Journal of Science Education and Technology

, Volume 16, Issue 6, pp 463–472 | Cite as

Individuals and Leadership in an Australian Secondary Science Department: A Qualitative Study

Article
First Online:

Abstract

In this article, we consider the complex and dynamic inter-relationships between individual science teachers, the social space of their work and their dispositions towards teacher leadership. Research into the representation of school science departments through individual science teachers is scarce. We explore the representations of four individual teachers to the assertions of teacher leadership proposed by Silva et al. (Teach Coll Rec, 102(4):779–804, 2000). These representations, expressed during regular science department meetings, occur in the social space of Bourdieu’s “field” and are a reflection of the “game” of science education being played within the department. This departmentally centred space suggests an important implication when considering the relationship between subject departments and their schools. The development of an individual’s representation of teacher leadership and the wider “field” of science education appears to shape the individual towards promoting their own sense of identity as a teacher of science, rather than as a teacher within a school. Our work suggests that for these individuals, the important “game” is science education, not school improvement. Consequently, the subject department may be a missing link between efforts to improve schools and current organizational practices.

Keywords

Science department Secondary education Teacher leadership 
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

References

  1. Billett S (2001) Learning through working life: interdependencies at work. Stud Contin Educ 23(1):19–35CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Blenkin GM, Edwards G, Kelly AV (1997) Perspectives on educational change. In: Harris A, Bennett N, Preedy M (eds) Organisational effectiveness and improvement in education. Open University Press, Buckingham, UK, pp 216–230Google Scholar
  3. Bloomer M, Hodkinson P (2000) Learning careers: continuity and change in young people’s dispositions to learning. Br J Educ Stud 26(5):583–598Google Scholar
  4. Bourdieu P (1984) Distinction: a social critique of the judgement of taste. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MAGoogle Scholar
  5. Bourdieu P (1998) Practical reason: on the theory of action. Stanford University Press, Stanford, CAGoogle Scholar
  6. Burroughs R, Schwartz TA, Hendricks-Lee M (2000) Communities of practice and discourse communities: negotiating boundaries in NBPTS certification. Teach Coll Rec 102(2):344–374CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Coulter D, Orme L (2000) Teacher professionalism: the wrong conversation. Educ Can 40(1):4–7Google Scholar
  8. Daley BJ (2002) Context: implications for learning in professional practice. New Dir Adult Contin Educ 96:79–88CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Denzin NK (1989) Interpretive interactionism. Sage, Newbury Park, CAGoogle Scholar
  10. Gray J, Hopkins D, Reynolds D, Wilcox B, Farrell S, Jesson D (1999) Improving schools: performance and potential. Open University Press, Buckingham, UKGoogle Scholar
  11. Gutierrez R (1996) Practices, beliefs and cultures of high school mathematics departments: understanding their influence on student advancement. J Curriculum Stud 28(5):495–530CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Harris A, Bennett N, Preedy M (eds) (1997) Organisational effectiveness and improvement in education. Open University Press, Buckingham, UKGoogle Scholar
  13. Harris A (2001) Department improvement and department improvement: a missing link. Br Educ Res J 27(4):477–486CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Hodkinson P, Hodkinson H (2004) The significance of individuals’ dispositions in workplace learning: a case study of two teachers. J Educ Work 17(2):167–182CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Horn I (2005) Learning on the job: a situated account of learning in high school mathematics departments. Cognition Instruct 23(2):207–236CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Judson E, Lawson AE (2007) What is the role of constructivist teachers within faculty communication networks? J Res Sci Teach 44(3):490–505CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Khourey-Bowers C, Dinko RL, Hart RG (2005) Influence of a shared leadership model in creating a school culture of inquiry and collegiality. J Res Sci Teach 42(1):3–24CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Lord B (1994) Teachers’ professional development: critical colleagueship and the role of professional communities. In: Cobb N (ed) The future of education: perspectives on national standards in education in America. College Entrance Examination Board, New York, pp 175–204Google Scholar
  19. Melville W (2005) Professional learning in a school-based community of science teachers. Unpublished Ph.D. thesis, Curtin University of Technology, Perth, Australia. Available from http://adt.curtin.edu.au/theses/available/adt-WCU20051116.132239/
  20. Melville W, Wallace J (2007) Workplace as community: perspectives on science teachers’ professional learning. J Sci Teach Educ 18(4): 543–558CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Sammons P, Thomas S, Mortimore P (1997) Forging links: effective schools and effective departments. Paul Chapman Publishing Limited, LondonGoogle Scholar
  22. Silva DY, Gimbert B, Nolan J (2000) Sliding the doors: locking and unlocking possibilities for teacher leadership. Teach Coll Rec 102(4):779–804CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Siskin LS (1994) Realms of knowledge: academic departments in secondary schools. The Falmer Press, LondonGoogle Scholar
  24. Visscher AJ, Witziers B (2004) Subject departments as professional communities? Br Educ Res J 30(6):785–800CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Wenger E (1998) Communities of practice. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UKGoogle Scholar
  26. Wildy H, Wallace J (2004) Science as content: science as context: working in the science department. Res Sci Educ 30(2):99–112Google Scholar
  27. Wilson S, Berne J (1999) Teacher learning and the acquisition of professional knowledge: an examination of research on contemporary professional development. In: Iran-Najed, Pearson PD (eds) Rev Res Educ Vol. 24. American Educational Research Association, Washington, pp 173–209Google Scholar
  28. Witziers B (1999) Departments as teams: functioning, variations and alternatives. Sch Leadersh Manage 19(3):293–204CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2007

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Faculty of EducationLakehead UniversityThunder BayCanada
  2. 2.Ontario Institute for Studies in Education of the University of TorontoTorontoCanada

Personalised recommendations