaching and Teacher Education 24 (2008) 1837– 1845

0742-05

doi:10.1

� Cor

Univers

gun, Ch

fax: +82

E-m

(H. Kim1 Te

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/tate

Situated case-based knowledge: An emerging framework forprospective teacher learning

Hyeonjin Kim a,�, Michael J. Hannafin b,1

a Department of Education, Korea National University of Education, Cheongwongun, Chungbuk 363-791, Republic of Koreab Learning & Performance Support Laboratory, The University of Georgia, 611 Aderhold Hall, Athens, GA 30602, USA

a r t i c l e i n f o

Article history:

Received 31 March 2007

Received in revised form

14 February 2008

Accepted 26 February 2008

Keywords:

Situated cognition

Situated knowledge

Teacher knowledge

Teacher learning

Teacher beliefs

Prospective teacher

1X/$ - see front matter & 2008 Elsevier Ltd

016/j.tate.2008.02.025

responding author at: Department of Educa

ity of Education, San 7 Darak-ri, Gangnae-

ungbuk 363-791, Republic of Korea. Tel.: +8

43 2317193.

ail addresses: jinnie@knue.ac.kr, hyeonjin.ki

), hannafin@uga.edu (M.J. Hannafin).

l.: +1706 542 3157; fax: +1706 542 4032.

a b s t r a c t

While the use of situated cognition theory in teacher education programmes has the

potential to teach prospective teachers, research on teacher knowledge and learning from

a situated perspective has been slow to emerge in reference to prospective teacher

education. In this paper, we present a situated case-based knowledge framework to

explain the development of prospective teachers’ knowledge and beliefs. The framework

includes conceptual case knowledge, strategic case knowledge, and the shared identities

and beliefs of practicing teachers. In addition, we summarize findings from a study

wherein the situated case-based knowledge framework was applied to support

prospective teachers’ learning, as well as discuss implications for research and practice.

& 2008 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction

The situated nature of cognition and knowledge, usedto explain how people learn and think, has gainedwidespread acceptance. Situated knowledge is inextric-ably tied to the contexts and cultures in which it is used(Brown, Collins, & Duguid, 1989). Practicing teachers, forexample, develop their knowledge about pedagogicalmethods, students, content, and curriculum for classroomsituations through repeated classroom teaching experi-ences and interactions with teachers (Leinhardt & Greeno,1986; Shulman, 1986). Accordingly, many teacher educa-tion programmes have emphasized the importance ofsharing the knowledge, experience, and practices of the

. All rights reserved.

tion, Korea National

myeon, Cheongwon-

2 43 230 3442;

m@gmail.com

teaching profession with both prospective and newlycertified teachers. Sharing situated knowledge may pro-vide increasingly realistic contexts and authentic learningexperiences to support field experiences (Brush et al.,2003), guide in providing site-based apprenticeships(Glazer & Hannafin, 2006), and frame discourse duringcase analysis (Carter, 1989).

Although situated learning approaches in teachereducation have been studied, comparatively little re-search has been conducted on their role and impact indeveloping situated knowledge or supporting teacherlearning:

In contrast to theoretical and empirical work onclassroom instruction and teacher knowledge, weknow of no scholars who have examined teacherlearning or teacher education programs explicitly fromthe perspective of situated cognition. Yet, this perspec-tive has implications for both the content of teachereducation (What knowledge, skills and understandingsdo teachers need in order to create classroom situa-tions in which important student learning occurs?) and

ARTICLE IN PRESS

Table 1Characteristics of conceptual case knowledge, strategic case knowledge,

and socially shared identities and beliefs

Situated cognition perspectives Implications for and examples from

teacher learning

Conceptual case knowledge

� Domain knowledge interwoven

into contexts and practices

(Collins, Brown, & Newman,

1989); relating to ‘‘knowing

what’’

� Elaborating through

‘‘indexicalized representations’’

(Brown et al., 1989, p. 37);

knowledge structures in various

situations: building a ‘‘case

library’’ (Kolodner, 1993, p. 141)

� Teachers’ conceptual case

knowledge in teaching:

knowledge of students,

curriculum, content, pedagogy

(Borko & Putnam, 1996;

Grossman, 1990; Leinhardt,

1988; Leinhardt & Greeno,

1986; Shulman, 1986)

Strategic case knowledge

� Ability to use concepts, facts,

and procedures interwoven into

contexts and practices (Collins

et al., 1989; Lave & Wenger,

1991); relating to ‘‘knowing

how’’

� Routinization: Knowledge that

is automated and readily

applied to new tasks (Brown et

al., 1989; Schank, 1999)

� Reflection: Activity and thinking

arise simultaneously to

reconsider one’s own plans and

activity (Schon, 1983)

� Collaboration: Participating in

communities of practice

(Greeno et al., 1998);

conversation as a central tool

for enculturation; talking with

and talking about (Lave &

Wenger, 1991)

� Heuristics: Focusing on tacit

knowledge and effective

techniques as ‘‘tricks of the

trade’’ (Collins et al., 1989, p.

