MIDDLE SCHOOL SOCIAL SCIENCES: EXPLORING TEACHERS’ CONCEPTIONS
OF ESSENTIAL KNOWLEDGE
Mallihai Tambyah BA(Hons); MA; Dip. Ed.
Submitted in fulfilment of the requirements for the degree of
Doctor of Philosophy
Centre for Learning Innovation
Faculty of Education
Queensland University of Technology
December, 2011
Middle school social sciences: Exploring teachers’ conceptions of essential knowledge i
Keywords
Australian Curriculum; curriculum makers; Dewey; Humanities; knowledge base for
teaching; middle years; phenomenography; Shulman; social sciences; Studies of
Society and Environment (SOSE); teachers’ knowledge
Middle school social sciences: Exploring teachers’ conceptions of essential knowledge iii
Abstract
This study examines teachers’ conceptions of essential knowledge in the
humanities and social sciences, commonly referred to as “social education”, in the
middle years of schooling. Social education has long been a highly contested area of
the curriculum in Australia. In Queensland, social education comprises the integrated
learning area of Studies of Society and Environment (SOSE). However, the new
Australian Curriculum marks a return to discipline-based study of history and
geography. This phenomenographic study addresses a perceived lack of
understanding in the current research literature in Australia of the nature of middle
school teachers’ professional knowledge for teaching the social sciences. Teachers
are conceptualised in this study as curriculum makers in the classroom and, as such,
their conceptions of essential knowledge are significant. Shulman’s (1986, 1987)
theory of teachers’ knowledge forms the theoretical foundation of the study, which is
contextualised in Federal and State education policies and the literature on the
middle phase of schooling.
Transcripts of interviews conducted with a group of thirty-one Queensland
middle school teachers of SOSE were subjected to phenomenographic analysis,
revealing seven qualitatively different categories of description. Essential aspects of
knowledge for social education emerging from the study were: (1) discipline-based
knowledge; (2) curriculum knowledge; (3) knowledge derived from teaching
experience; (4) knowledge of middle years learners; (5) knowledge of integration;
(6) knowledge of current affairs; and (7) knowledge invested in teacher identity. The
three dimensions of variation that linked and differentiated the categories were: (1)
content; (2) inquiry learning; and (3) teacher autonomy. These findings are presented
as an outcome space where the categories are grouped as knowledge of the learning
area, knowledge of contexts and knowledge of self as teacher.
The results of the study suggest that social education teachers’ identity and
knowledge of self are critical aspects of their knowledge as curriculum makers. The
results illustrate that the professional and personal domains intersect, extending
Shulman’s (1986, 1987) original theorisation of teachers’ knowledge into the
personal arena. Further, middle years teachers’ conceptions of essential knowledge
iv Middle school social sciences: Exploring teachers’ conceptions of essential knowledge
reveal a practice-based theorisation of knowledge for social education that fits the
goals of middle schooling. The research concludes that attention to teacher identity
in teacher education and in-service professional development has considerable
potential to grow teachers’ knowledge in the social sciences and enhance their
capacity for school-based curriculum leadership.
Middle school social sciences: Exploring teachers’ conceptions of essential knowledge v
Table of Contents
Keywords .................................................................................................................................. i
Abstract ................................................................................................................................... iii
Table of Contents ...................................................................................................................... v
List of Figures ......................................................................................................................... ix
List of Tables .......................................................................................................................... ix
List of Abbreviations ................................................................................................................ x
Statement of Original Authorship ........................................................................................... xi
Acknowledgements ................................................................................................................ xii
Chapter 1: Introduction ............................................................................................ 1 International context of social education .................................................................................. 2
Context of the study .................................................................................................................. 3 Defining the scope of the issue .................................................................................................... 4 Education policy on social education – pre-2000 ........................................................................ 7 The Queensland context ............................................................................................................. 14 Education policy on social education – post-2000 .................................................................... 17 Education policy on a national curriculum ................................................................................ 28
Teachers as curriculum makers ............................................................................................... 35 Shulman (1986, 1987) ............................................................................................................... 36
Significance of the study ......................................................................................................... 39 Methodology .............................................................................................................................. 40
Chapter 1 summary ................................................................................................................. 41
Thesis outline .......................................................................................................................... 42
Chapter 2: The Middle Years and SOSE Curriculum ......................................... 43 Middle years of schooling ....................................................................................................... 43
The middle years learner ............................................................................................................ 44 Approaches to middle schooling in Australia ............................................................................ 46 Characteristics of middle years curriculum................................................................................ 47 Queensland policies on the middle years ................................................................................... 48
Studies of Society and Environment (SOSE) ......................................................................... 50 Curriculum conceptualisation of SOSE ..................................................................................... 52 SOSE – an example of middle years curriculum ....................................................................... 54
Philosophical basis of SOSE ................................................................................................... 56 Dewey (1916/1944) ................................................................................................................... 56 Habermas (1971) ....................................................................................................................... 58
Integrated curriculum frameworks .......................................................................................... 60 Theories of middle school curriculum ....................................................................................... 62 Issues in implementing integrated curriculum in middle school ................................................ 65 Teachers’ attitudes and beliefs ................................................................................................... 67
Challenge to teachers in integrating curriculum ..................................................................... 70 Teachers’ identity in the middle years ....................................................................................... 72
Chapter 2 summary ................................................................................................................. 75
vi Middle school social sciences: Exploring teachers’ conceptions of essential knowledge
Chapter 3: Theory of Teachers’ Knowledge .......................................................... 77 Academic disciplines and school subjects .............................................................................. 77
Transforming disciplinary knowledge ....................................................................................... 81 Teaching “psychologised” school subjects ................................................................................ 82
Shulman (1986, 1987) ............................................................................................................ 86 Content knowledge .................................................................................................................... 88 Pedagogical content knowledge and curricular knowledge ....................................................... 91 Impact of Shulman’s (1986, 1987) work ................................................................................... 92 “The missing paradigm” – subject knowledge .......................................................................... 96 Shulman’s (1986, 1987) view of teaching ................................................................................. 97
Beyond Shulman (1987) ......................................................................................................... 99 Models of teacher knowledge .................................................................................................. 101
SOSE teachers’ knowledge .................................................................................................. 103 SOSE teachers’ knowledge: similarities with social studies ................................................... 103 SOSE teachers’ knowledge: the disciplines ............................................................................. 105 SOSE teachers’ knowledge: other associated studies .............................................................. 108
Chapter 3 summary .............................................................................................................. 110
Chapter 4: Research Methodology ....................................................................... 113 Methodology and research design ........................................................................................ 113
Rationale for phenomenography in this study ......................................................................... 113
Overview of phenomenography ........................................................................................... 115 Ontological and epistemological basis of phenomenography.................................................. 116 Phenomenographic traditions .................................................................................................. 119 Value of phenomenography in this study ................................................................................ 120
Principles of phenomenographic analysis ............................................................................ 121 First and second order perspective .......................................................................................... 121 Conceptions and categories of description .............................................................................. 123
Structure of awareness .......................................................................................................... 126 Structural and referential features ............................................................................................ 127 Dimensions of variation ........................................................................................................... 129 The outcome space .................................................................................................................. 131
Participants ........................................................................................................................... 133 Ethical clearance ...................................................................................................................... 133 Sample – approaches in phenomenography ............................................................................. 134 Selection procedure ................................................................................................................. 135 Sample for this study ............................................................................................................... 136
Data collection ...................................................................................................................... 139 Interview questions .................................................................................................................. 139 Interview procedures and timelines ......................................................................................... 141
Analysis ................................................................................................................................ 143 Interview analysis .................................................................................................................... 143 Pools of meaning ..................................................................................................................... 146 Discerning the structural and referential aspects of a category ............................................... 147 Discerning categories of description ....................................................................................... 148 Discerning variation ................................................................................................................ 149
Research rigour .................................................................................................................... 150 Credibility and trustworthiness ................................................................................................ 150 Reliability ................................................................................................................................ 151 Validity .................................................................................................................................... 153
Chapter 4 summary .............................................................................................................. 154
Middle school social sciences: Exploring teachers’ conceptions of essential knowledge vii
Chapter 5: Categories of Description ................................................................... 157 The structure of awareness .................................................................................................... 157
The categories of description ................................................................................................... 157 The dimensions of variation .................................................................................................... 159
Category 1: Essential knowledge for teaching SOSE conceived as “discipline-based knowledge” ........................................................................................................................... 161
Content as factual knowledge .................................................................................................. 164 Content as disciplinary knowledge .......................................................................................... 168 Category 1: Dimensions of variation ....................................................................................... 177
Category 2: Essential knowledge for teaching SOSE conceived as “curriculum knowledge” ........................................................................................................................... 180
Knowledge of curriculum frameworks .................................................................................... 182 Knowledge of learning frameworks and policies .................................................................... 187 Knowledge of curriculum implementation .............................................................................. 190 Category 2: Dimensions of variation ....................................................................................... 192
Category 3: Essential knowledge for teaching SOSE conceived as “teaching and life experience” ........................................................................................................................... 194
Teaching experience – the classroom ...................................................................................... 195 Teaching experience – role of other educators ........................................................................ 201 Life experience – personal ....................................................................................................... 203 Category 3: Dimensions of variation ....................................................................................... 205
Summary of dimensions of variation in Categories 1, 2 and 3 ............................................. 207
Summary of Categories 1, 2 and 3 ........................................................................................ 207
Category 4: Essential knowledge for teaching SOSE conceived as “knowledge of the middle years learner” ............................................................................................................ 209
Middle years students and philosophy of schooling ................................................................ 211 Distinctive middle school SOSE content ................................................................................. 214 SOSE as life-long learning and skills ...................................................................................... 216 Middle years SOSE pedagogy ................................................................................................. 218 Category 4: Dimensions of variation ....................................................................................... 224
Category 5: Essential knowledge for teaching SOSE conceived as the “integration of concepts and skills” ............................................................................................................... 226
Integrated units of work ........................................................................................................... 227 Knowledge of themes .............................................................................................................. 229 Knowledge of general concepts ............................................................................................... 230 Knowledge of discipline-specific concepts ............................................................................. 233 Inquiry learning to teach concepts ........................................................................................... 236 Category 5: Dimensions of variation ....................................................................................... 240
