Advertisement

Subject-Specific Demands of Teaching: Implications for Out-of-Field Teachers

  • Cosette CrisanEmail author
  • Linda Hobbs
Chapter

Abstract

This chapter provides a framework for thinking about the subject-specific nature of teaching in terms of the knowledge, modes of inquiry and discursive practices that delineate one subject from another in the traditional school curriculum. The chapter will explore how these disciplinary traits are translated into teaching as curriculum, knowledge and pedagogy, and how this subject-specificity of teaching is juxtaposed against the more generic aspects of teaching. The chapter explores the idea that if a teacher’s expertise can be situated within a field, then they can also be positioned out-of-field. Implications for teaching out-of-field are discussed in terms of the subject-specific knowledge, processes and skills, and the difficulties associated with teacher practice. English and Australian illustrations of teacher practices from in-field and out-of-field situations are provided, in particular highlighting the demands of moving across subject boundaries. Cross-fertilisation is especially evident when subjects are integrated, therefore, the issues associated with integrated curriculum are discussed where the traditional subject boundaries are being challenged as schools are reorganised to integrate subjects through, for example, STEM teaching, or holistic curriculum designs.

Keywords

Subject-specific knowledge for teaching Modes of inquiry Subject boundaries Generic descriptions of pedagogy 

References

  1. Airaksinen, T., Halinen, I., & Linturi, H. (2017). Futuribles of learning 2030—Delphi supports the reform of the core curricula in Finland. European Journal of Futures Research, 5(2), 1–14.Google Scholar
  2. Anderman, E. R., & Maehr, M. L. (1994). Motivation and schooling in the middle grades. Review of Educational Research, 64(2), 287–309.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Argyris, C., & Schön, D. (1974). Theory in practice: Increasing professional effectiveness. San Fransisco: Jossey-Bass.Google Scholar
  4. Arnold, R. (2000). Middle years literature review including list of references. Retrieved January 10, 2007, from http://www.boardofstudies.nsw.edu.au.
  5. Australian Government. (2011). Research skills for an innovative future. Canberra: Australian Government.Google Scholar
  6. Ball, S., & Lacey, C. (1980). Subject disciplines as the opportunity for group action: A measured critique of subject sub-cultures. In P. Woods (Ed.), Teacher strategies: Explorations in the sociology of the school (pp. 149–177). London: Croom Helm.Google Scholar
  7. Ball, B., Coles, A., Hewitt, D., Wilson, D., Jacques, L., Cross, K., et al. (2005). Talking about subject-specific pedagogy. For the Learning of Mathematics, 25(3), 32–36.Google Scholar
  8. Ball, D. L., Thames, M., & Phelps, G. (2008). Content knowledge for teaching: What makes it special? Journal of Teacher Education, 59(5), 389–407.  https://doi.org/10.1177/0022487108324554.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Banks, F., Leach, J., & Moon, B. (1999). New understandings of teachers’ pedagogic knowledge. In J. Leach & B. Moon (Eds.), Learners and pedagogy. London: Paul Chapman Publishing).Google Scholar
  10. Beane, J. (1990). A middle school curriculum: From rhetoric to reality. Ohio: National Middle School Association.Google Scholar
  11. Beane, J. (1995). Curriculum integration and the disciplines of knowledge. Phi Delta Kappan, 76(8), 616–622.Google Scholar
  12. Becher, T. (1989). Academic tribes and territories. Bristol: Open University Press.Google Scholar
  13. Beswick, K. (2007). Teachers’ beliefs that matter in secondary classrooms. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 65, 95–120.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Bransform, Brown, Cocking. (Eds.). (2000). How people learn: brain, mind, experience, and school. Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press.Google Scholar
  15. Briggs, S. (2016). Traditional subjects: can we do without them? InformED. Retrieved May, 2017, from http://www.opencolleges.edu.au/informed/features/traditional-subjects-can-we-do-without-them/.
  16. Crisan, C., & Rodd, M. (2011). Teachers of mathematics to mathematics teachers: A TDA mathematics development programme for teachers. British Society for Research into Learning Mathematics, 31(3), 29–34.Google Scholar
  17. Crisan, C., & Rodd, M. (2014). Talking the talk…but walking the walk? How do non-specialist mathematics teachers come to see themselves as mathematics teachers? In L. Hobbs, & G. Törner (Eds.), Taking an International Perspective on Out-Of-Field Teaching: Proceedings and Agenda for Research and Action, 1st TAS Collective Symposium, 30–31 August 2014.Google Scholar
  18. Crisan, C., & Rodd, M. (2017). Learning mathematics for teaching mathematics: Non-specialist teachers’ mathematics teacher identity. Mathematics Teacher Education and Development, 19(2), 104–122.Google Scholar
  19. Cuoco, A., Goldenburg, P., & Mark, J. (1996). Habits of mind: An organizing principle for mathematics curricula. Journal of Mathematical Behavior, 15, 375–402.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Darby, L. (2005). Science students’ perceptions of engaging pedagogy. Research in Science Education, 35, 425–445.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Darby, L. (2010). Characterising secondary school teacher imperatives as Subject (Signature) pedagogies: A pedagogy of support in mathematics and a pedagogy of engagement in science. In S. Howard (Eds.), AARE 2010 Conference Proceedings. http://www.aare.edu.au/10pap/2499Darby.pdf.
