|
چکیده
|
The present study focused on the epistemology of teachers’ practical knowledge by addressing the following research question: how do teachers attempt to reason about their practices and their practical knowledge? The results indicated that teachers supported their practical knowledge claims using the “practical argument.” Within this conceptual framework, they relied on contextual grounds that call for the fact that something should or should not be “done,” rather than something is “true” or “false.” Contextual grounds, then, were found to be backed up by two significant types of warrants: kinds of moral ethos and kinds of “what works” notion. Depending on what kinds of warrants they used, teachers' practical knowledge was interpreted as being based on two different epistemic statuses: “practicable” knowledge and “praxial” knowledge
|