Category 6: Essential knowledge for teaching SOSE conceived as “currency of knowledge” ........................................................................................................................... 243
Knowledge of current affairs and social issues ........................................................................ 245 SOSE as active citizenship....................................................................................................... 245 SOSE as an engaging school subject ....................................................................................... 247 Category 6: Dimensions of variation ....................................................................................... 249
Summary of dimensions of variation in Categories 4, 5 and 6 ............................................. 251
Summary of Categories 4, 5 and 6 ........................................................................................ 252
Category 7: Essential knowledge for teaching SOSE conceived as “teacher identity” ........ 254 Teachers’ view of themselves as teachers of SOSE and the humanities ................................. 257 A perception of teachers as learners ........................................................................................ 264 Essential personal attributes of SOSE teachers ........................................................................ 269 Category 7: Dimensions of variation ....................................................................................... 272
viii Middle school social sciences: Exploring teachers’ conceptions of essential knowledge
Summary of dimensions of variation in Category 7 ............................................................. 274
Summary of Category 7 ....................................................................................................... 274
Chapter 5 summary .............................................................................................................. 274
Chapter 6: Outcomes and Conclusions ................................................................ 277 The outcome space ............................................................................................................... 277
(1) Knowledge of the learning area ......................................................................................... 279 (2) Knowledge of contexts ...................................................................................................... 280 (3) Knowledge of self as teacher ............................................................................................. 281
Towards a theory of teachers’ knowledge of social education ............................................. 282 Category 1: Essential knowledge as discipline-based knowledge ........................................... 282 Category 2: Essential knowledge as curriculum knowledge ................................................... 283 Category 3: Essential knowledge as teaching and life experience ........................................... 284 Category 4: Essential knowledge of middle years students and learning ................................ 285 Category 5: Essential knowledge of integration ...................................................................... 287 Category 6: Essential knowledge as currency of knowledge ................................................... 288 Category 7: Essential knowledge as teacher identity ............................................................... 289 Dimensions of variation (DoV) ............................................................................................... 293
Methodological limitations and significance ........................................................................ 304
Theoretical implications of the study ................................................................................... 306 Contribution to a “middle years” theory of teachers’ knowledge for social education ........... 306 Contribution to theorisation on social education curriculum ................................................... 308
Future research directions .................................................................................................... 310
Practical implications ........................................................................................................... 310 Implications for middle years teachers’ knowledge of social education ................................. 311 Implications for middle years teacher-education ..................................................................... 312 Implications for national education policy .............................................................................. 313
Chapter 6 summary .............................................................................................................. 314
Conclusion ............................................................................................................................ 315
References ............................................................................................................. 317
Appendices ............................................................................................................. 339 Appendix A Interview questions – Set A ................................................................................ 339 Appendix B Interview questions – Set B ................................................................................. 341
Middle school social sciences: Exploring teachers’ conceptions of essential knowledge ix
List of Figures
Figure 6.1. Outcome space of middle years SOSE teachers’ conceptions of essential knowledge. ................................................................................................................... 278
List of Tables
Table 1.1 National and Queensland Policy and Curriculum Documents in Social Education ........... 8
Table 1.2 National Policy and Curriculum Documents in Social Education – 1989-1994 ................. 9
Table 1.3 National and Queensland Policy and Curriculum Documents in Social Education – 1989-2000 ................................................................................................................... 12
Table 1.4 Queensland Curriculum Documents in Social Education – 1989-2000 ............................ 15
Table 1.5 National and Queensland Policy and Curriculum Documents in Social Education – 2002-2007 ................................................................................................................... 17
Table 1.6 Queensland Curriculum Documents in Social Education – 2007 ..................................... 20
Table 1.7 National Policy Documents Impacting on Social Education – 2008-2011 ........................ 22
Table 1.8 National Curriculum Documents in Social Education – 2008-2011 ................................. 28
Table 2.1 Queensland Policy Documents on the Middle Years ......................................................... 48
Table 4.1 Summary of Schools and Participants ............................................................................. 136
Table 4.2 Summary of Participant Demographic Information ........................................................ 137
Table 5.1 Phenomenon of Middle School Teachers’ Essential Knowledge for SOSE ..................... 160
Table 5.2 Knowledge for Teaching SOSE as “Discipline-based Knowledge” ................................ 161
Table 5.3 Knowledge for Teaching SOSE as “Curriculum Knowledge” ........................................ 180
Table 5.4 Knowledge for Teaching SOSE as “Teaching and Life Experience” .............................. 194
Table 5.5 Knowledge for Teaching SOSE as “Knowledge of the Middle Years Learner” .............. 209
Table 5.6 Knowledge for Teaching SOSE as the “Integration of Concepts and Skills”.................. 226
Table 5.7 Knowledge for Teaching SOSE as “Currency of Knowledge” ........................................ 243
Table 5.8 Knowledge for Teaching SOSE as “Teacher Identity” .................................................... 254
x Middle school social sciences: Exploring teachers’ conceptions of essential knowledge
List of Abbreviations
ACARA Australian Curriculum, Assessment and Reporting Authority
AITSL Australian Institute for Teaching and School Leadership
DoV1 Dimension of Variation 1
DoV2 Dimension of Variation 2
DoV3 Dimension of Variation 3
ETRF Queensland the Smart State: Education and training reforms for the
future: A white paper (ETRF)
ICT Information and Computer Technology
KLA Key Learning Area
MCEETYA Ministerial Council on Education, Employment, Training and Youth
Affairs
PCK Pedagogical content knowledge
QCARF Queensland Curriculum Assessment and Reporting Framework
(QCARF)
QSCC Queensland School Curriculum Council
SOSE Studies of Society and Environment
SK Subject knowledge
TPCK Technological pedagogical content knowledge
Middle school social sciences: Exploring teachers’ conceptions of essential knowledge xi
Statement of Original Authorship
The work contained in this thesis has not been previously submitted to meet
requirements for an award at this or any other higher education institution. To the
best of my knowledge and belief, the thesis contains no material previously
published or written by another person except where due reference is made.
Signature: _________________________
Date: _________________________
xii Middle school social sciences: Exploring teachers’ conceptions of essential knowledge
Acknowledgements
Many people have contributed to the ideas and conceptualisation of this thesis
over the last five years. Long before I set out to write a thesis, the inspiration to
research middle years teachers’ conceptions of knowledge originated in my work as
a history teacher and then over a period of years with pre-service teachers. I would
like to acknowledge the contribution of the teachers I have worked with and the
participants in this study whose thoughts and ideas about teachers’ knowledge are
captured in this thesis.
My PhD journey has been supported in so many ways. To my PhD supervisors,
John Lidstone and Jo Brownlee, I owe a huge debt. They helped me conceptualise
the topic and convinced me that phenomenography was the way to research it. They
have been diligent in challenging me all the way through, reading my work in detail
and prompting me to extend my ideas about the direction of the thesis and the
implications of the data. I have greatly appreciated their encouragement and moral
support in different ways during difficult times. Thank you, John and Jo, for your
time and for the collegial, enjoyable supervision meetings. The result is a joint effort,
but shortcomings in the work remain my own.
I would also like to acknowledge the support of many colleagues at QUT,
particularly Deborah Henderson, who has mentored me and encouraged me to be
persistent and patient with myself. Jean Phillips and Clare O’Farrell have encouraged
me to keep writing and finalise my work. The emotional support of friends and
colleagues, particularly Julia Rothwell and Ann Moylan, has been so important. I
thank the Faculty of Education for supporting my candidature with long professional
development leave in 2010 and especially Annette Patterson, who encouraged me to
“get it written!”
My family have been great. They think writing a PhD is my personal hobby
which should be indulged. David, Philip, Tamara and our dog, Jasper, have never
questioned the hours I have spent on this endeavour and rarely asked when I would
be done. Thank you for your support, this is for you.
Chapter 1: Introduction 1
Chapter 1: Introduction
The role of teachers and what they know and do is something on which many
members of the community willingly offer an opinion. Students of all ages,
particularly adolescents, freely express views about their teachers, whether they are
“good” or “bad” or whether they know “anything” or know “a lot”. Whilst teachers
are intuitively aware of what constitutes their knowledge for teaching, their views are
seldom explored; rather, curriculum and educational policies are devised by others to
be implemented by teachers. For educators and researchers, the question of what
teachers “know”, and how that knowledge can be ascertained or described in relation
to professional practice, is elusive, particularly during times of educational reform
and curriculum change. The aim of this thesis is to examine what constitutes
teachers’ knowledge in the humanities and social sciences, commonly referred to as
“social education” in the middle years of schooling in Queensland, Australia.
This study focuses on identifying conceptions of “essential knowledge” held
by Queensland middle years social education teachers. What teachers themselves
consider “essential knowledge” in social education is examined by considering this
research question: What are Queensland middle years teachers’ conceptions of
essential knowledge in social education?
This chapter outlines the international context of the study and examines the
Federal and State education policies and curriculum documents that form the
backdrop of social education in the middle years of schooling in Australia. It
provides the context in which the school-based curriculum in Queensland was
developed, and provides insights into how the curriculum shapes the work of
teachers and their knowledge for social education. The study draws on the literature
of teacher development founded on Schwab’s (1978, 1983) notion of developing an
understanding of the profession or “the practical”, based on the four commonplaces
of teacher, learner, subject matter and milieux. Drawing on the work of Schwab,
Shulman’s (1986, 1987) theory of the knowledge base of teaching establishes the
theoretical framework for this investigation. An introduction to phenomenography
outlines the research approach used to examine teachers’ conceptions of essential
2 Middle school social sciences: Exploring teachers’ conceptions of essential knowledge
knowledge. Finally, the purpose and significance of the study is considered in light
of Federal and Queensland-based educational policies which form the context for
this research.
International context of social education
The development of social education in Australia in 1991 needs to be
considered in the context of 20th century curriculum reforms internationally. Social
education, often referred to as “social studies” in the literature, gathered momentum
as a curricular reform in the humanities and social sciences in the USA in the 1950s.
The term “social studies” has been part of the vocabulary of educators in the USA
since the late 19th century and was defined by the National Council for the Social
Sciences in 1923 as a subject that included history, geography, economics,
government and sociology (Marsh & Hart, 2011). In the 1960s and 1970s, social
studies was underpinned by the structures and concepts of the disciplines of the
social sciences. In Australia, a national curriculum project titled the Social Education
Materials Project (SEMP) showed there was much enthusiasm for social studies;
however, there was still disagreement whether the term “social studies” or “social
education” should be used (Marsh, 2008b). Renewed emphasis on the study of
history in the 1980s was supported by discipline-specific curriculum standards in the
USA that specified content and process (Marsh & Hart, 2011; Evans, 2006). In his
discussion of the controversy that surrounds social studies, Evans (2006) argues that
the curriculum landscape mirrors changes in politics, “toward traditional and
discipline-based curricula during conservative times; toward experimentation, child-
centred and inquiry or issues-oriented curricula during liberal times” (Evans, 2006,
p. 317). The study of issues, topics and themes was central to the teaching of social
studies in the post-war period.
Likewise, in the United Kingdom there were some efforts to develop social
studies as a way of making the curriculum relevant to students in the period after
World War 2. However, history and geography continued to be “high-status subjects
for academic students” (Marsh & Hart, 2011, p.7). The British New Social Studies
movement that emerged in the 1960s attempted to promote the teaching of social
sciences, emphasising sociology. Despite this initiative, teachers tended to emphasise
the disciplinary basis of the topic rather than the relevance of the topic to the
Chapter 1: Introduction 3
students. Social studies never had the same status in the UK curriculum that it
enjoyed in the USA as it was promoted as a non-academic subject for less able
students (Gleeson & Whitty, 1976 cited in Marsh & Hart, 2011). Further, the
national curriculum in the UK in 1989 reinstated the significance of the disciplines of
history and geography. The impact of adopting a discipline-based, national
curriculum on social education cannot be under-estimated. In Australia, it is
anticipated that the Australian Curriculum (ACARA, 2010a) will alter the scope of
learning hitherto undertaken in the field of social and environmental studies.
Context of the study
The teaching of the social sciences has been a matter for debate and public
scrutiny in Australia, at least since the early 1990s, when a common national, rather
than State-specific, curriculum was first proposed. Two decades later, a national
history curriculum (Australian Curriculum, Assessment and Reporting Authority
[ACARA], 2010c; National Curriculum Board, 2009) has been adopted and a
national geography curriculum is being developed. A great deal of attention is
centred on whether the teaching of humanities, often referred to as “social education”
or “social studies”, should be based on the separate disciplines of history, geography,
sociology, economics and political science, or whether these areas of study should be
integrated into a broader field of study, such as is currently represented in Australia
by the Key Learning Area (KLA) of Studies of Society and Environment (SOSE).
This humanities-based integrated school subject incorporates the traditional
humanities disciplines and encompasses environmental education, cultural studies,
media studies and Indigenous studies. While the content of the social education
curriculum has sparked controversy, the way that it should be taught has also
attracted attention. Currently, each State and Territory in Australia has responsibility
for developing its own curriculum within broad national guidelines. Debates about
curriculum and pedagogy are complicated by the fact that social education curricula
are taught in all school sectors: primary, middle and secondary. Teachers of social
education or SOSE, whether it is focused on the disciplines of history, geography or
integrated social education, have distinctive views on what constitutes “knowledge”
in their area of teaching.
4 Middle school social sciences: Exploring teachers’ conceptions of essential knowledge
This study investigates Queensland middle years SOSE teachers’ conceptions
of essential knowledge in social education, a contested area of the curriculum in
Australia. The difficulties associated with the social education curriculum emerge
during the middle years, when students are in transition from the generalist education
offered in primary school to the specialist education they will receive in secondary
school. The decision to situate this research in the middle years was made because it
is widely acknowledged in education policy and the research literature (Carrington,
2006; Ministerial Council for Education, Early Childhood Development and Youth
Affairs [MCEETYA], 2008; Pendergast & Bahr, 2005) as a period of transition and
disengagement in schooling. As such, the current research will portray teachers’
conceptions of knowledge of a contested curriculum in a challenging phase of
schooling.
