perceptions of ‘subject knowledge’ in the initial teacher training of primary school teachers:...

Perceptions of ‘subject knowledge’ in the initial teacher training of primary school teachers: nature, role, purpose and process

Deborah PopeUniversity of Chester26th September 2015

‘Subject knowledge’

• Prevalent term in teacher training • Clarity or ambiguity…?

• In the Cambridge Primary Review of Education, Alexander (2010) highlighted lack of coherence to the discourse about subject knowledge in teacher education in England in comparison to other European countries.

Background• Teachers’ Standards (2002, 2007, 2012) – different ways of

thinking about ‘subject knowledge

• Shulman (1986, 1987) – Pedagogical content knowledge and knowledge bases for teaching

• Developments from this: • New knowledge bases identified (e.g. Grimmet and McKinnon,1992;

Grossman, 1995)• PCK re-examined and analysed (e.g. Cochran et al 1993; McNamara,

1991; McEwan and Bull, 1991)• Alternative models of knowledge bases for teaching (e.g. Meredith,

1995, Banks et al, 1996, Ellis, 2007)

Knowledge needed for teaching is complex and multi-faceted. How do we communicate this complexity to our trainees?

‘Context affects what professional knowledge gets used and how.’ (Eraut 1994:20)

• Various models that represent a situated view of ‘subject knowledge’ take account of it being developed in practice by teaching in schools (e.g. Banks et al 1996; Leach and Moon 2000; Ellis 2007).

• Developed in the subject specialist context of secondary teaching.

Relevance to primary teaching…?

Against this landscape…• How do we define and position ‘subject

knowledge’ in our primary training?

• How do our trainee primary teachers construct meaning from the discourse around ‘subject knowledge’ for primary teaching?

• How is this reflected in their emerging professional identities?

Research methodology• Qualitative study - constructivist approach• Final year undergraduate primary education trainees / school

mentors / university tutors• Two Higher Education Institutions – 140 participants in total

Data gathered via: • questionnaires • semi-structured interviews • Drawing/mapping activity part of interview

• qualitative content analysis of documentary evidence

• Data analysis using grounded theory approach (Charmaz 2006)

Emergent Findings

Trainees’ perceptions of the term ‘subject knowledge’

Diverse definitions of the term – 18 distinct categories

Majority of trainees think: • the term ‘subject knowledge’ is not used in the same way to

mean the same thing by all involved in training and we do not attach equal importance to it;• have to learn the ‘rules of the game’ in each context

• the school-based element of training has more impact on their subject-specific knowledge development than the university-based training;

• they receive most subject-specific feedback from school-based activities;

• school mentors help them to set subject-specific targets rather than university tutors. • Interview/documentary data conflicts so why do they have

some of these perceptions?

Specific ways of thinking…

Three trainees’ pictorial representations of their thinking about ‘subject knowledge’ for primary teaching.

• same institution• same B.Ed. Programme (four years)• same point in training – end of final year• all achieved Grade 1 ‘Outstanding’

Trainee A

Trainee B

Trainee C

How trainees say they develop subject-specific knowledge that they use in their teaching:

• Most frequent: using the Internet, research for preparation for teaching on placement

• Least frequent: observation of teachers, reference to their own prior education

• Majority highly sceptical in their perceptions of university subject knowledge auditing and tracking processes

• On school placement it is the pressure of having to teach that is the stimulus for development of subject-specific knowledge.

• School mentors appear to have a minimal role in this; they highlight ‘gaps’ or weaknesses for individuals to go away and work on independently.

School mentors…• Very reluctant to participate in the research about ‘subject

knowledge’

• Diverse opinions about the nature of ‘subject knowledge’ but say they are clear about the meaning of the term ‘subject knowledge’ in ITT

• School-based element of training has most impact on subject-specific knowledge development. Some negativity about the impact of the university training expressed.

University tutors…

• Similar variation in definitions of ‘subject knowledge’

• Dual discourse and tensions evident: • tutors participate in practices that they do not agree with/value; • some have different definitions of ‘subject knowledge’ in their

personal opinion versus professional opinion;• express dissatisfaction with the coherence of some partnership

documentation and practices whilst being part of them.

Links to the contextualist perspective of Edwards et al (2002) – rule governed behaviour/learning the ‘game’ of education

• Do university tutors have to learn the rules of a new ‘game’?

How do the research findings link to the Carter Review recommendations?

• ITT course content• Subject-specific pedagogy*• Systematic subject knowledge development• Evidence-based teaching• Integration of theory and practice• Mentor training and development

Issues emerging from the research• Contradictions in the data to explore

• Researcher as ‘insider-outsider’ - facing uncomfortable ‘truths’ in the data

ReferencesAlexander (2010) (ed.) Children, their world, their education: final report and recommendations of the Cambridge Primary Review, Oxon: Routledge.

Banks, F., Leach, J. and Moon, B. (1996) Knowledge, school knowledge and pedagogy: reconceptualising curricula and defining a research agenda, paper presented at the European Conference for Education Research, Seville, Spain.

Cochran, K.F., De Ruiter, J.A. and King, R.A. (1993) Pedagogical content knowing: an integrative model for teacher preparation, Journal of Teacher Education, 44, 263-272.

Charmaz, K. (2006) Constructing Grounded Theory: A Practical Guide through Qualitative Analysis, London: Sage.

Department for Education (2012) Teachers’ Standards, London: DfE.

Department for Education and Skills (DfES) (2002) Qualifying to teach. Professional standards for qualified teacher status and requirements for initial teacher training, London: DfES.

Edwards, A. Gilroy, P. and Hartley, D. (2002) Rethinking Teacher Education: collaborative responses to uncertainty, London: RoutledgeFalmer.

Ellis, V. (2007) Taking subject knowledge seriously: from professional knowledge recipes to complex conceptualizations of teacher development, The Curriculum Journal, 18(4), 447-462.

Eraut, M. (1994) Developing professional knowledge and competence, London: Falmer Press.

Grimmett, P.P and McKinnon, A.M. (1992) Craft knowledge and the education of teachers, Review of Research in Education, 18, 385-456.

Grossman, P. (1989) A study in contrast: sources of pedagogical content knowledge for secondary English, Journal of Teacher Education, 30, 24-31.

Grossman, P. (1995) ‘Teachers’ knowledge’, in L.W. Anderson (ed.) International Encyclopaedia of Teaching and Teacher Education, Oxford: Elsevier.

Leach, J. and Moon, B. (2000) Pedagogy, information and communications technology and teachers’ professional knowledge, The Curriculum Journal, 11(3), 385-404.

McEwan, H. & Bull, B. (1991) The pedagogic nature of subject matter knowledge, American Educational Research Journal, 28, 316-334.

McNamara, D. (1991) Subject knowledge and its application: problems and possibilities for teacher educators, Journal of Education for Teaching, 17, 113-128.

Meredith, A. (1995) Terry’s learning: some limitations of Shulman’s pedagogical content knowledge, Cambridge Journal of Education, 25, 176-187.

Shulman, L.S. (1986) Those who understand: Knowledge growth in teaching. Educational Research, 15, 4-14.

Shulman, L.S. (1987) Knowledge and teaching: foundations of the new reform, Harvard Educational Review, 57(1), 1-22.

TDA (2007) Professional Standards for Teachers in England from September 2007, London: TDA.