Advertisement

CURRICULUM REFORM AND A SCIENCE DEPARTMENT: A BOURDIEUIAN ANALYSIS

  • Wayne MelvilleEmail author
Article

Abstract

This article will describe the dispositions of science teachers in the context of a curriculum reform. Using Bourdieu’s notions of ‘habitus’ and ‘the field,’ the analysis of the data highlights the necessity for curriculum reformers to view the field of the science department as a contested space. From this understanding flow several subsidiary issues: the need to promote disequilibrium and critical conversations around the meanings and practices of science education within the department, and the need to value and capitalise on the symbolic capital of teacher credibility. The article concludes by briefly critiquing recent curriculum reforms in Australia.

Key words

Bourdieu curriculum reform field habitus science as inquiry 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Anderson, R. D. (2002). Reforming science teaching: what research says about inquiry. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 13(1), 1–12.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Australian Science Teachers Association (2002). National professional standards for highly accomplished teachers of science. Melbourne: Australian Science Teachers Association Inc and Monash University.Google Scholar
  3. Billett, S. (2001). Learning through working life: interdependencies at work. Studies in Continuing Education, 23(1), 19–35.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bloomer, M., & Hodkinson, P. (2000). Learning careers: Continuity and change in young people’s dispositions to learning. British Journal of Education Studies, 26(5), 583–598.Google Scholar
  5. Bourdieu, P. (1984). Distinction: A social critique of the judgement of taste. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  6. Bourdieu, P. (1990a). The logic of practice. Stanford: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
  7. Bourdieu, P. (1990b). In other words: Essays towards a reflexive sociology. Stanford: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
  8. Bourdieu, P. (1998). Practical reason: On the theory of action. Stanford: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
  9. Burroughs, R., Schwartz, T.A. & Hendricks-Lee, M. (2000). Communities of practice and discourse communities: negotiating boundaries in NBPTS certification. Teachers College Record, 102(2), 344–374.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Bush, T. (1997). Collegial models in organisational effectiveness. In A. Harris, N. Bennett, & M. Preedy (Eds.), Organisational effectiveness and improvement in education (pp. 68–79). Buckingham, UK: Open University Press.Google Scholar
  11. Colburn, A. (2004). Inquiring scientists want to know. Educational Leadership, 62(1), 63–66.Google Scholar
  12. Coulter, D. & Orme, L. (2000). Teacher professionalism: the wrong conversation. Education Canada, 40(1), 4–7.Google Scholar
  13. Edwards, T. G. (1996). Implications of a model for conceptualizing change in mathematics teachers’ instructional practices. Action in Teacher Education, 18(2), 19–30.Google Scholar
  14. Eick, C. J. (2009). Tailoring National Standards early science teacher identities: Building on personal histories to support beginning practice. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 20(2), 135–156.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Feiman-Nemser, S. (1990). Teacher preparation: structural and conceptual alternatives. Retreived 14 October 2005 from: http://ncrtl.msu.edu/http/ipapers/html/pdf/ip953.pdfS.
  16. Gee, J. P. (2003). Language in the science classroom: Academic social languages as the heart of school-based literacy. In R. Yerrick & W. -M. Roth (Eds.), Establishing scientific classroom discourse communities; multiple voices of teaching and learning research (pp. 19–37). Mahwah: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  17. Hardy, I. (2009). Teacher professional development: A sociological study of senior educators’ PD priorities in Ontario. Canadian Journal of Education, 32(3), 509–532.Google Scholar
  18. Harris, K., Jensz, F., & Baldwin, G. (2005). Who’s teaching science? Meeting the demand for qualified for science teachers in Australian secondary schools. Canberra: Australian Council of Deans of Science.Google Scholar
  19. Hargreaves, A. (1994). Changing teachers, changing times: Teachers’ work and culture in the post-modern world. London: Cassell.Google Scholar
  20. Hargreaves, D. H. (2000). The knowledge creating school. In B. Moon, J. Butcher & E. Bird (Eds.), Leading professional development in education (pp. 224–240). London: Routledge Falmer.Google Scholar