Defining the scope of the issue
The term “social education” is used in this study to describe the integrated,
humanities-based area of school study known as Studies of Society and Environment
(SOSE) in Queensland. This thesis adopts a conceptualisation of SOSE as “social
education”, incorporating disciplinary and interdisciplinary perspectives (Reynolds,
2009). However, when the curriculum area is considered directly in relation to the
work of social education teachers in Australia, and in particular Queensland, the term
“SOSE” is used, as this refers to the national and State learning area. Some form of
integrated, humanities-based education is used throughout all the States and
Territories of Australia, although in Victoria and New South Wales, history is taught
as a separate school subject. Elsewhere, integrated social education is most often
referred to as “social studies”, following the lead of the USA, where the term “social
studies education” rather than “social education” is used (Diem, 2002). These
umbrella terms encompass knowledge and skills in the social science disciplines,
humanities and environmental education. In Australia, SOSE teachers currently use
an interdisciplinary approach to link diverse areas of study, usually by means of an
integrating theme, such as rainforests, citizenship, democracy, national identity or
sustainable futures, which becomes the basis of classroom study. While State-based
SOSE curricula retain elements of the social science disciplines, the move to the
Australian Curriculum from 2011 marks a return to the separate disciplines of history
and geography in the humanities and social sciences learning area (MCEETYA,
Chapter 1: Introduction 5
2008) and the abolition of the integrated KLA of SOSE. This study of middle years
teachers’ conceptions of essential knowledge in SOSE is justified as the same
teachers will now have to teach the new discipline-based humanities curriculum. As
such, their views on what constitutes “knowledge” in a middle years social education
curriculum are significant.
It is appropriate, when researching what an integrated curriculum means for
teachers’ conceptions of essential knowledge, to define at the outset what is meant
by “integration” in relation to the KLA of SOSE and the middle years of schooling.
Integration is used in social education to describe several ways of linking different
areas of learning in the social sciences. “Disciplinary learning” refers to learning that
is based on subject knowledge derived from individual humanities, including history
and other social science disciplines that form the basis of SOSE, such as geography,
sociology, political science, anthropology and economics. “Multidisciplinary
learning” in SOSE refers to learning from several disciplines or subject areas in one
lesson or unit of work without regard for subject boundaries (Dowden, 2007). In
“transdisciplinary”, “cross-disciplinary” or “interdisciplinary learning”, teaching on
a topic or theme draws on understanding gained from several disciplines before
making the links between them (Marsh, 2008b). Notably, SOSE draws on both the
social science disciplines and other integrated areas of study, such as globalisation,
environmental education, indigenous perspectives, gender and cultural studies.
Johnston (2007) argues that, while SOSE draws on disciplinary frameworks, it
promotes a multidisciplinary approach where the distinctive elements of each
discipline are brought together in one KLA. Moreover, in the context of a middle
school philosophy, teachers often integrate SOSE with other learning areas in the
curriculum, such as science, English, the Arts or Languages Other Than English
(LOTE), by identifying a “big idea” that links diverse areas across the middle school
curriculum (Pendergast, 2005). The broad, multifaceted concept of “integration” in
middle school social education provides a significant context for this study of SOSE
teachers’ conceptions of “essential knowledge” in their work.
The broad knowledge base for SOSE is underpinned by a social
reconstructionist approach to curriculum, where integrated and multidisciplinary
knowledge is used by teachers and students to investigate and understand important
social issues (Kennedy, 2008a). The school curriculum reflects the range of interests
6 Middle school social sciences: Exploring teachers’ conceptions of essential knowledge
and discourses of the group of people that constructs it. In the case of SOSE, Gilbert
(2004, p. 9) asserts that this has resulted in “...a broad, loosely structured, even
contradictory area of knowledge”. Rather than focusing on the disciplines and
conveying established bodies of knowledge through an academic rationalist
approach, Kennedy argues that SOSE captures a unique purpose for social education
since:
...only the social and environmental aspects of the curriculum can equip
young people to understand problems, analyse them, suggest solutions and
take appropriate action at a personal level. This is the distinctive role of
social and environmental education in the school curriculum. (Kennedy,
2008a, p. 5)
Henderson (2005) supports this view, maintaining that SOSE was introduced to
prepare students for citizenship in a globalised world, inspired by efforts to promote
critical thinking based on inquiry-based learning in the social sciences. Such learning
was designed to empower students for active citizenship based on a curriculum that
drew on the substance, contexts and procedures of the social sciences and related
fields of study. She refutes neo-conservative critiques of SOSE that deny the cross-
disciplinary emphasis on culture in the curriculum and calls for “sustained research”
into the implementation of SOSE (Henderson, 2005, p. 317). In light of the loose
structure of SOSE, where single disciplines stand alongside multidisciplinary
curriculum organisers, the current study focuses on the phenomenon of middle
school teachers’ essential knowledge for teaching SOSE. Phenomenography, as the
chosen research approach, is used to reveal the challenges that confront middle
school SOSE teachers and identifies their conceptions of knowledge.
This study focuses on teachers’ conceptions of knowledge in a core learning
area of the middle school curriculum. The “middle” phase of learning in Australia, as
a bridge between the primary years and senior years, is emphasised in the middle
years philosophy of schooling (Pendergast & Bahr, 2005, 2010). This study focuses
on the middle years because distinctive and controversial aspects of SOSE and how
it is taught emerge in the middle years of schooling. The nature of SOSE presents
teachers with new challenges in humanities in the middle years of schooling. Middle
years teachers are drawn from both primary and secondary schools, and their
knowledge base and experience in the social science disciplines varies. This research
Chapter 1: Introduction 7
into teachers’ conceptions of “essential knowledge” in social education addresses a
perceived gap in the current research literature in Australia on middle years teachers’
knowledge for SOSE. Furthermore, teachers’ knowledge is closely linked to their
sense of self as professionals and their identity as a teacher (Drake, Spillane &
Huffered-Ackles, 2001; Spillane, 2000; Stodolsky, 1988). Marsh and Hart (2011)
maintain that secondary teachers are more resistant to SOSE than primary teachers
because SOSE challenges their identity as a teacher. As such, this study offers new
perspectives on the distinguishing features of middle years teachers’ professional
identity in relation to integrated social education.
Education policy on social education – pre-2000
The study of conceptions of “essential knowledge” held by middle years social
education teachers in Queensland needs to be seen in the context of the education
policies and initiatives that shape the work of teachers, curriculum and the phases of
schooling. The significance of this approach as the foundation for this study is
supported by Grossman and Stodolsky (1995), who note the importance of teachers’
conceptions of subject knowledge in realising the vision of policymakers. They
argue:
New curricular guidelines will also be interpreted differently by teachers,
depending on their specific beliefs about subject matter. Policy
implementation, then, must take into account the role of teachers’ existing
conceptions of subject matter and how they fit within the intentions of
curricular or instructional policies and guidelines. (Grossman & Stodolsky,
1995, p. 10)
This view is supported by Kennedy, Jimenez, Mayer, Mellor and Smith (2003),
who emphasised the importance of teachers in preparing future citizens. In research
on the implementation of Commonwealth, State and Territory civics education
materials, based on conversations with teachers, Kennedy and colleagues concluded
that, “It [the teacher’s role] is a significant role and one that deserves greater
attention than is currently the case in policy discussions” (Kennedy et al., 2003, p. 2).
As such, phenomenography provides a research approach that honours the voice and
perspectives of teachers as the enactors of educational policy. This study addresses
8 Middle school social sciences: Exploring teachers’ conceptions of essential knowledge
the gap in our understanding of teachers’ conceptions of knowledge for social
education.
Table 1.1 summarises the key national and Queensland (Qld) policy and
curriculum statements in social education that contextualise the study. This chapter
explores each document in greater detail to establish the changing landscape of
social education in Australia in the last decade and the implications for SOSE
teachers’ conceptions of essential knowledge.
Table 1.1
National and Queensland Policy and Curriculum Documents in Social Education
Date National/Qld Policy (P) or Curriculum (C) statements
1989 National – P Common and Agreed National Goals for Schooling (the Hobart Declaration)
1989 Qld – C P-10 Social Education Framework
1994a National – P A Statement on Studies of Society and Environment for Australian Schools (national Statement)
1994b National – P Studies of Society and Environment—a Curriculum Profile for Australian Schools (national Profile)
1999 National – P The Adelaide Declaration on National Goals for Schooling in the Twenty-first Century (Adelaide Declaration)
2000 Qld – C Studies of Society and Environment: Years 1 to 10 Syllabus
2002 Qld – P Education and Training Reforms for the Future: A white paper (ETRF)
2003 Qld – P The Middle Phase of Learning State School Action Plan (State School Action Plan)
2006 National – P Statements of Learning for Civics and Citizenship (Statements of Learning)
2007 National – P The Future of Schooling in Australia: A Report by the States and Territories (Future of Schooling)
2007 Qld – P Queensland Curriculum Assessment and Reporting Framework (QCARF)
2007 Qld – C Studies of Society & Environment (SOSE) Essential Learnings
2008 National – P The Melbourne Declaration on Educational Goals for Young Australians (Melbourne Declaration)
2009 National – C The Shape of the Australian Curriculum (Shape Paper)
2010 National – C The Shape of the Australian Curriculum version 2.0 (Shape Paper v2.0)
2010 National – C The Australian Curriculum: History
2011 National – P National Professional Standards for Teachers (Standards)
2011 National -- P Shape of the Australian Curriculum: Geography
Chapter 1: Introduction 9
At the turn of the millennium, the most influential policy statement affecting
schooling in Australia was The Adelaide Declaration on National Goals for
Schooling in the Twenty-first Century (MCEETYA, 1999). It was superseded in 2008
by the Melbourne Declaration on Educational Goals for Young Australians
(MCEETYA, 2008). Both policies have significantly impacted on middle school
social science education in Australia. As each Australian State and Territory has its
own education and curriculum policies, the Queensland policies provide a
comprehensive context for this study. The influence of educational policies on the
evolution of integrated social science education and the march towards a discipline-
based national curriculum in history and geography in the second decade of the
twenty-first century is considered below. Short sections of Table 1.1 are reproduced
to facilitate a clear understanding of the policy context for this study.
The foundation of the SOSE curriculum
Table 1.2 lists the key national and State policies which established the
foundation of the SOSE curriculum in Queensland. The section below investigates
the national policies (see shaded text), while the P-10 Social Education Framework
(Department of Education, Queensland, 1989) will be considered in a subsequent
section.
Table 1.2
National Policy and Curriculum Documents in Social Education – 1989-1994
Date National/Qld Policy (P) or Curriculum (C) statements
1989 National – P Common and Agreed National Goals for Schooling (the Hobart Declaration)
1989 Qld – C P-10 Social Education Framework
1994a National – P A Statement on Studies of Society and Environment for Australian Schools (national Statement)
1994b National – P Studies of Society and Environment—a Curriculum Profile for Australian Schools (national Profile)
Studies of Society and Environment (SOSE) emerged within the context of
early efforts to develop national collaboration in curriculum. SOSE was first
developed as an integrated school subject in the 1990s, prompted by the
identification of KLAs by Commonwealth, State and Territory governments in 1989
(Henderson, 2005). The Common and Agreed National Goals for Schooling known
10 Middle school social sciences: Exploring teachers’ conceptions of essential knowledge
as the Hobart Declaration (Australian Education Council, 1989) was signed by State
education ministers in 1989. In terms of social science education, the Hobart
Declaration advocated “a knowledge and appreciation of Australia’s historical and
geographic context”, a focus on active citizenship, and an understanding and respect
for cultural heritage including “the particular cultural background of Aboriginal and
ethnic groups” (Australian Education Council, 1989). The Hobart Declaration set
initial guidelines for a national collaborative effort to enhance Australian schooling.
At the time, it was considered a “landmark decision” (Australian Education Council,
1994a, p. 53) in national curriculum collaboration and a significant influence on the
social education curriculum.
However, the failure of efforts by Commonwealth Minister John Dawkins in
the late 1980s to introduce a single national curriculum (Marsh, 2008b; Reid, 2009)
led to a mapping exercise undertaken by the Australian Education Council in 1989 to
examine the commonalities between all State-based curricula at the time. Curriculum
maps of studies of society across the States and Territories and environmental
education across all learning areas were completed in 1991, creating the basis for the
preparation of a national Statement (Australian Education Council, 1994a) and
Profile (Australian Education Council, 1994b) for SOSE. Table 1.2 lists the national
SOSE Statements and Profiles for SOSE; similar documents were prepared for the
eight KLAs, such as mathematics, English and science, to produce a common
curriculum framework (Yates & Collins, 2010; Marsh, 2008b), which became the
basis of State-based curricula in each learning area.