478); used for assessing and

solving unfamiliar tasks

(Berliner, 1986)

� Routinization: Experienced

teachers’ routines through

repeated experiences

(Leinhardt & Greeno, 1986);

increasing efficiency while

deterring from assessing

situations from new

perspectives (Marx,

Blumenfeld, Krajcik, & Soloway,

1997; Putnam & Borko, 1997)

� Reflection: Thoughtful

considerations during planning

and teaching activities

(Berliner, 1986; Hanninen,

1985)

� Collaboration: Conversations

and collaboration based on

subject-specific conversations

and pedagogical practices (e.g.,

Thomas, Wineburg, Grossman,

Myhre, & Woolworth, 1998;

Windschitl & Sahl, 2002)

� Heuristics: Teaching strategies

for specific situations, such as

starting individual concepts

and using the familiar context

for learning complex concepts

(Leinhardt, 1988)

Socially shared identities and beliefs

� Building community practices,

meanings, identities, and

beliefs through shared activities

(Brown et al., 1989; Lave &

Wenger, 1991)

� Negotiating socially shared

meaning by both reproducing

and changing practices through

participation in social practices

(Lave & Wenger, 1991)

� Beliefs about learners and

learning; teaching; subject

area; learning to teach and

learn; one’s self and the

teaching role (Calderhead,

1996)

H. Kim, M.J. Hannafin / Teaching and Teacher Education 24 (2008) 1837–18451838

the process (In what types of contexts should learningactivities for teachers be situated? (Putnam & Borko,1997, p. 1256)

The purpose of this paper is to present a framework forconceptualizing and implementing situated case-basedknowledge in teacher education and to report findingsfrom initial implementations. We present the character-istics of situated case-based knowledge and apply theframework to prospective teacher learning.

2. A situated perspective on learning and knowing

Some researchers have characterized situated cogni-tion as an epistemological perspective on everydaycognition and learning. Epistemologically, situated cogni-tion emerged from diverse psychological, sociological, andanthropological perspectives, including Vygotsky’s socio-cultural theory, Dewey’s pragmatism, and Gibson’s ecolo-gical psychology (Kirshner & Whitson, 1997; Wilson &Myers, 2000). These theories share key assumptions:knowledge is situated in context; context links activities,concepts, and culture; and learning involves understand-ing the associations among all three (Brown et al., 1989).In case-based approaches, situated knowledge is instan-tiated as understanding in context (Lave & Wenger, 1991;Schank, 1999). Individuals represent knowledge in theform of narratives (stories) that represent assemblages ofsituated knowledge. Cases embody expert knowledge,captured wisdom, and critical aspects of the domainunder study (McLellan, 1996).

Situated knowledge also represents the belief systemand identity of the user within a given culture; meaning-making and the identity are central to representing thescope of human knowledge (Lave & Wenger, 1991). Thus,situated knowledge indicates more than conceptualunderstanding; it represents a repertoire of importantincidents paired with personal meanings, beliefs, andknow-how within certain contexts and cultures.

Authentic activity is central to both gaining situatedknowledge and transitioning into the culture of a com-munity (Brown et al., 1989; Lave & Wenger, 1991).Authentic activity, the ‘‘ordinary practice’’ (Brown et al.,1989, p. 34) of a particular community, is characteristi-cally ill-defined and problematic rather than simplifiedand easily answered. Accordingly, situated perspectivesemphasize participation in everyday practices. Appren-ticeships, for example, support new teachers as they gainsituated knowledge through legitimate participation,including domain knowledge, heuristic strategies, controlstrategies, and learning strategies (Glazer & Hannafin,2006).

3. Framing situated case-based teacher knowledge

Situated knowledge emphasizes the understandingof the ‘‘whole person’’ (Lave & Wenger, 1991, p. 33).Situated case-based knowledge comprises interdepen-dent knowledge and skills. As novices participate, theydevelop understandings of concepts in particularsituations (conceptual case knowledge); they also learn

strategies for using those concepts in future tasks(strategic knowledge).

Because these concepts and strategies also reflect thevalues and beliefs of a particular community, novicesdevelop socially shared identities and beliefs by negotiatingcommunity beliefs with their own. Table 1 summarizesthe characteristics of each dimension.

ARTICLE IN PRESS

H. Kim, M.J. Hannafin / Teaching and Teacher Education 24 (2008) 1837–1845 1839

3.1. Conceptual case knowledge

According to Collins et al. (1989), ‘‘Domain knowledgeincludes the conceptual and factual knowledge andprocedures explicitly identified with a particular subjectmatterygenerally explicated in school textbooks, classlectures and demonstrations’’ (p. 477). They further assertthat domain knowledge is insufficient without realisticcontexts and expert practices. Conceptual case knowledgerelates to knowing-what (Bruning, Schraw, & Ronning,1999). When domain knowledge becomes situated, itsmeaning becomes shaped by, and better understoodwithin, the associated community.

Conceptual case knowledge can be elaborated through‘‘indexicalized representations’’ (Brown et al., 1989,p. 37)—knowledge structures interwoven into varioussituations that result from and are shaped by perceptions.Experts’ conceptual case knowledge is shared in narratives(i.e., stories) and stored as differentiated situations withplots. Conceptual case knowledge, therefore, both includesthe narrative nature of knowing and reflects the condi-tional nature and situativity of that understanding.

As novices gain experience, indexicalized representa-tions become richer, enabling them to build a personal‘‘case library’’ (Kolodner, 1993, p. 141). Metaphoricallyspeaking, a case library organizes and indexes conceptualcase knowledge according to key concepts, values, andpractices of a community. As prospective teachers gainexperience and refine individual case libraries, they gainincreasingly contextualized and conditional understand-ing about teaching knowledge and practices. Accordingly,expert teachers’ conceptual case knowledge may beembodied within cases and made accessible to noviceteachers.