  21. Helms, J. V. (1998). Science—and me: subject matter and identity in science teachers. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 35(7), 811–834.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Hodkinson, P. M., & Hodkinson, H. D. (2002). Learning in a workplace community: Secondary school teachers in their subject departments. Paper presented at the British Educational Research Association Annual Conference, University of Exeter, September 2002.Google Scholar
  23. Hodkinson, P., & Hodkinson, H. (2004). The significance of individuals’ dispositions in workplace learning: A case study of two teachers. Journal of Education and Work, 17(2), 167–182.Google Scholar
  24. Horn, I. (2005). Learning on the job: A situated account of learning in high school mathematics departments. Cognition and Instruction, 23(2), 207–236.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Judson, E., & Lawson, A. E. (2007). What is the role of constructivist teachers within faculty communication networks? Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 44(3), 490–505.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Lincoln, Y. S., & Guba, E. G. (1985). Naturalistic inquiry. Beverly Hills: Sage.Google Scholar
  27. Melville, W. (2005). Professional learning in a school-based community of science teachers. Unpublished PhD thesis, Curtin University of Technology, Perth, Australia. Available from http://adt.curtin.edu.au/theses/available/adt-WCU20051116.132239/.
  28. Melville, W., & Wallace, J. (2007). Metaphorical duality: High school subject departments as both communities and organizations. Teaching and Teacher Education, 23(7), 1193–1205.Google Scholar
  29. National Curriculum Board (2009a). Framing paper consultation report: The sciences. Canberra: National Curriculum Board.Google Scholar
  30. National Curriculum Board (2009b). Shape of the Australian Curriculum: Science. Canberra: National Curriculum Board.Google Scholar
  31. National Research Council (1996). The National Science Education Standards. Washington DC: National Academy.Google Scholar
  32. O’Day, J. A. (2002). Complexity, accountability, and school improvement. Harvard Educational Review, 72(3), 293–329.Google Scholar
  33. Polkinghorne, D. E. (1995). Narrative configuration in qualitative analysis. In J. A. Hatch & R. Wisniewski (Eds.), Life, history and narrative (pp. 5–24). London: Falmer.Google Scholar
  34. Rogan, J., & Aldous, C. (2005). Relationships between the constructs of a theory of curriculum implementation. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 42(3), 313–336.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Stigler, J. W., & Hiebert, J. (1999). The teaching gap: Best ideas from the world’s teachers for improving education in the classroom. New York: The Free.Google Scholar
  36. Thompson, C., & Zueli, J. S. (1999). The frame and the tapestry: Standards-based reform and professional development. In L. Darling-Hammond & G. Sykes (Eds.), Teaching as the learning profession. Handbook of policy and practice (pp. 341–375). San Fransisco: Jossey-Bass.Google Scholar
  37. Turner-Bisset, R. (2001). Expert teaching: Knowledge and teaching to lead the profession. London: Fulton.Google Scholar
  38. van Driel, J. H., Verloop, N., & de Vos, W. (1998). Developing science teachers’ pedagogical content knowledge. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 35(6), 673–695.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. van Driel, J. H., Beijaard, D., & Verloop, N. (2001). Professional development and reform in science education: the role of teachers’ practical knowledge. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 38(2), 137–158.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Welch, W. W., Klopfer, L. E., Aitkenhead, G. S., & Robinson, J. T. (1981). The role of inquiry in science education: analysis and recommendations. Science Education, 5, 33–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Wheatley, K. F. (2002). The potential benefits of teacher efficacy doubts for educational reform. Teaching and Teacher Education, 18(1), 5–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Wildy, H., & Wallace, J. (2004). Science as content: science as context: working in the science department. Research in Science Education, 30(2), 99–112.Google Scholar
  43. Yager, R. E. (2005). Achieving the staff development model advocated in the national standards. The Science Educator, 14, 16–24.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© National Science Council, Taiwan 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Faculty of EducationLakehead UniversityThunder BayCanada

Personalised recommendations