Marsh (2008b, pp. 254-258) recounts that in the process of planning and
developing national guidelines for the SOSE curriculum in the early 1990s, there was
much debate about whether the organisation or the conceptually-based “strands” of
the curriculum should represent the disciplines or be generic. At the time, curriculum
developers considered that a discipline-based approach was not suitable because it
would not give primary and secondary teachers sufficient flexibility to teach the
broad scope of the curriculum. Disciplinary study was considered unsuited to
primary years, and further, that if a discipline-based approach was adopted, some
disciplines, such as sociology, would be excluded (Marsh, 2008b). This background
is significant for this study of middle years teachers’ conceptions of essential
knowledge. The perceived difficulty in theorising the knowledge base for SOSE that
Chapter 1: Introduction 11
confronted early curriculum developers in SOSE continues to be unresolved for
middle years teachers, highlighting the need for research in this area.
Developing the SOSE learning area
Under the Australian Constitution, implementation of national education
policies lies with the States and Territories. In the 1990s, each State and Territory
developed its own version of SOSE, initially building on the guidelines set by the
SOSE national Statement (Australian Education Council, 1994a) and Profile
(Australian Education Council, 1994b). The Statement (Australian Education
Council, 1994a) established five conceptual strands of SOSE, the inquiry processes
strand, three values and seven curriculum perspectives, which became the framework
for State curricula and school-based curriculum development. It grouped the broad
stages of learning into four bands and linked to the SOSE national Profile (1994b).
National learning outcomes, using the language of outcomes-based education,
detailed what students at different levels of learning should “know” and what they
would be able to “do” with this knowledge (Henderson, 2005; Yates & Collins,
2010).
The SOSE national blueprints were broad and open to interpretation in school-
based curriculum development. The SOSE national Statement (Australian Education
Council, 1994a) and Profile (Australian Education Council, 1994b) provided general
content guidelines and emphasised the procedural aspects. For example, in level five
for the conceptual strand of Time, Continuity and Change, students were required to
“Describe[s] the significant ideas, people or events that have contributed to
Australian identity” (Australian Education Council, 1994b, p. 80), however, no
ideas, events or names of people were prescribed for study. Rather, there were
suggestions for procedural learning such as, “Analyse[s] how categories of time are
used to locate ideas and events” (Australian Education Council, 1994b, p. 80),
supported by suggestions that students could design timelines, contrast Aboriginal
and Torres Strait Islander and European concepts of time or analyse records of
births, deaths and local histories. The eight levels of learning in the Profile
(Australian Education Council, 1994b) were not tied to the year levels of schooling.
A developmental approach to learning implied that all students would eventually
reach the required level of learning and that teachers would persist in encouraging
12 Middle school social sciences: Exploring teachers’ conceptions of essential knowledge
students to reach that required level. Drawing on the intent of the national Profile
(Australian Education Council, 1994b), school-based curriculum developers were
able to choose their own content, indicating a shift from specific content knowledge
to skills education “from substantive to cognitive procedural knowledge” (Yates &
Collins, 2010, p. 93). The levels were measured by set standards against which
students’ progress could be monitored and reported (as in the case of some
Queensland schools) as “competent” or “not competent”.
The national education policy initiatives of the 1990s ushered in a radical break
with previous discipline-based, curricula in the humanities. According to the national
Statement:
Studies of society and environment is a learning area made up of several
different types of courses. Some are separate subjects like history,
geography, economics or business. Some, like Aboriginal studies or
environmental studies, include a number of related studies. Others, such as
social studies or social education, integrate a range of studies. (Australian
Education Council, 1994a, p. 10)
The text in bold (my emphasis) illustrates how different areas of study were
amalgamated in a fascinating, if somewhat ambiguous, learning area that failed to
identify its core business and legitimacy in terms of established areas of knowledge.
SOSE harnessed disciplinary knowledge to multidisciplinary areas of study, raising
uncertainty about its validity as a discrete area of learning in the curriculum and
about how it should be implemented, and a lack of clarity around subject knowledge
for SOSE.
Establishing the SOSE curriculum
The early years of establishing the SOSE curriculum as a KLA culminated in
the Adelaide Declaration (MCEETYA, 1999) and the formulation of the Queensland
SOSE curriculum as shown in Table 1.3.
Table 1.3
National and Queensland Policy and Curriculum Documents in Social Education – 1989-2000
Date National/Qld Policy (P) or Curriculum (C) statements
1989 National – P Common and Agreed National Goals for Schooling (the Hobart Declaration)
Chapter 1: Introduction 13
1989 Qld – C P-10 Social Education Framework
1994a National – P A Statement on Studies of Society and Environment for Australian Schools (national Statement)
1994b National – P Studies of Society and Environment—a Curriculum Profile for Australian Schools (national Profile)
1999 National – P The Adelaide Declaration on National Goals for Schooling in the Twenty-first Century (Adelaide Declaration)
2000 Qld – C Studies of Society and Environment: Years 1 to 10 Syllabus
Building on the Hobart Declaration (AEC, 1989), the Adelaide Declaration
(MCEETYA, 1999) set national goals for Australian schools and endorsed SOSE as
one of eight KLAs in the compulsory years of schooling. Instead of the traditional
focus on the individual disciplines of the humanities, integrated social education was
mandated for all States and Territories. The policy set broad goals for education. It
endorsed an emphasis on civics and citizenship education (Goal 1.4) and required
students to have an understanding of “stewardship of the natural environment” and
“ecologically sustainable development” (Goal 1.7). It asserted that schooling should
be “socially just” and acknowledged the value of Aboriginal and Torres Strait
Islander cultures and understanding of reconciliation between Indigenous and non-
Indigenous Australians (Goal 3.4). These broad goals were particularly reflected in
the SOSE curricula that subsequently emerged in each of the States and Territories,
with social justice and economic and ecological sustainability listed as “values” to be
taught in SOSE, along with democracy, which reflected the emphasis on civics and
citizenship education in the Adelaide Declaration (MCEETYA, 1999).
Each State and Territory adopted an integrated approach to social education
and the focus on citizenship to varying degrees. For example, in New South Wales,
disciplinary and integrated approaches existed side by side in Human Society and Its
Environment (HSIE), while the Queensland program was interdisciplinary. Each
curriculum was clearly connected to the SOSE national Statement (Australian
Education Council, 1994a) and Profile (Australian Education Council, 1994b),
emphasising its foundation in the social science disciplines and the aim of
developing interdisciplinary social and environmental understanding (Gilbert, 2004).
Civics and citizenship education were an integral part of the SOSE curriculum.
Kennedy (2008b) observed that in State-based social education curricula, the theme
of civics and citizenship was explicitly linked to the teaching of history and
14 Middle school social sciences: Exploring teachers’ conceptions of essential knowledge
geography, in order to promote active citizenship. In contrast to previous curricula,
SOSE permitted wider scope and potential for innovative teaching. It included topics
of current local interest, involved student negotiation of topics of study to make the
curriculum relevant to them, and blended disciplinary and integrated approaches
(Kennedy, 2008b).
The focus on integration meant that teachers now had to draw on diverse
bodies of knowledge in order to teach social education and take a new approach
which justified making links between the disciplines. The philosophical foundation
for studying the disciplines in a way that connects established bodies of knowledge is
attributed to Dewey (1902; 1916/1944). Dewey was in favour of retaining traditional
subjects in the curriculum, taught in a way that made them “genuine subject matter”
(Noddings, 1998, p. 37). His view that students should be able to make sense of the
curriculum in terms of their own experience is critical to contemporary approaches to
teaching and learning (see Chapter 3) and is an essential feature of the Queensland
SOSE curriculum.
The Queensland context
As indicated in Table 1.3, social education had been taught in Queensland as
an integrated area of study since the P-10 Social Education Framework (Department
of Education, Queensland, 1989) was implemented in 1989. After the KLAs were
formally adopted in 1999 with the Adelaide Declaration (MCEETYA, 1999), the
Queensland Studies of Society and Environment Syllabus: Years 1-10 Syllabus
(Queensland School Curriculum Council, 2000) replaced previous syllabus
documents. Developed in accordance with the SOSE national Statement (Australian
Education Council, 1994a) and Profile (Australian Education Council, 1994b), the
Queensland SOSE syllabus adopted an outcomes-based approach, explicitly reflected
in four conceptual strands and numerous core learning outcomes. The curriculum
was adopted in 2000 and implemented by all State schools and the majority of
independent schools across Queensland.
The Queensland SOSE curriculum
A brief look at early versions of the Queensland SOSE curriculum establishes
the Queensland curricular context for this research. Table 1.4 (see shaded text below)
lists Queensland SOSE curriculum policies.
Chapter 1: Introduction 15
Table 1.4
Queensland Curriculum Documents in Social Education – 1989-2000
Date National/Qld Policy (P) or Curriculum (C) statements
1989 National – P Common and Agreed National Goals for Schooling (the Hobart Declaration)
1989 Qld – C P-10 Social Education Framework
1994a National – P A Statement on Studies of Society and Environment for Australian Schools (national Statement)
1994b National – P Studies of Society and Environment—a Curriculum Profile for Australian Schools (national Profile)
1999 National – P The Adelaide Declaration on National Goals for Schooling in the Twenty-first Century (Adelaide Declaration)
2000 Qld – C Studies of Society and Environment: Years 1 to 10 Syllabus
The P-10 Social Education Framework (Department of Education,
Queensland, 1989) was the first SOSE curriculum adopted in Queensland. It was a
thematic, integrated, progressive approach to social science education based on the
assumption that:
Social education in the P-10 years should ensure that students be presented
with broadly-based studies drawn from a range of key contributing
disciplines, fields of learning and areas of knowledge, with opportunities for
selective studies of depth and specialisation. (Department of Education,
Queensland, 1989, np)
Knowledge was organised by key concepts, such as culture, authority or
environment, and centred on five integrating themes which were loosely based on
contributing disciplines and fields of study. The themes were supported by five key
learning processes such as researching, information processing, applying,
participating and deciding, and reflecting; skills in relation to values, attitudes and
beliefs; and emotional or affective learning in relation to students understanding their
own attitudes and values. The process and skills aspects of the P-10 Social
Education Framework were underpinned by the principle that “the development of
those skills, process and attitudes necessary for how to learn [were] as important as
what is learnt” (Department of Education Queensland, 1989, p. 5). In terms of
pedagogy, students were considered active participants and investigators who
learned best by doing, although the document maintained that direct teaching for
16 Middle school social sciences: Exploring teachers’ conceptions of essential knowledge
specific purposes was still important. The document only provided lean, general
guidelines regarding content. It privileged the procedural and skills aspects of social
education and established the integrated and thematic nature of social science
education in Queensland schools in the 1990s.
The progressive assumptions of the P-10 Social Education Framework were
further developed in the Studies of Society and Environment Syllabus: Years 1-10
Syllabus (Queensland School Curriculum Council, 2000), which replaced it at the
turn of the millennium. The idea that curriculum should be relevant to students’ lives
underpins the concept of a life-long learner and was a core aspect of the Queensland
SOSE curriculum. The new Queensland SOSE Syllabus (Queensland School
Curriculum Council, 2000) was far more detailed than its predecessor. It centred on
the principles of outcomes-based education, which emphasised “knowing” and
“doing”. The Queensland SOSE curriculum was formalised in six levels of learning
based on four conceptual “strands” roughly based on the social science disciplines
and related areas of learning. Each outcome had a knowledge and process component
and teachers were expected to teach units of work based on a selection of outcomes
in relation to a topic or theme. In line with the progressive basis of the curriculum,
teachers had considerable discretion to interpret the intent of the outcomes and to
create cohesive SOSE units of work to meet their students’ needs.
