___

• Barnett, C. (1992). “Building A Case Curriculum to Enhance the Pedagogical Content Knowledge of Mathematics Teachers,” Journal of Teacher Education, n. 42, ss. 263—272.
• Benchmarks http:/ project2061.aaas.org/tools/benhcnİ/bchinhtm
• Carnegie Task Force on Teaching as a Profession: (1986). A Nation Prepared: Teachers for the 21st Century. Washington DC: Carnegie î G A bant İzzet Buysa Üniversitesi Süsyal Bilimler Ensıı'tüsı'e' Dergişa“ 2006-2 ( I 3’ )
• Clermont, C. P., Borko, H., Krajcik, S i. (1994). “Comparative Study of the Pedagogical Content Knowledge of Experienced and Novice Chemical Demonstrators,” Journal of Research in Science Teaching, n. 31, ss. 419—441.
• Fernândez—Balboa, l., Stiehl, J. (1995). “The Generic Nature of Pedagogical Content Knowledge Among College Professors,” Teaching & Teacher Education, n. 11, ss. 293—306.
• Grossman, P. L. (1989). “A Study in Contrast: Sources of Pedagogical Content Knowledge for Secondary English,” journal of Teacher Education, n. 40, ss. 24—31 .
• Grossman, P. L. (1990). The Making of A Teacher: Teacher Knowledge & Teacher Education. Columbia University: Teachers College.
• Hashweh, M. Z. (1987). “Effects of Subject—Matter Knowledge In the Teaching of Biology and Physics,” Teaching & Teacher Education, n. 3ı ss. 109—120.
• Lederman, N. G., Gess-Newsome, l. (1992). “Do Subject Matter Knowledge, Pedagogical Knowledge, and Pedagogical Content Knowledge Constitute the ideal Gas Law of Science Teaching?” Journal of Science Teacher Education, n. 3, ss. 16—20.
• Lederman, N. G., Gess—Newsorne, J., Latz, M. S. (1994). “Expertise in Mathematics Instruction: Subject Matter Knowledge,” Journal of Research in Science Teaching, n. 31, ss. 1 29—146.
• Marks, R. (1990). “Pedagogical Content Knowledge: From A Mathematical Case to A Modified Conception,” Journal of Teacher Education, n. 41, ss. 3—1.1.
• Richerdson, V. (1994). “Conducting Research on Practice,” Educational Researcher, n. 23, ss. 5—9.
• Shulman, L. S. (1986a). “Those Who Understand: Knowledge Growth in Teaching,” Educational Researcher, n. 15, ss. 4—14.
• Shulman, L. S., (1986b). Paradigms and Research Programs in The Study of Teaching: A. Contemporary Perspective. ln M,C, Wittrock (3rd ed.) (Ed) Handbook of research in teaching, New York: Macmiliian, ss. 3—36,
• Shulman L. S. (1987). “Knowledge and Teaching: Foundations of The New Reform,” Harvard Educational Review, n. 57ı ss. 22.
• Tamir, P. (1988). “Subject Matter and Related Pedagogical Knowledge in Teacher Education,” Teaching and Teacher Education, n. 4, ss. 99—110.
• Tamir, P. (1990). “Factors Associated with the Relationship Between Formal, Informal. and Nonformal Science Learning,” journal of Environmental Education, n. 22, ss. 34—42.
• The Holmes Group (1986). Tomorrow’s Teachers: A Report of the Holmes Group. East Lansing, Mi Author in Shaiman LS. (1987). ”Knowledge and Teaching: Foundations of the New Reform,” Harvard Educational Review, n. 57, ss. 1—22.
• Wilson, S. . M., Shulman, L. S., Richert, E. R. (1987). “150 Different Ways of Knowing: Representations of Knowledge in Teaching,” in .l. Calderhead (Ed.), Exploring teachers‘ thinking. New York: Taylor and Francis.