  22. Darby-Hobbs, L. (2013). Responding to a relevance imperative in school science and mathematics: Humanising the curriculum through story. Research in Science Education, 43(1), 77–97.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Dorfler, W., & McLone, R. R. (1986). Mathematics as a school subject. In B. Christianson, A. G. Howson, & M. Otte (Eds.), Perspectives on mathematics education (pp. 49–97). Dordrecht: D. Riedel Publishing Co.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Du Plessis, A. E., Carroll, A., & Gillies, R. M. (2015). Understanding the lived experiences of novice out-of-field teachers in relation to school leadership practices. Asia-Pacific Journal of Teacher Education, 43(1), 4–21.  https://doi.org/10.1080/1359866X.2014.937393.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Gardner, H. (2001). An education for the future: The foundation of science and values. Retrieved June 22, 2004, from www.pz.harvard.edu/PIs/Ha_Amsterdam.htm.
  26. Gardner, H. (2004). Discipline, understanding, and community. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 36(2), 233–236.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Goodson, I. (1993). School subjects and curriculum change (3rd ed.). Bristol: The Falmer Press.Google Scholar
  28. Grossman, P. L., Stodolsky, S. S., & Knapp, M. S. (2004). Making subject matter part of the equation: The intersection of policy and content. Washington: Centre for the Study of Teaching and Policy.Google Scholar
  29. Grundy, S. (1994). Reconstructing the curriculum of Australia’s schools: Cross curricular issues and practices. Occasional Paper No. 4. Belconnen: Australian Curriculum Students Association Inc.Google Scholar
  30. Hargreaves, A. (1994). Changing teachers, changing times: Teachers’ work and culture in the postmodern age. London: Cassell.Google Scholar
  31. Hill, P. W., Holmes-Smith, P., & Rowe, K. J. (1993). School and teacher effectiveness in Victoria: Keyfindings from Phase 1 of the Victorian Quality Schools Project. Centre for Applied Educational Research: The University of Melbourne Institute of Education.Google Scholar
  32. Hobbs, L. (2012). Examining the aesthetic dimensions of teaching: Relationships between teacher knowledge, identity and passion. Teaching and Teacher Education, 28, 718–727.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Hobbs, L. (2013). Teaching ’out-of-field’ as a boundary-crossing event: Factors shaping teacher identity. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 11(2), 271–297.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Ingvarson, L., Beavis, A., Bishop, A., Peck, R., & Elsworth, G. (2004). Investigation of effective mathematics teaching and learning in Australian secondary schools. Canberra: Australian Council for Educational Research.Google Scholar
  35. Jones, G. (2004). The impact of 20 years of research. In B. Perry, G. Anthony, & C. Diezmann (Eds.), Research in mathematics education in Australasia (pp. 2000–2003). Flaxton, Qld: Post Pressed.Google Scholar
  36. Kipperman, D., & Sanders, M. (2007). Mind not the gap… take a risk: Interdisciplinary approaches to the science, technology, engineering & mathematics education agenda. In D. Barlex (Ed.), Design & technology for the next generation: A collection of provocative pieces. Whitchurch: Cliffeco Communications.Google Scholar
  37. LaPorte, J., & Sanders, M. (1995). Technology, science, mathematics integration. In E. Martin (Ed.), Foundations of technology education: Yearbook #44 of the council on technology teacher education. Peoria, IL: Glencoe/McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar
  38. Lemke, J. L. (2002). Science and experience. In C. S. Wallace & W. Louden (Eds.), Dilemmas of science teaching: Perspectives on problems of practice (pp. 30–33). London: RoutledgeFalmer.Google Scholar
  39. Little, J. W. (1993). Professional community in comprehensive high schools: The two worlds of academic and vocational teachers. In J. W. Little & M. W. McLaughlin (Eds.), Teachers’ work: Individuals, colleagues, and contexts (pp. 137–163). New York: Teachers College Press.Google Scholar
  40. Luft, J. (2008). The impact of subject-specific induction programs: The example of science induction programs. Paper presented at the Annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, New York, NY, March 24–28, 2008.Google Scholar
  41. MacNamara, D. (1991). Subject knowledge and its application: Problems and possibilities for teacher educators. Journal of Education for Teaching, 17(2), 113–128.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Matters, G. (2001). The relationship between assessment and curriculum in improving teaching and learning. Paper presented at the Annual Conference for Australasian Curriculum Assessment and Certification Authorities, Sydney, July 2001.Google Scholar
  43. McGarr, O., & Lynch, R. (2015). Monopolising the STEM agenda in second-level schools: Exploring power relations and subject subcultures. International Journal of Technology Design Education.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10798-015-9333-0.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Mousa, R. M. (2016). Mathematics teachers’ readiness and attitudes toward implementing integrated STEM education in Saudi Arabia: A mixed methods study. Unpublished Doctoral thesis, Southern Illinois University at Carbondale, Ann Arbour.Google Scholar