Furthermore, the social science disciplines that underpinned the Queensland
SOSE curriculum were integrated through the socially-critical approach to
knowledge (Queensland School Curriculum Council, 2000, p. 8). Inspired by Jürgen
Habermas (1971), the socially-critical approach considered the relevance of teaching
and learning to create a just society (Gilbert, 2004). This approach to knowledge was
demonstrated in the Queensland SOSE syllabus through the “values” of democratic
process, social justice, ecological and economic sustainability, and peace, where
“students study how the key values have been, and can be, used, defined and
debated, both in abstract terms and in real contexts in a range of places, past and
present” (Queensland School Curriculum Council, 2000, p. 1). While the syllabus
presented a definition of each of these values, students and teachers were encouraged
to debate their meaning in relation to a topic and to determine their own position.
The SOSE values were topics of study and offered a way of integrating discrete
discipline-based areas of study in the curriculum. In teaching both controversial
Chapter 1: Introduction 17
issues and traditional topics in the areas of history, geography, economics and
citizenship education, teachers were expected to make explicit the values mandated
by the syllabus as part of adopting a socially-critical approach to knowledge. The
broad scope of Queensland SOSE raises questions about teachers’ subject knowledge
and their ability to deliver the curriculum. The philosophy that underlies the
curriculum is presented in Chapter 2.
Education policy on social education – post-2000
The focus on integrated humanities education was widely criticised in 2000 by
sections of the media, some politicians, members of the public, academics and
teachers. The need for change to the social education curriculum was now on the
national education agenda. In Queensland, the teaching of social education had been
politicised in the media as a left-wing conspiracy, a claim debated by leading
academics at the time, who defended the importance of critical thinking and of social
education in preparing students for life (Hoepper et al., 2000). However, neo-
conservative critiques of SOSE (Bolt, 2000; Donnelly, 2004), and a perceived crisis
in the teaching of history and the loss of national identity (Bateman & Harris, 2008),
precipitated new thinking about the role of the disciplines in social science
education. The following sections articulate the current national and Queensland
policies and context in the period after 2000 which inform this study.
New national directions for social education
New national policy directions for social science education, and civics and
citizenship, emerged amidst controversy surrounding the teaching of history. In
Table 1.5, the shaded text refers to national policy and curriculum documents that
shaped the debate.
Table 1.5
National and Queensland Policy and Curriculum Documents in Social Education – 2002-2007
Date National/Qld Policy (P) or Curriculum (C) statements
2002 Qld – P Education and Training Reforms for the Future: A white paper (ETRF)
2003 Qld – P The Middle Phase of Learning State School Action Plan (State School Action Plan)
2006 National – P Statements of Learning for Civics and Citizenship (Statements of Learning)
18 Middle school social sciences: Exploring teachers’ conceptions of essential knowledge
2007 National – P The Future of Schooling in Australia: A Report by the States and Territories (Future of Schooling)
2007 Qld – P Queensland Curriculum Assessment and Reporting Framework (QCARF)
2007 Qld – C Studies of Society & Environment (SOSE) Essential Learnings
One feature of SOSE is civics and citizenship education, which is aimed at
educating young people about their rights and civic responsibilities in a democracy.
It incorporates values education and learning about the role of public and private
interests in a democracy. Kennedy (2008b) argues that the knowledge base of civics
and citizenship education draws on a disciplinary basis in history and political
science and the personal experiences of students. As a result, in teaching and
assessing civics and citizenship, the process of participation and experience of
democratic structures at school and community level are important. While civics and
citizenship is not a school subject, learning in this area is incorporated in State-based
curricula such as SOSE. National sample testing in 2004 and 2007 of Year 6 and 10
students identified a disappointing lack of knowledge about civics and citizenship
and a need for focused teaching in the area (Ferrari, 2009; Kennedy, 2008b; Tudball,
2009). Such testing also has implications for widening teachers’ subject knowledge
and pedagogy in civics and citizenship.
In the absence of a national curriculum in civics and citizenship, the national
Statements of Learning and Professional Elaborations for Civics and Citizenship
(Curriculum Corporation, 2006) were developed in 2006 for Years 3, 5, 7 and 9.
While the Statements of Learning are not a curriculum or a statement of content, they
define the common curriculum outcomes needed to inform the development of State-
based curricula in civics and citizenship. The Statements of Learning and sample
national testing every three years represent a significant national initiative to
influence the direction of social education at State level and were reflected in the
2007 revision of the Queensland SOSE curriculum.
Further significant changes to the social education curriculum were initiated in
The Future of Schooling in Australia (Council for the Australian Federation [CAF],
2007) when the Premiers and Chief Ministers of the States and Territories agreed to
remove SOSE from the curriculum and replace it with “Humanities and social
sciences” (CAF, 2007, p. 28; Ferrari, 2007). The move reflected bipartisan Federal
Chapter 1: Introduction 19
efforts to reintroduce the teaching of history, particularly Australian history
(O’Brien, 2007), as part of core areas of a proposed national curriculum in Years 9
and 10. In contrast to the Adelaide Declaration (MCEETYA, 1999) which had
emphasised knowledge, skills and understanding developed through the
interrelationships between the eight KLAs, The Future of Schooling proposed a new
era of discipline-based education, starting in the middle years. It heralded an
important shift to disciplinary curriculum structures within the proposed national
curriculum, with potentially significant impacts for the knowledge base of middle
school SOSE teachers.
The Future of Schooling (CAF, 2007) marked a return to the traditional
disciplines. In contrast with SOSE, which had incorporated civics and citizenship
education, it was proposed that civics and citizenship, technology and business
would be a cross-disciplinary learning area. The commitment to integration was
significantly eroded by the emphasis on cross-disciplinary learning rather than
integrated learning. New knowledge would be created by people working across
disciplines, acknowledging that “their capacity to do so typically rests on deep
expertise in one or more of the disciplines” (CAF, 2007, p. 19). Moreover, in further
justification of the current research, it paid attention to the middle years of schooling,
stating that, “[l]earning in the middle years will build on the emphasis in the early
years, with an increasing focus on disciplines within the science and social
sciences/humanities areas of learning” (CAF, 2007, p. 28). The Future of Schooling
(CAF, 2007) pushed national curriculum collaboration by proposing that by 2008,
State-based curricula would align to the national Statements of Learning (Curriculum
Corporation, 2006) in civics and citizenship. These national developments are
significant for this study, as they plot the growing influence of centralised curriculum
initiatives on the States and the need for Queensland SOSE teachers to align with
national curriculum imperatives that targeted the middle years of schooling.
Developments in Queensland
Efforts in Queensland to align State-based curricula to new directions in
national curriculum were part of a wider State-based education reform agenda for the
whole education and training sector, which looked at all phases of schooling,
20 Middle school social sciences: Exploring teachers’ conceptions of essential knowledge
including middle school. In Table 1.6, the shaded text highlights recent Queensland
SOSE curriculum changes.
Table 1.6
Queensland Curriculum Documents in Social Education – 2007
Date National/Qld Policy (P) or Curriculum (C) statements
2002 Qld – P Education and Training Reforms for the Future: A White Paper (ETRF)
2003 Qld – P The Middle Phase of Learning State School Action Plan (State School Action Plan)
2006 National – P Statements of Learning for Civics and Citizenship (Statements of Learning)
2007 National – P The Future of Schooling in Australia: A Report by the States and Territories (Future of Schooling)
2007 Qld – P Queensland Curriculum Assessment and Reporting Framework (QCARF)
2007 Qld – C Studies of Society & Environment (SOSE) Essential Learnings
Queensland Curriculum Assessment and Reporting Framework (QCARF)
The Queensland Curriculum Assessment and Reporting Framework (QCARF)
(Queensland Studies Authority, 2007a) was introduced to improve engagement with
the curriculum in the middle years and to introduce State-wide, comparable
assessment against set standards to measure student achievement in Years 4, 6 and 9
in English, mathematics and science. The QCARF framework was intended to bring
teaching, assessment and reporting into alignment (Freebody, 2005) and thus bring
more clarity about what was taught in the middle years and how it was measured and
reported. The Essential Learnings identified in the QCARF framework emphasised
“deep understandings of key disciplinary concepts, facts and procedures”
(Queensland Studies Authority, 2007d) in each KLA, promoting an emphasis on core
content and direct instruction. As such, the Essential Learnings were a significant
step towards middle years curriculum reform in Queensland and a solid foundation
for change initiated by the Australian Curriculum.
The Queensland SOSE Essential Learnings
The Queensland SOSE Essential Learnings (Queensland Studies Authority,
2007b; 2007c) refer to what students should know and be able to do in relation to
social education. Further, core elements from the national Statements of Learning
Chapter 1: Introduction 21
(Curriculum Corporation, 2006) for civics and citizenship were embedded in the
revision of the Queensland SOSE curriculum as the basis of the Queensland SOSE
Essential Learnings. The revised SOSE strand, Political and Economic Systems, now
placed particular importance on economics and a renewed focus on civics education.
Succinct content guidelines replaced the plethora of outcomes for the four strands in
SOSE. The implementation of the Queensland SOSE Essential Learnings in 2008
was an important step in aligning the Queensland curriculum with national
initiatives.
The Queensland SOSE Essential Learnings (Queensland Studies Authority,
2007b; 2007c) statements and standards replaced the previous outcomes-based SOSE
syllabus (Queensland School Curriculum Council, 2000). The outcomes-based
approach to education that initially characterised the SOSE KLA emerged at a time
in Australia when there were concerns about the economic future of the country and
political pressure for curriculum accountability (Yates & Collins, 2010). Yates and
Collins argue that a utilitarian approach to education, combined with a progressive,
child-centred approach to learning, reflected the shift in education from the late
1980s from an emphasis on “knowing” to an emphasis on “doing”. This shift was
reflected in the Queensland SOSE outcomes (Queensland School Curriculum
Council, 2000), which defined the curriculum so broadly that teaching from
outcomes was irreverently dubbed by some as “choose your own adventure”. The
new Queensland SOSE Essential Learnings (Queensland Studies Authority, 2007b;
2007c), however, were succinct statements of content that reflected discipline-based
knowledge. In a radical break from the past curriculum, they defined what middle
school teachers should teach and students should learn by Years 3, 5, and 9.
The Queensland SOSE Essential Learnings went some way towards redressing
the previous lack of clarity in the curriculum. More broadly, the national movement
towards Essential Learnings is an effort to develop students’ knowledge and skills to
address the challenges of the future, or so-called, “new times”. The Essential
Learnings, according to Yates and Collins (2010, p. 97), identify “personal
procedural knowledge” as a way of meeting the demands of the future. However, as
Brady and Kennedy (2007) argue, the concept of “essential learnings” is contestable,
as the question of what is essential knowledge reflects cultural assumptions of what
is valued in society and how this is expressed in the school curriculum. Moreover, it
22 Middle school social sciences: Exploring teachers’ conceptions of essential knowledge
assumes that all students share a common culture (Brady & Kennedy, 2007). These
caveats aside, the Queensland SOSE Essential Learnings indicate that there is no
wholesale abandonment of an integrated SOSE curriculum, as foreshadowed by The
Future of Schooling in Australia (CAF, 2007). SOSE will remain a learning area in
Queensland, albeit with a strong emphasis on discipline-based perspectives in line
with the Australian Curriculum (National Curriculum Board, 2009; ACARA, 2010a,
2010c). The Essential Learnings allowed teachers to choose to teach social education
from either an integrated or a disciplinary perspective, with significant consequences
for teachers and their conceptions of essential knowledge. Further, these curriculum
changes raise the question of what are teachers’ conceptions of knowledge for
teaching social education.
The shift to the discipline-based Essential Learnings from the previous
outcomes-based syllabus aimed to prepare Queensland for discipline-based
curriculum. National education reform came with The Melbourne Declaration on
Educational Goals for Young Australians (MCEETYA, 2008), which set goals for
curriculum based on the disciplines and reform of all phases of schooling.
A national education reform agenda
The Melbourne Declaration (MCEETYA, 2008), hereafter referred to as the
2008 Melbourne Declaration, marked the beginning of a national education reform
agenda (Reid, 2009). The 2008 Melbourne Declaration replaced The Adelaide
Declaration (MCEETYA, 1999); it is the most recent national education policy to set
the goals for education, teaching, curriculum and assessment in all phases of
schooling and post-school training. Most recently, it has led to the newly-developed
Australian Curriculum (National Curriculum Board, 2009; ACARA, 2010a), a
national assessment program comprising compulsory national testing in literacy and
numeracy in Years 3, 5, 7 and 9 coordinated by the Australian Curriculum and
Reporting Authority (ACARA, 2010b) and national professional standards for
teachers (Australian Institute for Teaching and School Leadership [AITSL], 2011). Table
1.7 lists the national policies since 2008 that have impacted social education.