The importance of expert teachers’ conceptual caseknowledge has been documented in numerous reports(e.g., Borko & Putnam, 1996; Grossman, 1990; Leinhardt,1988; Leinhardt & Greeno, 1986; Shulman, 1986). Thecharacteristics of conceptual case knowledge are akin to,but extend beyond, knowledge in given subject areas.Conceptual case knowledge often focuses on teachers’knowledge of students, curriculum, content, and peda-gogy. An expert teacher, for example, may use flow-charting software as a tool to brainstorm the themes of apoem. These experiences become indexed as conceptualcase knowledge in the teacher’s case libraries, to beaccessed and further modified when needed. Prospec-tive teachers, however, characteristically lack the experi-ence requisite to index this knowledge. Russell, Bebell,O’Dwyer, and O’Connor (2003) concluded that whilenew teachers initially had a limited understanding ofteaching with technology, they were increasingly able toexplore relevant uses in their classrooms upon developingfacility with curricula, schools, and other aspects ofteaching.

3.2. Strategic case knowledge

According to Collins et al. (1989), strategic knowledgerefers to ‘‘the usually tacit knowledge that underlies an

expert’s ability to make use of concepts, facts, andproceduresyto solve problems and carry out tasks’’(p. 477). Unlike conceptual knowledge, strategic know-ledge emphasizes knowing how and enabling individualsto perform (Bruning et al., 1999).

Consistent with the assumptions of conceptual caseknowledge, situated cognitivists assert that strategicknowledge is tied to specific situations, enabling indivi-duals to flexibly address the complexity and diversity ofproblem situations (Lave & Wenger, 1991). Expert strategicknowledge has been characterized as tacit knowledge andwisdom (Brown & Duguid, 1996) in that these are neithereasily conveyed nor learned. Routinization is apparentwhen experts automatically retrieve and use memories ofrelevant experiences to solve novel tasks. Knowledgeindexing likely contributes to interpreting and actingand to applying repertoires in similar circumstances(Brown et al., 1989; Schank, 1999). Leinhardt and Greeno(1986) reported that expert teachers’ routines evolvedaround core activities where they possess a largerepertoire of experience, enabling them to respondefficiently while strengthening their conditional practices.Routines increase efficiency so that teachers can readilyanticipate expected events and address unexpected issues.While few tasks are initially routinized, prospectiveteachers eventually gain fluency through recurring activ-ities, progressively routinizing aspects of teaching throughrepeated experiences and observation of expert practices.

Reflection-on-action may prove especially useful inboth examining and reconsidering one’s own plans andactivities (Schon, 1983). Reflection-in-action, in contrast,involves simultaneous reflection during planning and

action (i.e., reflective practice). Expert teachers tend toengage in reflective planning and teaching, makingdecisions based on thoughtful considerations (Berliner,1986). For example, during instructional planning, expertteachers tended to take longer to examine a problem,build a problem representation, and develop initialstrategies (Hanninen, 1985). They continually refined theirdecisions for managing students and facilitating studentperformance during teaching, interacting with theiroriginal planning. Inexperienced teachers, in contrast,tended to react more quickly and reflect less deeply(Housner & Griffey, 1985).

Collaboration may promote a novice teacher’s ability toparticipate as a partner in a community of practice(Greeno & The Middle School Mathematics ThroughApplications Project Group, 1998). Teacher educators andprofessional developers have underscored the importanceof promoting communities and collaboration amongteachers, university researchers, and prospective teachers(see, for example, Putnam & Borko, 2000). Conversation,for example, is a central tool for learning; sharingconversations and stories conveys the conceptual ideasof the culture and demonstrates membership in thecommunity. Lave and Wenger (1991) distinguish betweentypes of talking: talking with practices focus on ex-changing information related to ongoing activities, whiletalking about practices involve stories or community lore.During conversation and collaboration, teachers sharepractices and insights about subject-specific topics and

ARTICLE IN PRESS

H. Kim, M.J. Hannafin / Teaching and Teacher Education 24 (2008) 1837–18451840

pedagogical practices (e.g., Thomas et al., 1998; Wind-schitl & Sahl, 2002). In situated teacher education,collaborative work, such as sharing feedback and colla-borative reflection during simulated activities, also helpsprospective teachers to participate in and share theculture, wisdom, and knowledge of teaching practices(Kim, 2005).

Collins et al. (1989) further note that ‘‘heuristicstrategies are generally effective techniques and ap-proaches for accomplishing tasks that might be regardedas ‘tricks of the trade’; they don’t always work, but whenthey do, they are quite helpful’’ (p. 478). Whereas novicestend to rely on rule-based procedures, expert teachersutilize heuristics to assess situations and to identifyplausible solutions when they encounter unfamiliarproblems (Berliner, 1986). Leinhardt (1988) explored thedevelopment of heuristic knowledge for teaching aspecific subtraction lesson over a span of 35 years. Themost advanced teacher quickly reviewed a prior lesson onaddition and the individual concepts of simple subtractionand identified initial learning problems. She subsequentlyapplied lessons learned to explain subtraction, anticipatedcommon misconceptions, and employed the same materi-al (a bundle of sticks) used in the prior addition lesson toteach subtraction. This enabled students to focus on theconcept and avoid situational confusion. Teaching heur-istics, in effect, involved explaining individual conceptsfirst and using a familiar situation (the same material) toteach a relevant concept—strategies that can subse-quently be applied in unfamiliar situations. The ‘‘capturedwisdom’’ evident in the specific, situated practices ofexperienced teachers (e.g., lesson planning and imple-menting) may provide prospective teachers access toimportant teaching heuristics (Kim & Hannafin, 2008).

