He distinguished between content as it is studied and learned in disciplinary settings and the “special amalgam ofcontent and pedagogy” needed for teaching the subject. These ideas had a major impact on the research community, immediately focusing attention on the foundational importance of content knowledge in teaching and on pedagogical content knowledge in particular.
The Process Followed at Pragati

CONTENT KNOWLEDGE FOR TEACHING WHAT MAKES IT SPECIAL?

While teacher content knowledge is crucially important to the improvement of teaching and learning, attention to its development and study has been uneven. Historically,
researchers have focused on many aspects of teaching, but more often than not scant attention has been given to how teachers need to understand the subjects they teach. Further, when researchers, educators and policy makers have turned attention to teacher subject matter knowledge the assumption has often been that advanced study inthe subject is what matters. Debates have focused on how muchpreparation teachers need in the content standards rather than on what typeof content they need to learn. In the mid-1980s, a major breakthrough initiated a new wave of interest in the conceptualization of teacher content knowledge. In his 1985 ERA presidential address, Lee Shulman identified a special domain of teacher knowledge, which he referred to as pedagogical content knowledge. He distinguished between content as it is studied and learned in disciplinary settings and the “special amalgam ofcontent and pedagogy” needed for teaching the subject. These ideas had a major impact on the research community, immediately focusing attention on the foundational importance of content knowledge in teaching and on pedagogical content knowledge in particular.

This paper provides a brief overview ofresearch on content knowledge and pedagogical content knowledge, describes how we have approached the problem, and reports on our efforts to define the domain of mathematicalknowledge for teaching and to refine its sub-domains. The study of teacher knowledge in ways that included direct attention to the role of contentin teaching. This was a radical departure from research of the day, which focused almost exclusively on general aspects of teaching suchas classroom management, time allocation, or planning. A second contribution of the work was to leverage content knowledge as technical knowledge key to the establishment of teaching as a profession. The high quality instruction requires a sophisticated professional knowledge that goes beyond simple rules such as howlong to wait for students to respond. To characterize professional knowledge for teaching, they developed typologies.

Although the specific boundaries and names of categories varied across publications, one of the more complete articulation is reproduced below General pedagogical knowledge, withspecial reference to those broad principles and strategiesof classroom management and organization that appear totranscend subject matter Knowledge of learners and their characteristics Knowledge of educational contexts, ranging from workings of the group or classroom, the governance and financing of school districts, to the character of communities and cultures Knowledge of educational ends , purposes, and values, and their philosophical and historical grounds Content knowledge Curriculum knowledge, with particular grasp of the materials and programs that serve as “tools of the trade” for teachers Pedagogical content knowledge, that special amalgam of content and pedagogy that is uniquely the province of teachers, their own special  the most useful forms of representation of those ideas, the most powerful analogies, illustrations, explanations, and demonstrations  in a word, the mostuseful ways of representing and formulating the subject that makeit comprehensible to others. Pedagogical content knowledge also includes anunderstanding of what makes the learning of specific topics easy or difficult: the conceptions and preconceptions that students of different ages and backgrounds bring with them to the learning of those most frequently taught topics and lessons Interest in these ideas was immediate andpwidespread. content knowledge in a wide variety of subject areas: science, mathematics, social studies, English, physical education, communication, religion, chemistry, engineering, music, special education, English language learning, higher education, and others. And, such studies show no signs of abating. Rarely does an idea  or a term  catch on at such a scale.
 



The continuing appeal of the notion of pedagogical content knowledge is that it bridges content knowledge and the practice of teaching, assuring that discussions of content are relevant to teaching and that discussions of teaching retain attention to content. As such, it is the unique province of teachers a content-based form of professional knowledge.. Two points are worth making here. First, researchers have failed to establish precise or agreed-upon definitions.

Throughout the past twenty years, for example, researchers have used the term “pedagogical content knowledge” to refer to a widerange of aspects of subject matter knowledge and aspects of the teaching of subject matter. Itis often unclear how ideas in one subject area relate to those in another subject area, or even whether findings within the same subject take similar or different views of teacher subject matter knowledge. Somewhat ironically, nearly one-third of the articles that cite pedagogical content knowledge do so without direct attention to a specific content area the very emphasis of the notion instead making general claims about teacherknowledge, teacher education, or policy. Second, while the work of Shulman and his colleagues was developed from extensive observation of classroom teaching, most subsequent research takes particular domains of knowledge, such as pedagogical content knowledge, as given or uses only logical arguments to substantiate claims about the existence and the role of these domains At Pragati, focus is lad to nurture various skills and intelligences of the student. Rather than creating few academic geniuses we believe in creating several intelligent and focused individual, those who know their strength and are capable to face challenges of life. The teachers at Pragati are working with vision to indulged Multiple Intelligence and skills in their teaching approach. We at Pragati call it “The art and science of teaching”. The art and science of teaching process at Pragati is based on the theory of Multiple Intelligence by Prof. Howard Gardner. According to this theory,

• All human beings possess all nine intelligences in varying amounts.
• Each person has a different intellectual composition.
• We can improve education by addressing the multiple intelligences of our students.
• These intelligences are located in different areas of the brain and can work either independently or together.