Table 1.7
National Policy Documents Impacting on Social Education – 2008-2011
Chapter 1: Introduction 23
Date National/Qld Policy (P) or Curriculum (C) statements
2008 National – P The Melbourne Declaration on Educational Goals for Young Australians (Melbourne Declaration)
2009 National – C The Shape of the Australian Curriculum (Shape Paper)
2010 National – C The Shape of the Australian Curriculum version 2.0 (Shape Paper V2.0)
2010 National – C The Australian Curriculum: History
2011 National – P National Professional Standards for Teachers (Standards)
In setting the scene for a national education reform agenda, the following
section examines the significance of the 2008 Melbourne Declaration, first for the
social education curriculum and middle years, and second, for its impact on quality
teaching and National Professional Standards for Teachers (AITSL, 2011).
Social education
The 2008 Melbourne Declaration set the scene for educational reform in the
context of globalisation and the demands of living in a complex world. The 2008
Melbourne Declaration focused first on equity and excellence, and second, on
developing successful learners who are confident, creative, active and informed
citizens. It noted the impact of global integration and the need for global citizenship,
the rise of China and India and the need to build strong relationships with Asia, the
demands of globalisation and technological change in education, complex
environmental, social and economic pressures, and advances in information and
communication technologies. The 2008 Melbourne Declaration set an extensive
education reform agenda, which would significantly impact upon curriculum and the
quality of teaching and learning in all subject areas, including the social sciences. It
was committed to action in relation to promoting quality teaching, the middle years
of teaching and a “world-class curriculum” (MCEETYA, 2008, p.13). As such, the
2008 Melbourne Declaration heralded significant change for the profession, and for
middle years teachers in particular, whose knowledge of the disciplines would need
to expand to accommodate the new curriculum expectations.
The 2008 Melbourne Declaration advocated eight learning areas including
“Humanities and social sciences (including history, geography, economics, business,
civics and citizenship)” (MCEETYA, 2008, p. 14). This effectively sealed the
demise of SOSE as a KLA and established the humanities and social sciences as a
24 Middle school social sciences: Exploring teachers’ conceptions of essential knowledge
learning area, emphasising its disciplinary basis. Moreover, environmental
sustainability and access to Indigenous content were to be integrated across the
curriculum. These goals for education have guided the development of the Australian
Curriculum, which in its first phase has delivered a national curriculum in English,
mathematics, science and history to be implemented in each State and Territory from
2011. In the second phase, a national curriculum in geography, languages and the
Arts will be developed.
However, the conceptualisation of the national curriculum was neither smooth
nor an uncontested process. Reid (2009, p. 14) notes that problems surfaced with the
design of the curriculum from the outset. The first policy document, The Shape of the
Australian Curriculum (National Curriculum Board, 2009), lacked both a clear
definition of curriculum and any conceptualisation of what was needed across all
phases of schooling from foundation to Year 10. Indeed, the first phase of the
national curriculum comprised only English, mathematics, science and history. There
was no explicit rationale for the kinds of knowledge which should be in the
curriculum nor clear statement of the primacy of teaching subjects or learning areas
(Reid, 2009). It was only after persistent efforts by teachers and teachers’ subject
associations that languages and geography were added in 2008 (Gillard, 2008) and
the Arts were added in 2009 (Ferrari & Perkin, 2009). In the case of geography, it
was held that a national geography curriculum would arrest the declining standards
of both teaching and student numbers which allegedly had resulted from geography’s
amalgamation as part of SOSE (Topsfield, 2008). The second policy statement on the
national curriculum, The Shape of the Australian Curriculum v2.0 (ACARA, 2010a),
still lacked either a definition of curriculum or any reference to learning theories to
underpin the curriculum. This document noted that the third phase of the national
curriculum would include curricula for health and physical education, technology
and the remaining subjects originally embraced within SOSE including economics,
business, civics and citizenship. These initiatives which originated in the 2008
Melbourne Declaration mark a significant shift away from integrated social
education towards discipline-based education. This has far-reaching implications for
current middle years teachers who may well lack the disciplinary knowledge
required to teach these individual social sciences.
Chapter 1: Introduction 25
The 2008 Melbourne Declaration set a new national paradigm for social
science education, entailing a huge shift from almost 20 years of integrated social
education to discipline-based education. The goals for education and the
repositioning of learning focused on the humanities and social sciences aim to raise
national educational standards and maintain a competitive international profile. They
mark a return to discipline-based approaches where content is linked to process. As
such, the goals for education focus on a “solid foundation in knowledge,
understanding, skills and values” to build “deep knowledge within a discipline which
provides the foundation for inter-disciplinary approaches” (MCEETYA, 2008, p.
13). While the disciplines of history, geography and economics will be taught as
separate school subjects, the 2008 Melbourne Declaration acknowledges that the
national curriculum must develop capacity to work with others and promote
interdisciplinary learning based on disciplinary foundations. Despite these references
to interdisciplinary learning, in relation to the current study, questions are raised
about the adequacy of a traditional academic curriculum in meeting the needs of
adolescents, and about teachers’ knowledge to teach it, particularly in the middle
years of schooling.
Further, the 2008 Melbourne Declaration committed to enhancing education in
the middle years, motivated by the need to ensure an effective transition between
primary and secondary education. It noted that, in the middle years, students were at
risk of disengaging from schooling, yet in terms of what they learnt, it was “…an
important period of learning in which knowledge of fundamental disciplines is
developed….” (MCEETYA, 2008, p. 12). Educators were asked to respond to the
developmental needs of middle years students and make learning in the disciplines
challenging, engaging and rewarding.
This signalled a significant change for teachers who had hitherto sought to
challenge middle school learners by emphasising broad themes and big ideas that
could be taught across the disciplines. The new paradigm sought to turn this
approach on its head, thereby generating higher expectations of middle years
teachers’ disciplinary knowledge and a new, discipline-focused curriculum.
Phenomenographic research may reveal insights into middle years teachers’
knowledge for social education and their perspectives on the vision for middle
schooling that was put forward by the 2008 Melbourne Declaration.
26 Middle school social sciences: Exploring teachers’ conceptions of essential knowledge
Quality teaching
The commitment to a high quality teaching and school leadership workforce in
the 2008 Melbourne Declaration was one of the key motivations for the development
of National Professional Standards for Teachers (AITSL, 2011), hereafter referred
to as the 2011 Standards for Teachers. An earlier study, called Teaching and
Leading for Quality Australian Schools, which was conducted by Teaching Australia
(2007) stated that “quality teaching” was defined indirectly “either through its impact
on student outcomes, or through the presence of professional attributes, including
skills, knowledge, qualifications and professional learning” (Teaching Australia,
2007, p. iii). One of the professional practice factors identified in the study was
selection of content (knowledge), where quality teaching included “content of high
intellectual quality, integrated from a variety of knowledge disciplines, connected to
prior knowledge and relevant to students’ lives” (Teaching Australia, 2007, p. 8).
The focus on content of high intellectual quality and the commitment to quality
teaching in the 2008 Melbourne Declaration are codified in the national 2011
Standards for Teachers. National efforts to professionalise teaching are relevant to
this research into teachers’ conceptions of essential knowledge because they point to
the broad policy framework for teachers’ knowledge.
The 2011 Standards for Teachers codify the intellectual and professional
attributes of teaching and set standards for demonstrating levels of proficiency but do
not set standards for curriculum. They constitute a part of the national education
reform agenda intent on lifting the public profile of teaching by clearly described
standards of performativity and accountability in the domains of professional
knowledge, professional practice and professional engagement: “They articulate
what teachers are expected to know and be able to do at four career stages: Graduate,
Proficient, Highly Accomplished and Lead” (AITSL, 2011, p. 1). Full teacher
registration will occur when teachers are deemed proficient; however, in relation to
the current study, it is unclear how proficiency in curriculum areas such as social
education will be defined.
Proficiency in relation to the knowledge base for teaching is notoriously hard
to determine. Over fifteen years ago, Grossman and Stodolsky (1995) noted that the
knowledge base for teaching is especially difficult to ascertain in school subjects
such as social studies that have wide curricular scope and less consensus among
Chapter 1: Introduction 27
teachers compared with other subjects like mathematics or chemistry. While the
2011 Standards for Teachers are intended to define the profession and make
expectations of teachers public and transparent (MacKay, 2011), they also seek to
measure teachers’ subject expertise and pedagogy by defining and codifying practice
(Ferrari, 2011).
The 2011 Standards for Teachers subscribe to a progressive stance on what
teachers must know and do. Standard 1 – Know students and how they learn
(AITSL, 2011, p. 8) refers to the who of teaching, ensuring that students remain at
the forefront of teacher professionalisation, acknowledging the progressive and
student-centred foundation of professional knowledge for teachers. The what of
teaching is the focus of Standard 2 – Know the content and how to teach it (AITSL,
2011, p. 10). Only one element of Standard 2 explicitly focuses on content and
teaching strategies, however, there is a clear expectation that even pre-service
teachers at Graduate level will “demonstrate knowledge and understanding of the
concepts, substance and structure of the content and teaching strategies of the
teaching area” (AITSL, 2011, p. 10). In relation to the same focus, Highly
Accomplished teachers will “[s]upport colleagues using current and comprehensive
knowledge of content and teaching strategies to develop and implement engaging
learning and teaching programs” (Focus 2.1, AITSL, 2011, p. 10).
Although the reference to structures of knowledge and concepts in Standard 2
is just one element of seven national teacher standards, its significance should not be
underestimated. Standard 2 promotes the importance of subject knowledge and
developing pedagogical expertise. While more experience builds a teacher’s
knowledge of pedagogy, it is assumed that a solid foundation in concepts, substance
and structure of the content area is already in place. Such knowledge is the
foundation of enacting a discipline-based curriculum promoted by national education
reforms. In relation to social science, middle years teachers could theoretically be
held accountable for what they teach and may be expected to have knowledge of the
substance and structure of history, geography and economics. Furthermore, the
accountability that comes with national standards aims to increase professionalism
by addressing the how as well as the what of teaching. Standard 2 acknowledges that
content knowledge alone is an insufficient measure of professional knowledge and
that knowledge of pedagogy is equally crucial.
28 Middle school social sciences: Exploring teachers’ conceptions of essential knowledge
The current research may reveal insights into middle years teachers’
perceptions of proficiency in terms of knowledge for integrated social education. The
2011 Standards for Teachers also speak to Shulman’s (1986, 1987) theorisation of
the knowledge base of teaching, which will be considered in Chapter 3.
These statements, the 2008 Melbourne Declaration and the 2011 Standards for
Teachers, have progressively set the scene for the future of social science curriculum
and pedagogy in Australia. The new national paradigm set by the 2008 Melbourne
Declaration is a shift from 20 years of integrated social education to discipline-based
education. The 2008 Melbourne Declaration promotes a return to discipline-based,
academic education in history, geography and economics to build “the foundation for
inter-disciplinary approaches” (MCEETYA, 2008, p. 13). However, despite the
promise of the 2008 Melbourne Declaration in relation to interdisciplinary learning,
will an academic social science curriculum adequately meet the needs of
adolescents? Moreover, in relation to the current study, given the emphasis on
teachers’ subject knowledge in the 2011 Standards for Teachers, it begs the question
about teachers’ knowledge to teach discipline-based social sciences, particularly in
the middle years.
The following section examines policies for a national curriculum which will
be largely implemented by teachers trained and experienced in delivering an
integrated curriculum.
Education policy on a national curriculum
As disciplinary learning in humanities and social sciences progressively
replaces middle school SOSE, this study is situated at the crossroads of a significant
change in curriculum in Australia. This section will explore the impact of the 2008
Melbourne Declaration on the Australian Curriculum manifested in the policies
listed in Table 1.8.