3.3. Socially shared identities and beliefs

From a situated cognition perspective, individualcommunities construct their practices, meanings, identi-ties, and beliefs through shared activities (Brown et al.,1989). Novices attempt to negotiate shared meaning asthey engage in social practices and construct meaning.Community members, therefore, do not only understandand reproduce practices through participation—they alsochange practices: ‘‘The generality of any form of knowl-edge always lies in the power to renegotiate the meaningof the past and future in constructing the meaning ofpresent circumstances’’ (Lave & Wenger, 1991, p. 34).

Identity development in teacher education involvesenculturation. Novice teachers need to develop theiridentities and sense of membership in the values andculture of the teaching profession. Upon analyzing K-12teachers’ beliefs regarding their inclination to modifytheir instruction, Ertmer (2005) made the followingconclusion: ‘‘When considering ways to change teacherpracticeyit is impossible to overestimate the influenceof teachers’ beliefs’’ (p. 36). Similarly, existing know-ledge and beliefs influence what is learned and valuedby prospective teachers during prospective education(Putnam & Borko, 1997).

According to Calderhead (1996), beliefs about learners

and learning influence assumptions about the conditionsunder which students learn best. Teachers who believethat students learn best in open-ended activities providedifferent activities and structures than do teachers whobelieve that students learn best through structured, directinstruction. Beliefs about teaching are also influenced byperceptions as to the nature and purpose of teaching.Teachers who view the purpose of teaching as transmit-ting knowledge enact practices accordingly; in contrast,teachers who view the purpose of teaching as facilitatingunderstanding are more likely to focus their efforts onexplanations, rationales, and comparisons rather thanknowledge accumulation (Calderhead, 1996). One’s viewsabout learning to teach and learn, honed by individualexperiences, are particularly relevant during formativeeducation, as prospective teachers are often unaware ofthe underlying intention of key activities, such as reflec-tion. Subject area beliefs influence both how the subject istaught and associated learning goals. For example,perceiving history as factual knowledge results in differ-ent lesson organisation and pedagogy than perceiving thehistorian’s perspective to be central. Finally, beliefs aboutone’s self and the teaching role are shaped by personalityand relationships and influence role identification, such ascontrolling or facilitating, in teaching practices.

4. Applying the framework in teacher education

The framework has been previously applied to examinethe learning of prospective teachers during teachereducation (see Kim & Hannafin, in press, for details). Theteacher education context was Introduction to Computers

for Teachers, an introductory course for prospectiveteachers that was offered in the College of Education ofa large university in the United States. During the course,participants engaged in simulated case-based activitiessituated in teaching with technology under the tutelageof both a virtual exemplary teacher case (e.g., http://www.intime.uni.edu/) and a course instructor (Kim &Hannafin, 2005, 2008). While introductory computercourses often focus on isolated technical skills rather thanteaching applications, the participants in this courseengaged in realistic teaching-with-technology by inter-acting with exemplary teacher video cases and the courseinstructor, collaborating, and engaging in realistic lessonpreparation and teaching-with-technology experiences.While direct observations of exemplary practices withtechnology are often impossible or impractical during apracticum, case methods enable prospective teachers tovicariously experience authentically situated approachesto teaching with technology (Putnam & Borko, 2000;Shulman, 1992).

In this context, for realistic experience, participantsdeveloped lesson plans for teaching with technology usingthree different types of technology (i.e., concept-mappingsoftware, presentation software, and a Web-based learn-ing model) and practiced teaching with technologythrough microteaching at the end of the semester. Allenrolees participated in both case-based activities and

ARTICLE IN PRESS

H. Kim, M.J. Hannafin / Teaching and Teacher Education 24 (2008) 1837–1845 1841

non-case-based activities as part of their course-work. Case-based activity units were implemented during10 weeks of the 16-week course (see Kim, 2005, fordetailed descriptions of course materials, methods andprocedures).

Participants followed a progression of case-basedactivities for developing each lesson plan: scenario work,

what’s the story, planning, doing, and telling your story.A Web-based tool (http://projects.coe.uga.edu/mhkoh/index.asp) both organized and provided access to experi-enced teachers’ cases and guided activities associatedwith each phase (see Fig. 1). Following the participants’documentation of their lesson scenarios, what’s the story

was provided to guide interpretation and analysis ofexemplar cases related to the events depicted, technologyintegration, and critical assessment. Participants wereasked to summarize the case in order to facilitate bothcontextual and conceptual understanding.

Prospective teachers wrote their plans and created orrevised their scenarios using the planning feature. Pro-spective teachers were guided to consider experiencedteachers’ approaches as they created and revised theirinitial scenarios, identified ideas applicable to their courseprojects, and identified technology integration features intheir projects.

While doing, participants developed lesson plans andteaching materials consistent with the course unit. Thisphase required that participants reflect on their actions bycomparing and revising their plans after reflecting on peerfeedback. Guidance was provided to facilitate idea gen-eration and sharing as prospective teachers practiced theconventions of the teaching profession of practice.