  45. National Council of Teachers of Mathematics. (2000). Principles and standards for school mathematics. Reston, VA: NCTM.Google Scholar
  46. National Curriculum Board. (2008). National mathematics curriculum: Framing paper. Retrieved November 30, 2008, from http://www.ncb.org.au/our_work/preparing_for_2009.html.
  47. OfStEd. (2008) Mathematics: Understanding the score. Retrieved May 10, 2017, from http://www.ofsted.gov.uk/resources/mathematics-understanding-score.
  48. Reys, R. E. (2001). Curricular controversy in the math wars: A battle without winners. Phi Delta Kappan, 255–258.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Schein, E. (1992). Organizational culture and leadership (2nd ed.). San Fransisco: Jossey-Bass.Google Scholar
  50. Schoenfeld, A. H. (2004). Multiple learning communities: Students, teachers, instructional designers, and researchers. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 36(2), 237–255.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Schwab, J. J. (1969). College curricula and student protest. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  52. Sherin, M. G., Mendez, E. P., & Louis, D. A. (2004). A discipline apart: The challenge of ‘Fostering a Community of Learners’ in mathematics classrooms. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 36(2), 207–232.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Shulman, L. S. (1986). Those who understand: Knowledge growth in teaching. Educational Researcher, 15(2), 4–14.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Shulman, L. (1987). Knowledge and teaching: Foundations of the new reform. Harvard Educational Review, 57(1), 1–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Shulman, L. S., & Quinlan, K. (1996). The comparative psychology of school subjects. In D. C. Berliner & R. C. Calfee (Eds.), Handbook of educational psychology (pp. 399–422). New York: Macmillan Pub.Google Scholar
  56. Shulman, L. S., & Sherin, M. G. (2004). Fostering communities of teachers as learners: Disciplinary perspectives. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 62(2), 135–140.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Siskin, L. S. (1994). Realms of knowledge: Academic departments in secondary schools. London: The Falmer Press.Google Scholar
  58. Sizer, T. (1994). Horace’s hope: What works for the American high school. Boston: Houghton Miffin.Google Scholar
  59. Stacey, K. (2003). The need to increase attention to mathematical reasoning. In H. Hollingsworth, J. Lokan, & B. McCrae (Eds.), Teaching mathematics in Australia: Results from the TIMSS 1999 Video Study (pp. 119–122). Camberwell, Vic.: Australian Council of Educational Research.Google Scholar
  60. Stanley, W. B., & Brickhouse, N. W. (2001). Teaching sciences: The multicultural question revisited. Science Education, 85(1), 35–49.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Stodolsky, S. S. (1988). The subject matters: Classroom activity in mathematics and social studies. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  62. Stodolsky, S. S., & Grossman, P. L. (1995). The impact of subject matter on curricular activity: An analysis of five academic subjects. American Educational Research Journal, 32, 227–249.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Sullivan, P. (2003). Knowledge for teaching mathematics: An introduction. In P. Sullivan & T. Wood (Eds.), Knowledge and beliefs in mathematics teaching and teaching development (pp. 1–9). Rotterdam: Sense Publishers.Google Scholar
  64. Teacher Development Agency. (2011). Join the free Return to Teaching (RTT) Programme. Retrieved December 3, 2011, from http://www.tda.gov.uk/teacher/returning-to-teaching/ske-for-returners.aspx.
  65. Tytler, R., Smith, R., Grover, P., & Brown, S. (1999). A comparison of professional development models for teachers of primary mathematics and science. Asia Pacific Journal of Teacher Education, 27(3), 193–214.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Tytler, R., Malcolm, C., Symington, D., Kirkwood, V., & Darby, L. (2008). SiMERR Victoria research report: Professional development provision for teachers of science and mathematics in rural and regional Victoria. Geelong: Deakin University.Google Scholar
  67. van Manen, M. (1982). Phenomenological pedagogy. Curriculum Inquiry, 12(3), 283–299.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. West, M. (2012). STEM Education and the workforce. Office of the Chief Scientist, Occasional Series. Canberra: Australian Government.Google Scholar
  69. Williams, G. (2005). Improving intellectual and affective quality in mathematics lessons: How autonomy and spontaneity enable creative and insightful thinking. Unpublished Doctoral thesis, University of Melbourne, Melbourne.Google Scholar
  70. Wilson, M. S., Shulman, L. S., & Richert, A. E. (1987). 150 Different ways’ of knowing: Representations of knowledge in teaching. In J. Calderhead (Ed.), Exploring teachers’ thinking (pp. 104–124). London: Cassell Educational Limited.Google Scholar
  71. Yager, R. E. (1996). Science/Technology/Society as reform in science education. Albany: SUNY Press.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.University College LondonLondonEngland, UK
  2. 2.Deakin UniversityWaurn PondsAustralia

Personalised recommendations