Table 1.8
National Curriculum Documents in Social Education – 2008-2011
Date National/Qld Policy (P) or Curriculum (C) statements
2008 National – P The Melbourne Declaration on Educational Goals for Young Australians (Melbourne Declaration)
2009 National – C The Shape of the Australian Curriculum (2009 Shape Paper)
Chapter 1: Introduction 29
2010 National – C The Shape of the Australian Curriculum version 2.0 (2010 Shape Paper)
2010 National – C The Australian Curriculum: History
2011 National – P National Professional Standards for Teachers (Standards)
2011 National -- P Shape of the Australian Curriculum: Geography (Geography Shape Paper)
The framework for the first phase of the national curriculum in English,
mathematics, science and history from Kindergarten to Year 12 presented in The
Shape of the Australian Curriculum (National Curriculum Board, 2009) draws
extensively on the parameters and intent of the 2008 Melbourne Declaration. A
subsequent version, entitled The Shape of the Australian Curriculum v2.0 (ACARA,
2010a) is guiding curriculum development in geography, languages and the arts in
the second phase of the emerging national curriculum. It reflects discussion and
debate about the national curriculum amongst stakeholders, including teachers across
the country, since the publication of the first phase of the curriculum. As many
teachers who currently teach integrated SOSE will teach the new Australian
Curriculum in history in Phase 1 (ACARA, 2010c) and geography in Phase 2
(ACARA, 2011), it is appropriate to examine first the approach to interdisciplinary
knowledge and understanding and second the expectations of teachers in each of the
Shape papers (ACARA, 2010a; National Curriculum Board, 2009), which set out the
approach to the national history and geography curriculum. In the next section, The
Shape of the Australian Curriculum (National Curriculum Board, 2009) will be
referred to as the 2009 Shape Paper and The Shape of the Australian Curriculum
v2.0 (ACARA, 2010a) as the 2010 Shape Paper.
Interdisciplinary learning in the Australian Curriculum
The 2008 Melbourne Declaration marks the return to the disciplines but flags
the value of interdisciplinary learning in relation to what is termed “inter-disciplinary
approaches” (MCEETYA, 2008, p. 13) and “cross-disciplinary learning” (National
Curriculum Board, 2009, p. 11). The 2009 Shape Paper states that students are
entitled to a curriculum focused on deep knowledge and skills as the foundation for
adult life and further learning. As such, the 2009 Shape Paper promises an
Australian Curriculum that favours in-depth study over breadth, based on knowledge
and understanding of the disciplines and “a balance of knowledge and process”
30 Middle school social sciences: Exploring teachers’ conceptions of essential knowledge
(National Curriculum Board, 2009, p. 11). The Australian Curriculum is framed by
the concept of learning entitlement. It asserts that the curriculum should be explicit
about what teachers should teach and what students should learn and how they will
be judged in terms of achievement standards. The emphasis on explicitly-stated
national curriculum content and achievement standards is quite different from
curricula developed in the former KLAs. The new approach mandates content and
substantive knowledge, not just cognitive procedural knowledge.
The 2009 Shape Paper addresses the value of disciplinary learning in the
context of active citizenship and future employment, stating that, “[r]ich and
systematic engagement with a discipline-based curriculum in school can form the
basis not only of specialised vocational success, but also of confident and
knowledgeable civic activity” (National Curriculum Board, 2009, p. 11). However,
this paper does not explain how disciplinary knowledge furthers civic engagement or
vocational success; neither does it refer to any theory of education that points to this
possibility. In defending the value of teaching the disciplines, the 2009 Shape Paper
holds that the disciplines are interconnected and that a curriculum based on them will
facilitate cross-disciplinary learning. As foreshadowed in the 2008 Melbourne
Declaration, the 2009 Shape Paper asserts that connections between the disciplines
will be made through the nine “general capabilities”, such as literacy, numeracy,
thinking skills, creativity and intercultural understanding, which will feature in each
national curriculum subject.
Both the 2008 Melbourne Declaration and the 2009 Shape Paper assert the
importance of learning across the disciplines, but clearly discipline-based learning
takes precedence, raising questions about the scope and scale of interdisciplinary
learning in the Australian Curriculum. The 2010 Shape Paper reflects the primacy of
the disciplines in how knowledge is developed: “The disciplines provide the
foundation of learning in schools because they reflect the way in which knowledge
has, and will continue to be, developed and codified (ACARA, 2010a, p.18).
However, a softening of the stand on how to teach the disciplines is revealed in the
statement that schools may draw on “integrated approaches where appropriate and
using pedagogical approaches that account for students’ needs, interests and school
and community context” (ACARA, 2010a, p. 11). This is a significant concession to
teachers’ reality in delivering the curriculum. The 2010 Shape Paper reduces the
Chapter 1: Introduction 31
number of general capabilities that apply across the learning areas from 9 to 7,
asserting that capabilities such as literacy, numeracy, ethical behaviour and
intercultural understanding will foster integration and equip students to become life-
long learners. Once again, this modifies the view of the general capabilities taken in
the original 2009 Shape Paper, which held that they would promote the links
between the learning areas rather than life-long learning.
In addition, the 2010 Shape Paper (ACARA, 2010a, p. 20) noted three cross-
curricular priorities of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander histories and cultures,
Asia and Australia’s engagement with Asia and sustainability to ensure that The
Australian Curriculum was relevant to students’ lives and contemporary issues.
While each cross-curriculum priority is drawn from the social sciences, it is intended
that each will be represented and embedded appropriately across all national
curriculum learning areas including English, mathematics and science.
In summary, one may conclude that the approach to interdisciplinary
knowledge in the Australian Curriculum has evolved to acknowledge a role for
integrated approaches and life-long learning in the context of teaching the disciplines
which provide the foundation for learning. Middle years teachers’ conceptions of
knowledge developed through their lived experiences of teaching integrated SOSE
will now have to adapt to teaching the disciplines. Integration will be achieved by
developing general capabilities, such as literacy, numeracy, and intercultural
understanding, rather than through multidisciplinary or interdisciplinary study. This
modification in the approach to the Australian Curriculum signalled by the 2010
Shape Paper justifies the current study, which investigates teachers’ conceptions of
essential knowledge in an integrated rather than discipline-based curriculum. Despite
the imminent demise of integrated social education in its current form of SOSE
(Marsh, 2010), through the general capabilities and cross-curriculum priorities of
The Australian Curriculum (ACARA, 2010a) there is scope for integration across the
disciplines to promote life-long learning.
Expectations of teachers in the Australian Curriculum
The national curriculum policy documents listed in Table 1.8 are written to
provide classroom teachers with clear guidance on what should be taught but also
acknowledge that curriculum delivery is the expert province of teachers and should
32 Middle school social sciences: Exploring teachers’ conceptions of essential knowledge
be contextualised to schools and educational jurisdictions. The documents present a
view of teachers as “informed professionals” (Luke, Weir & Woods, 2008) who are
knowledgeable about how to teach their subject area. The 2009 Shape Paper asserts
that the Australian Curriculum should be implemented “in a way that values
teachers’ professional knowledge and that reflects the needs and interests evident in
local contexts, as it will be teachers who decide how best to organise learning for
students” (National Curriculum Board, 2009, p. 8). The rationale for The Australian
Curriculum: History V2.0 (ACARA, 2010c) in Phase 1 of the national curriculum
clearly states that, “[h]istory, as a discipline, has its own methods and procedures
which make it different from other ways of understanding human experience”
(ACARA, 2010c, p. 1). Written according to guidelines in the 2009 Shape Paper,
the national history curriculum reveals prescribed curriculum content based on the
assumption that teachers are both well informed about content and well experienced
in terms of pedagogy.
The view of professional, well-informed, qualified and experienced teachers
persists in the 2010 Shape Paper, which sets the framework for the national
geography curriculum (ACARA, 2011) in Phase 2 of the national curriculum:
“Teachers are able to choose how best to introduce concepts and processes and how
to progressively deepen understanding to maximise the engagement and learning of
every student” (ACARA, 2010a, p. 17). It encourages teachers and schools to
provide “flexible pathways” (ACARA, 2010a, p. 23) to enable students to progress at
their own pace through the curriculum. This modifies the perception in the 2009
Shape Paper that all students will progress through the year levels at the same pace,
with no allowance made, for example, for students with special needs or for those for
whom English is not their first language. Furthermore, the 2010 Shape Paper gives
teachers the responsibility to adjust and adapt the curriculum for students with
special education needs, positioning teachers as knowledgeable and professional
(Luke, Weir & Woods, 2008).
Writers of the Australian Curriculum make the assumption that teachers will
have the knowledge base and the professional support to teach the disciplines.
National curriculum history in Phase 1 of the Australian Curriculum is prescriptive
and reflects the disciplinary basis of history; however, it is likely that national
curriculum geography in Phase 2 of the Australian Curriculum may have a wider,
Chapter 1: Introduction 33
interdisciplinary focus in line with the modified approach evident in the 2010 Shape
Paper. The Geography Shape Paper, which sets guidelines for the forthcoming
national geography curriculum, asserts that, “[g]eography straddles the natural
sciences, the social sciences and the humanities” (ACARA, 2011, p. 7). The 2009
Shape Paper and the 2010 Shape Paper, which set guidelines for the national history
and geography curricula, cast teachers as well-informed professionals in their area.
What this means is that, despite the highly prescriptive nature of the content of the
national curriculum, as implementation and assessment is state-based, teachers have
discretion over planning, pedagogy and assessment.
The differences between national guidelines for social education between 1999
and 2011 are significant. The new Australian Curriculum prescribes curriculum
content and national standards for assessment. In contrast, at the turn of the
millennium, transdisciplinary and multidisciplinary learning were perceived to be the
way to develop life-long learning and the capacity for active citizenship. Ten years
later, The Australian Curriculum: History V2.0 (ACARA, 2010c) lists history
“depth” studies for the middle years of schooling. Now, a foundation in the
disciplines is deemed essential to prepare students to work across discipline
boundaries. According to the 2009 Shape Paper and the 2010 Shaper Paper, teachers
are considered competent to deliver a detailed, knowledge-based curriculum.
However, the prescribed curriculum may reduce teachers’ freedom to teach the
curriculum as they know best, even though it purports to respect teachers’
“specialised professional knowledge” of their students’ needs (National Curriculum
Board, 2009, p. 11).
Implications for middle school social education teachers
The changing curriculum landscape raises questions of teachers’ conceptions
of knowledge for social education. The curriculum changes of 20 years ago
promoted integrated social education, which is now challenged by the Australian
Curriculum. In this context, the voices of Australian middle school social education
teachers appear to have been silenced. While they have had the opportunity to
provide feedback on the national history curriculum, their conceptions of essential
knowledge for humanities education, whether as integrated- or discipline-based
study, have not been explored. This phenomenographic investigation of middle
34 Middle school social sciences: Exploring teachers’ conceptions of essential knowledge
school SOSE teachers’ conceptions of essential knowledge for integrated social
education will reveal views about social education in the middle years of schooling
in the period immediately before the current Australian Curriculum was articulated.
As indicated at the beginning of this chapter, this research is situated in the
middle years because it is a period when many young adolescents disengage with
schooling (Pendergast & Bahr, 2005). These problems were noted in relation to the
national education reform agenda when the 2008 Melbourne Declaration
acknowledged that, “[e]ffective transitions between primary and secondary schools
[in the middle years] are an important aspect of ensuring student engagement”
(MCEETYA, 2008, p. 12). As such, the role of social education teachers as
professionals who use the curriculum to help students make sense of the world
around them is significant (Gilbert, 2004). The focus on the middle years in the 2008
Melbourne Declaration is recognition of the significance of these transition years of
schooling, justifying this phenomenographic exploration of middle years teachers’
conceptions of essential knowledge for SOSE from the perspective of the teachers
themselves. This study includes a timely review of the literature on social education
in the middle years at a crucial stage of social education curriculum development in
Australia. The middle years literature, and the context of middle years policy, will be
considered in Chapter 2.
Summary
Investigating the research question, “What are Queensland middle years
teachers’ conceptions of essential knowledge in social education?” is informed by
the context of the policies that impact on teachers’ work. The education policies
reviewed in this chapter present a variety of perspectives on the role of the
disciplines in social education and teachers’ knowledge. There is an identifiable shift
from the 1999 Adelaide Declaration (MCEETYA, 1999), which did not emphasise
social science disciplinary knowledge, to the 2008 Melbourne Declaration
(MCEETYA, 2008), which calls for deep intellectual engagement by focusing on the
disciplines. The middle years have been identified, nationally and in Queensland
(Education Queensland, 2003), as a distinct phase of schooling that engages students
in their learning by challenging them further, and reduces superficial learning.