During the telling your story phase, participantsdescribed their experiences using specific concrete, con-textual incidents along with their perceptions about theevents. Again, they were guided on how to reflect on and

Learning from peers Journaling

Resources Lesson(s) learned Help Susan!

Fig. 1. Screen shot and structure o

relate their experiences and were prompted to identifyinsights gained from experience and to describe applica-tions to future projects. For example, one participantdescribed the lesson learned and offered advice toimprove future projects: ‘‘If I were to do this projectagain, I would have made the game a little bit longer andhave added more sound and animation.’’ Participants alsowrote a letter to a ‘‘virtual’’ peer beginning teacher whoreported difficulty implementing technology lessons andintegrating software in her class. (For additional details onthe methods and findings, see Kim, 2005.)

Five participants were purposefully selected fromamong 18 undergraduate enrolees with respect to senior-ity, majors, prior experience, initial technical skills, andunderstanding of technology integration. Two participantshad prior teaching and lesson planning experience, onehad only teaching experience, and two had neitherteaching nor lesson planning experience. None reportedprior experience teaching with technology and similarcourse experience of case methods. Table 2 summarizesparticipant profiles.

Cindy, a 21-year-old European American female, was ajunior in Early Childhood Education. While she hadcomparatively rich experience and confidence in bothteaching and lesson planning, she perceived her computerskills as being low. Cindy was required to take this course,and her initial learning goal for the course focused on amastery of computer programs. Liz, a 21-year-old Eur-opean American female, was a senior in Middle SchoolEducation who had teaching and lesson planning experi-ences from prior coursework. She was required to take thiscourse, and her initial learning goal for this course was tobecome ‘‘computer savvy.’’ Alex, a 19-year-old EuropeanAmerican female, was a sophomore planning to major inSpecial Education. Previously, she had spent considerabletime observing classrooms. Alex had also previously

Story summary Technology integration Potential of the software Critique

Introduction of scenario Ideas from the case Technology integration

f the Web-based case tool.

ARTICLE IN PRESS

Table 2Participant profiles

Name Age Ethnicity Major (year) Teaching/lesson

plan experience

Initial perceived technology

skills and confidence

Cindy 21 European American

female

Early childhood education

(3rd year)

Yes/yes Skill: 3– 4 (out of 10)

confidence: low

Liz 21 European American

female

Middle school education

(4th year)

Yes/yes Skill: 6 (out of 10)

confidence: high

Alex 19 European American

female

Plans to apply to Special

education (2nd year)

Yes/no Skill: 5 (out of 10)

confidence: medium high

Carrie 20 European American

female

Plans to apply to special

education (2nd year)

No/no Skill: 2 (out of 10)

confidence: low

Stephanie 20 European American

female

Early childhood education

(3rd year)

No/no Skill: 5 (out of 10)

confidence: medium

H. Kim, M.J. Hannafin / Teaching and Teacher Education 24 (2008) 1837–18451842

worked as a substitute teacher, but had no experience inlesson planning. She recounted that she had few expecta-tions of this course, except to be ‘‘more informed abouttechnology.’’ Carrie, a 20-year-old European Americanfemale, was a sophomore who planned to major in SpecialEducation. She had neither teaching nor lesson planningexperience, although she had volunteered in a camp theprevious summer and was observing a K-12 class duringthe current semester. Carrie’s initial goal focused onlearning computer programs. Stephanie, a 20-year-oldEuropean American female, was a first-semester juniorin Early Childhood Education, having recently transferredfrom another college. Over a 3-year period, Stephanie hadoccasionally worked as a volunteer in her mother’sclassrooms, but she had no experience in teaching andlesson development. Her initial learning goals for thiscourse were to master computer skills and to learn how touse them in her classroom.

Transcripts from these interviews were collected at thebeginning, middle, and end of the semester. Thesetranscripts, as well as written reports, provided primarydata for this study. Observations were also conductedfor all the classes during the semester. The data wereanalysed using the constant comparative method (Strauss& Corbin, 1998) to create final categories. Throughoutthe semester, prospective teachers developed situatedcase-based knowledge about teaching with technology,including the aspects of conceptual case knowledge,strategic case knowledge, and shared identities andbeliefs.

4.1. Conceptual case knowledge

During the semester, participants developed concep-tual case knowledge for teaching with technology byexpanding, refining, and experiencing a variety of thecritical concepts. When participants analysed expertteachers’ video cases, they improved their understandingof concepts such as teachers’ roles, students’ character-istics, pedagogy, curriculum standards, content, andtechnical issues in different situations of their projects.

At the beginning of the course, participants character-istically addressed one or two basic concepts, suchas teaching skills, simple pedagogical approaches, or

technical issues. Their initial conceptual case knowledgewas anchored in their K-12 experiences as students, sinceall lacked experiences in teaching with technology. Forexample, Liz considered teacher facilitation to be im-portant when the teacher in her course gave instructionon which search engines were the best or what informa-tion was good. Understanding simple pedagogical ap-proaches for using technology focused mostly on lecturingwith presentation software and online searches. Technicalproblems experienced while using computers were ad-dressed by all and were considered to be a limitation forroutinely integrating technology into classrooms.

New concepts emerged as prospective teachers en-gaged in subsequent activities and classroom work. Fourof the five participants noted concerns over students’interests and abilities regarding both content and tech-nology. For example, two special education prospectiveteachers, Alex and Carrie, cited unique student attributesand needs as important in their decision on lessonactivities.

By the end of the semester, teachers’ roles, students’characteristics, and pedagogy varied as a function ofdifferent anticipated classroom situations. For example,the participants characterized the role of teacher asfacilitating student motivation, group work, and owner-ship. They also focused on the teacher’s role as planner,generating reasonable timelines and developing learningactivity details during lesson planning. In contrast,however, curriculum standards, content (i.e., subjectmatter), and technical and access issues for teaching withtechnology were neither used nor further refined. Pro-spective teachers did not identify content as a prioritybecause they focused on the same subject and grade for alltheir projects during the semester.

4.2. Strategic case knowledge

The development of strategic case knowledge wasobserved during prospective teacher participation in thelearning activities of each phase: scenario work, what’s the

story, planning, doing, and telling your story. Prospectiveteachers developed routinization strategies during thesemester, particularly when engaged in scenario workdesigned to help them identify and specify individual

ARTICLE IN PRESS

H. Kim, M.J. Hannafin / Teaching and Teacher Education 24 (2008) 1837–1845 1843

lesson projects. As expected, since most had not yet taughtwith technology, participants initially referenced theirK-12 student experiences or personal preferences toanticipate their teaching context. Thus, their initialdecisions usually presented difficulty in guiding lessonplanning and development (e.g., inappropriate topic forsoftware). Typically, scenarios evolved until their under-standing of technology affordances and contextual aware-ness deepened. Just as repeated experiences promoteroutinization among practicing teachers, subsequentcourse projects facilitated routinization as prospectiveteachers applied both their previous course experiencesand the experts’ strategic case knowledge to subsequentplanning and development.

Reflection strategies were the most apparent develop-ment during participation in course projects. At thebeginning of the semester, prospective teachers relied onlimited prior knowledge for teaching and lesson develop-ment, which typically represented rudimentary under-standings of technology’s educational functions. They alsowere largely unaware of the importance of deliberateplanning and characterized lesson development as ahands-on activity rather than a thoughtful decision-making process. Therefore, prospective teachers initiallydemonstrated limited understanding of the two phaseswhat’s the story and planning. As the course progressed,written case analyses and planning reports demonstratedincreased reflection and anticipation. During subsequentlessons, the phases catalyzed their understanding ofcritical concepts, such as issues related to the lessonsetting and context. For example, during planning, parti-cipants refined their initial scenario work and adaptedplans for using software programs to their specific lessonplans and activities. They revisited their scenarios,compared similarities and differences between the expertcases and their individual projects, and identified possibleadaptations of the experts’ activities for their project.Prospective teachers also reflected on their decisions andbetter anticipated potential implementation issues. Forexample, Cindy envisioned detailed pedagogies in herlesson plans and checked the clarity of her lessonactivities by rehearsing and reading aloud in front of herfriends. As a result, she tried to simplify the lessons andmaterials so that the target students could follow theactivities readily.

Reflection strategies were further demonstrated duringthe last phase, telling your story, which encouragedparticipants to identify key ideas and insights gainedfrom lesson planning and to describe applications to theirfuture projects. Questions prompted reflection on diffi-culties encountered and resolved during unit projects andon ways to improve their approaches. Prospective teachersrecalled specific contextual incidents, along with theirperceptions about the events, to promote transfer to newsituations, as well as to broaden participation in thevirtual teaching forums.

Similar to experts’ applications of general principlesand heuristics to interpret unfamiliar situations andidentify plausible solutions (Clement, 1991), prospectiveteachers refined approaches to better assess the situationsassociated with their lessons. Increasingly during case

analysis and planning, they referenced knowledgeabout major concepts of pedagogical content knowledge(Shulman, 1986, 1987), such as teachers’ facilitationroles, pedagogy, and students’ characteristics. Analysissubsequently became manifest as they attempted toanticipate complex events by establishing manageableparameters.

Collaboration between the course instructor and pro-spective teachers was also encouraged during the doingphase, with exchanges focusing on lesson planning as wellas subject-oriented and technology-oriented topics. Pro-spective teachers had opportunities to talk with and about

practices and facilitated idea generation and sharing ideasin ways consistent with the conventions of their commu-nity of practice. While participants observed expertteachers’ video cases, the course instructor sharedpersonal experiences about teaching with technologyand the culture and wisdom of practices. Talking with

practices occurred continuously through peer feedbackabout course activities and ongoing conversation. Pro-spective teachers learned how to interact with colleaguesand what type of feedback is most helpful to them andtheir peers.

4.3. Socially shared identities and beliefs

Beliefs about the educational roles of computers wereascertained to determine the extent to which participantsshared the identities and beliefs of practicing teachers. Atthe beginning of the semester, participants describedsimple, often naıve, images of teaching with technology.They considered computers to be supplementary tolecture and largely unrelated to student learning. Accord-ingly, most initially used computers for multimediapresentations and gaining student attention.

Although most participants maintained the sameperceptions of the educational roles of computers at themiddle of the semester, some identified roles for devel-oping student thinking skills. For example, when devel-oping lesson plans for teaching with concept-mappingsoftware, one participant described the role of technologyas ‘‘another way to organize their [students’] thoughts.’’As participants engaged in lesson planning for subsequentprojects, they expanded their perceptions of the value oftechnology, identifying multiple roles of computers infacilitating learning and thinking, interaction, and studentownership.

5. Implications

The purposes of this paper were to critically analyseresearch and theory related to situated cognition andteacher learning, to present the situated case-basedknowledge conceptual framework in teacher education,and to document an application of the approach related totechnology integration. The emphasis on strategic caseknowledge indicated how prospective teachers come tounderstand, adapt, and develop the analytical skills ofexperienced teachers, while the emergence of sharedidentities and beliefs suggested an initial transition to the

ARTICLE IN PRESS

H. Kim, M.J. Hannafin / Teaching and Teacher Education 24 (2008) 1837–18451844

culture of the teaching profession. Using the framework inprospective teacher education, it is possible to plan for thedevelopment of knowledge and skill, to gain insights intowhat and how prospective teachers learn, and to examinehow they interpret and react to real-life teaching–learningdilemmas.

While the framework informs both research onsituated teacher learning and teacher education curriculaand practice, teacher education programmes also empha-size in-field, practical experiences designed to helpprospective teachers to balance formal course work witheveryday applied experience. It is important to examineboth the opportunities and limitations of interacting withstructured cases vis-a-vis participating with and throughpractitioners.

For example, case methods appear to facilitate pro-spective teachers’ understandings of expert teachers’situated knowledge and practices—knowledge often diffi-cult to access during initial teacher preparation. Since casemethods typically provide examples or problem caseslinked to educational theories, it may also be possible topromote deeper contextualized understanding of other-wise abstract theories (Sykes & Bird, 1992). The frame-work may help to explain whether requisite knowledgeand skill can be or has been gained via case methods inorder to study their application in practice.

In Kim and Hannafin’s (2005) study, the frameworkwas used to document how authentic course projectsenabled prospective teachers to convert and adjust to theteaching profession. When asked about lesson plans andexchanging feedback with peers, prospective teachers’conversations reflected several attributes considered to beshared values among seasoned, technology-savvy tea-chers: promoting content learning through technology-based activities, understanding students’ characteristics,and valuing activities that may include, but often gobeyond, those involving technology. Prospective teachersand the course instructor experienced and practicedtalking with and talking about technology integrationpractices.

6. Conclusion

While the importance of situated perspectives hasbeen well documented (e.g., Brown et al., 1989), fewstudies or models examine the influence of experientiallybased situated knowledge on prospective teaching craftand practice (Putnam & Borko, 1997). Although this paperpresents the potential of the framework theory andevidence of its impact based on an implementation study,we need to continually refine our understanding of boththe potentials and limitations associated with such aframework.

To this end, we suggest several areas for furtherinquiry. First, since the process can be observed oversome time, longitudinal studies are needed to explain howpreservice teachers’ situated case-based knowledgeevolves. In this paper, we observed semester-longchanges, but sometimes found their changes vague andnot complete by the end of the semester.

Next, to strengthen and assess the robustness of theframework, empirical studies are needed across diversecontexts, including but not limited to the teaching-with-technology context used in the current applications. Wefocused on prospective teachers’ knowledge in a specificsituation, but the framework’s broader utility should beexamined through studies in different formal and infor-mal teacher education programmes.

Finally, the framework is based on situated learningtheory, which can be used to explain ‘whole person’development from novice-through-expert developmentover time. Therefore, the framework may be applicable forexamining teachers’ career-long development beyondinitial teacher learning. Although we applied the frame-work to prospective teachers’ learning, further research isneeded to more fully examine inservice teachers’ learningand growth.

References

Berliner, D. (1986). In pursuit of the expert pedagogue. EducationalResearcher(August/September), 5–13.

Borko, H., & Putnam, R. T. (1996). Learning to teach. In D. C. Berliner, & R.C. Calfee (Eds.), Handbook of educational psychology (pp. 673–708).New York: Macmillan.

Brown, J. S., Collins, A., & Duguid, P. (1989). Situated cognition and theculture of learning. Educational Researcher, 18(1), 32–42.

Brown, J. S., & Duguid, P. (1996). Stolen knowledge. In H. McLellan (Ed.),Situated learning perspectives (pp. 47–56). Englewood Cliffs, NJ:Educational Technology Publications.

Bruning, R. H., Schraw, G. J., & Ronning, R. R. (1999). Cognitive psychologyand instruction (3rd ed.). Columbus, OH: Prentice-Hall.

Brush, T., Glazewski, K., Rutowski, K., Berg, K., Stromfors, C., Van-Nest, M.H., et al. (2003). Integrating technology in a field-based teachertraining program: The PT3@ASU project. Educational TechnologyResearch and Development, 51(1), 57–72.

Calderhead, J. (1996). Teachers: Beliefs and knowledge. In D. C. Berliner,& R. C. Calfee (Eds.), Handbook of educational psychology(pp. 709–725). New York: Macmillan.

Carter, K. (1989). Using cases to frame mentor-novice conversationsabout teaching. Theory into Practice, 27(3), 214–222.

Clement, J. (1991). Nonformal reasoning in experts and science students:The use of analogies, extreme cases and physical intuition. In J. Voss,D. N. Perkins, & J. Segal (Eds.), Informal reasoning in science instruction(pp. 345–362). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Collins, A., Brown, J. S., & Newman, S. E. (1989). Cognitive apprenticeship:Teaching the craft of reading, writing and mathematics. In L. B.Resnick (Ed.), Knowing, learning, and instruction: Essays in honor ofRobert Glaser (pp. 453–494). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

Ertmer, P. (2005). Teacher pedagogical beliefs: The final frontier in ourquest for technology integration? Educational Technology Researchand Development, 53(4), 25–39.

Glazer, E., & Hannafin, M. (2006). The collaborative apprenticeshipmodel: Situated professional development within school settings.Teaching and Teacher Education, 22(2), 179–193.

Greeno, J. G. & The Middle School Mathematics Through ApplicationsProject Group. (1998). The situativity of knowing, learning, andresearch. American Psychologist, 53(1), 5–26.

Grossman, P. L. (1990). The making of a teacher: Teacher knowledge andteacher education. New York: Teachers College Press, Teachers CollegeColumbia University.

Hanninen, G. E. (1985). Do expert teachers exist in gifted education?Paper presented at the Annual Convention of the Council forExceptional Children, Anaheim, CA, April 1985.

Housner, L. D., & Griffey, D. C. (1985). Teacher cognition: Differences inplanning and interactive decision making between experienced andinexperienced teachers. Research Quarterly for Exercise & Sport, 56,45–53.

Kim, H. (2005). Situated learning with cases: Web-enhanced case-basedreasoning in teacher education. Unpublished doctoral dissertation,University of Georgia, Athens.

Kim, H., & Hannafin, M. J. (2005). Prospective teachers’ case-basedreasoning (CBR) and situational understanding in the Web-enhanced

ARTICLE IN PRESS

H. Kim, M.J. Hannafin / Teaching and Teacher Education 24 (2008) 1837–1845 1845

CBR learning environment. Paper presented at the Annual Conferenceof the American Educational Research Association, April 2005,Montreal, Canada.

Kim, H., & Hannafin, M. J. (in press). Web-enhanced case-based reasoningin preservice teacher education: A case study. Instructional Science.

Kim, H., & Hannafin, M. J. (2008). Grounded design and Web-enhancedcase-based reasoning: Theory, assumptions, and practice. EducationalTechnology Research and Development, 56(2), 161–179.

Kirshner, D., & Whitson, J. A. (1997). Editors’ introduction to situatedcognition. In D. Kirshner, & J. A. Whitson (Eds.), Situated cognition:Social, semiotic, and psychological perspectives (pp. 1–16). Mahwah,NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Kolodner, J. L. (1993). Case-based reasoning. San Mateo, CA: MorganKaufmann Publishers.

Lave, J., & Wenger, E. (1991). Situated learning: Legitimate peripheralparticipation. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

Leinhardt, G. (1988). Situated knowledge and expertise in teaching. In J.Calderhead (Ed.), Teachers’ professional learning (pp. 146–168). NewYork: Falmer Press.

Leinhardt, G., & Greeno, J. G. (1986). The cognitive skill of teaching.Journal of Educational Psychology, 78(2), 75–95.

Marx, R. W., Blumenfeld, P. C., Krajcik, J. S., & Soloway, E. (1997). Enactingproject-based science. The Elementary School Journal, 97(4), 341–358.

McLellan, H. (Ed.). (1996). Situated learning perspectives. Englewood Cliffs,NJ: Educational Technology Publications.

Putnam, R. T., & Borko, H. (1997). Teacher learning: Implications of newviews of cognition. In B. J. Biddle, T. L. Good, & I. Goodson (Eds.),International handbook of teachers and teaching, Vol. II (pp. 1223–1296).Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers.

Putnam, R. T., & Borko, H. (2000). What do new views of knowledge andthinking have to say about research on teacher learning? EducationalResearcher, 29(1), 4–15.

Russell, M., Bebell, D., O’Dwyer, L., & O’Connor, K. (2003). Examiningteacher technology use: Implications for prospective and inserviceteacher preparation. Journal of Teacher Education, 54(4), 297–310.

Schank, R. C. (1999). Dynamic memory revisited (2nd ed.). Cambridge, UK:Cambridge University Press.

Schon, D. A. (1983). The reflective practitioner: How professionals think inaction. New York: Basic Books.

Shulman, L. S. (1986). Those who understand: Knowledge growth inteaching. Educational Researcher, 15, 4–14.

Shulman, L. S. (1987). Knowledge and teaching: Foundations of the newreform. Harvard Educational Review, 57(1), 1–22.

Shulman, L. S. (1992). Toward a pedagogy of cases. In J. H. Shulman (Ed.),Case methods in teacher education (pp. 1–30). New York: TeachersCollege Press.

Strauss, A. L., & Corbin, J. M. (1998). Basics of qualitative research:Techniques and procedures for developing grounded theory (2nd ed.).Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Sykes, G., & Bird, T. (1992). Teacher education and the case idea. In G.Grant (Ed.), Review of research in education (pp. 457–521). Washing-ton, DC: American Educational Research Association.

Thomas, G., Wineburg, S., Grossman, P., Myhre, O., & Woolworth, S.(1998). In the company of colleagues: An interim report on thedevelopment of a community of teacher learners. Teaching andTeacher Education, 14(1), 21–32.

Wilson, B. G., & Myers, K. M. (2000). Situated cognition in theoretical andpractical context. In D. Jonassen, & S. M. Land (Eds.), Theoreticalfoundations of learning environments (pp. 57–88). Mahwah, NJ:Erlbaum.

Windschitl, M., & Sahl, K. (2002). Tracing teachers’ use of technology in alaptop computer school: The interplay of teacher beliefs, socialdynamics, and institutional culture. American Educational ResearchJournal, 39(1), 165–205.