Teachers rarely set the policy or curriculum agenda, yet, at the chalkface, their
Chapter 1: Introduction 35
conceptions of essential knowledge and how they enact these conceptions in their
teaching are critical to students’ outcomes and, indeed, in the performance-based
flavour of our times, to their own identity, remuneration and well-being. In the
current climate of education reform, a phenomenographical approach to identifying
teachers’ lived experiences will illuminate teachers’ conceptions of essential
knowledge for middle years social education.
Teachers as curriculum makers
While it is important to contextualise the study within a policy framework, it is
also useful to identify how the teacher’s role is conceptualised for the purpose of this
research. The use of phenomenography as the research approach honours the
conceptions and voices of teachers because we are concerned with researching their
lived experiences of essential knowledge. Clandinin and Connelly (1992, p. 363)
posit that, “the teacher is an integral part of the curriculum constructed and enacted
in classrooms.” In defining their notion of curriculum from the teacher’s point of
view, Clandinin and Connelly state:
Teachers and students live out a curriculum; teachers do not transmit,
implement, or teach a curriculum and objectives; nor are they and their
students carried forward in their work and studies by a curriculum of
textbooks and content, instructional methodologies, and intentions. An
account of teachers’ and students’ lives over time is the curriculum, although
intentionality, objectives, and curriculum materials do play a part in it.
(Clandinin & Connelly, 1992, p. 365)
This concept of the teacher and the teacher’s role argues that their work with
students is an integral part of the curriculum. As such, the current study
conceptualises the work of teachers as curriculum makers in the classroom, rather
than teachers who convey academic content or as implementers of policy or reform
(Craig & Ross, 2008). Clearly, middle years SOSE teachers’ conceptions of essential
knowledge are critical to their role as curriculum makers.
The conceptualisation of teacher as curriculum maker argues a role for teachers
as independent professionals in the classroom, even though they are constantly
working with a curriculum document handed to them, and within the boundaries of
national and State educational policies over which they have limited influence.
36 Middle school social sciences: Exploring teachers’ conceptions of essential knowledge
According to Craig and Ross (2008), the idea of teacher as curriculum maker
presented by Clandinin and Connelly (1992) draws on the idea of teachers making
curriculum through their teaching practice, originally put forward by Dewey (1938).
Dewey viewed the school subject as distinctive from the academic discipline, taking
into account students’ experience and ways of thinking (Dewey, 1897/1972).
Further, Schwab (1978, 1983) formulated the notion of teacher as curriculum maker
based on “the practical” and the four commonplaces of education: the teacher; the
student; what is taught; and the milieu of teaching-learning. Clandinin and Connelly
furthered “the makings of an image of teacher as curriculum maker” (1992, p. 366)
by harnessing the work of Schwab (1978, 1983) to Tyler’s ideas on teacher agency
(1949/1969).
The notion of what comprises teachers’ knowledge, however, is critical to the
position of teacher as curriculum maker. According to Craig and Ross (2008),
Schwab’s (1978, 1983) work on the nature of content knowledge was pivotal to
Shulman’s (1986, 1987) contribution to curriculum and teacher development.
Moreover, Shulman (1986, 1987) drew on theoretical positions put forward by
Dewey (1897/1972) to identify and research the nature of the knowledge base of
teachers. Shulman and colleagues’ work (e.g., Grossman, 1990; Grossman, Wilson &
Shulman, 1989; Shulman & Sherin, 2004; Shulman & Shulman, 2004; Wilson,
Shulman & Richert, 1987) on theorising the knowledge base of teaching in relation
to school subjects is significant to the conceptualisation of teacher as curriculum
maker in this study, justifying the research focus on teachers’ conceptions of
essential knowledge for social education.
Shulman (1986, 1987)
Shulman’s (1986, 1987) work on the knowledge base for teachers focuses on
the nexus between teachers’ knowledge and their work with the curriculum. As such,
his theory on teachers’ knowledge frames this phenomenography, as it examines
teachers’ conceptions of knowledge manifested in their explanations of their
teaching and understanding of curriculum. Shulman’s (1986, 1987) theorisation of
the knowledge base of teachers is considered briefly here, and expanded on in
Chapter 3.
Chapter 1: Introduction 37
Twenty-five years ago, Shulman (1987, p.4) asked the question, “What are the
sources of the knowledge base for teaching?”, as part of an effort to improve teacher
professionalisation in the USA. The research program he spearheaded at Stanford
University in response to this question has yielded a highly-cited body of research
and theorisation on the sources of teachers’ knowledge and professionalisation (e.g.,
Ball, Thames, & Phelps, 2008; Grossman, Wilson, & Shulman, 1989; Shulman &
Sherin, 2004; Wilson, Shulman, & Richert, 1987). It continues to be a relevant
question when researching conceptions of “essential knowledge” held by teachers
working in a variety of contexts today. Shulman theorised that teachers’ knowledge
base broadly comprises content knowledge, pedagogical content knowledge and
curricular knowledge (Shulman, 1986, 1987; Turner-Bissett, 2001), based on the
need for teachers to understand and transform disciplinary subject matter for
teaching.
Briefly, subject content knowledge refers to propositional knowledge and an
understanding of the structure of the discipline. It goes beyond a simple collection of
facts or concepts of a domain and reflects substantive knowledge, syntactical
knowledge and beliefs about the subject (Turner-Bisset, 2001). Pedagogical content
knowledge is the most widely known and researched of Shulman’s ideas and refers
to “the ways of representing and formulating the subject that make it comprehensible
to others” including “analogies, illustrations, examples, explanations” (Shulman,
1986, p. 9). Curricular knowledge refers to knowledge of the full range of “materials
and programs that serve as ‘tools of the trade’ for teachers” (Shulman, 1987, p. 8). It
includes curriculum and instructional materials, and knowledge of alternative
curriculum materials for a given topic.
Influenced by Schwab’s (1978) focus on subject matter, Shulman’s (1986,
1987) theorisation has led to research programs intended to reveal the nature of
teachers’ knowledge in a variety of school subjects, including history (Wilson &
Wineburg, 1988; Wineburg, 1991; Wineburg & Wilson, 1991a, 1991b). In reviewing
research on social studies, Sexias (2001) argued that Shulman’s (1986, 1987) work
was indispensible to any serious consideration of the teaching of subject matter:
Shulman’s research program is particularly important for any focus on the
teaching of subject matter, since it provides a theoretical framework for
understanding the connections between “content” and “pedagogy.” Indeed, it
38 Middle school social sciences: Exploring teachers’ conceptions of essential knowledge
was developed to restore a place for the sustained consideration of “content”
within the purview of pedagogical research, a place that had been largely
eclipsed by generic process-product research of the 1980s. This was the first,
and arguably the most important to date, of research programs arching across
subject areas and disciplines, which also took the distinctiveness of subjects
and disciplines as serious objects of study. (Sexias, 2001, p. 546)
Drawing on Sexias (2001), it is argued that to adopt Shulman’s (1986, 1987)
theorisation of the knowledge base for teaching as the theoretical framework for this
study is, in fact, to consider the distinctiveness of SOSE and make it an object of
serious study. Even though a discipline-based Australian Curriculum will eventually
replace integrated social education in the form of SOSE, a phenomenographic
investigation drawing on Shulman’s (1986, 1987) framework is justified as it will
provide a unique insight into conceptions of middle years teachers’ knowledge and
add to the wider picture on middle years social education.
The shifting sands of curriculum and policy impact on teachers, justifying this
research into teachers’ conceptions of essential knowledge for social education.
Research on the sources of teachers’ knowledge in social education from an
Australian and international perspective will be reviewed in Chapter 2, showing that
there is a gap in the literature on teachers’ conceptions of essential knowledge for
social education. There is a need to focus on teachers’ perspectives of essential
knowledge for social education as they are “curriculum makers”, who enact the
curriculum. Yet practising teachers’ knowledge based on their lived experiences of
teaching social education is rarely considered. The lack of research from teachers’
perspectives supports the argument that phenomenography is a useful research
approach to identify and map the qualitatively different ways of conceptualising
essential knowledge as experienced by teachers themselves (Marton, 1988). As this
section has shown, Shulman’s (1986, 1987) theory of the knowledge base for
teaching conceptualises the teacher as curriculum maker, facilitating the serious
study of school subjects such as SOSE. The following section details the aim and
outcomes of this study to establish its wider significance. Phenomenography, as the
chosen research approach, will be introduced and the limitations of the study are
considered.
Chapter 1: Introduction 39
Significance of the study
The aim of this study is to identify conceptions of essential knowledge held by
Queensland middle years social education teachers. The study explores this research
question: “What are Queensland middle years teachers’ conceptions of essential
knowledge in social education?”
Middle years education is dependent on the quality of middle years teaching
(MCEETYA, 2008), yet the unique contribution made by middle years teachers to
enacting and making curriculum is inadequately researched. Middle school teachers
have not been asked what constitutes their essential knowledge for social education.
The study is significant as it conceptualises middle years social education in
Australia as a practice-based, teacher-led endeavour that harnesses curriculum
integration to the unique educational needs of the middle years learner. Moreover,
this research identifies teachers’ conceptions of essential knowledge as they enter the
era of a national Australian Curriculum, beginning in 2012.
The outcomes of the study will:
• address a gap in understanding middle years social education by
identifying a limited number of qualitatively different conceptions of
essential knowledge held by middle years social education teachers;
• contribute new understanding about the nature of middle school teachers’
professional knowledge;
• contribute a practice-based theorisation of middle school years social
science education;
• contribute new perspectives on middle years teacher identity;
• inform teacher-education and professional development programs for
middle years.
The study is significant because investigating middle years teachers’ knowledge for
the social sciences will illustrate the nexus between features of middle school social
education curriculum and teaching practice, thus revealing a different and hitherto
unexamined perspective on curriculum integration.
40 Middle school social sciences: Exploring teachers’ conceptions of essential knowledge
Methodology
This research is situated within an interpretivist paradigm as it is a qualitative
investigation of the conceptions of essential knowledge held by Queensland middle
school social education teachers. The research question “What are Queensland
middle years teachers’ conceptions of essential knowledge in social education?” is
addressed using phenomenography to investigate the qualitatively different ways in
which middle school teachers understand knowledge.
Phenomenography is a qualitative research specialisation that aims to map “the
qualitatively different ways in which people experience, conceptualize, perceive, and
understand various aspects of, and various phenomena in, the world around them”
(Marton, 1988, p. 178-179). Using this approach, this study investigates and maps
teachers’ conceptions of “essential knowledge” in SOSE on the basis of interviews
with 31 middle school SOSE teachers. The interviews reveal a variety of concepts,
understandings and images of essential knowledge held by participants in 2008,
before the introduction of reform ideas expressed in the 2008 Melbourne Declaration
(MCEETYA, 2008). Interview data in phenomenography is analysed to reveal
categories of description (Marton, 1988; Marton & Booth, 1997); in this case, the
categories of description describe conceptions of essential knowledge held by
Queensland middle school teachers. These categories of description inform the
construction of an outcome space, which will map the participants’ conceptions of
essential knowledge in SOSE. Thus, the outcome space is a snapshot of the ways in
which participants’ experience the phenomenon of essential knowledge at that time.
Phenomenography adopts a second-order perspective to explore, interpret and
generalise the conceptions held by the participants as a group rather than as
individuals, as identified by the researcher. As such, this research approach yields
rich data and unique perspectives on teachers’ conceptions of essential knowledge in
SOSE.
A significant advantage of using phenomenography is that the analysis
represents an in-depth examination of teachers’ thinking and experiences of the
phenomenon of essential knowledge. It addresses a gap in understanding about
teaching social education by identifying a limited number of qualitatively different
conceptions of essential knowledge among middle years social education teachers. In
this way, phenomenography delivers an analysis that holds true for the participants,
Chapter 1: Introduction 41
and may have implications for others with experience of the phenomenon. The
outcome space describes the complexity of the phenomenon by studying the
interrelationships and variation in critical aspects of the phenomenon, as experienced
by the participants (Marton & Pang, 2008). As such, the study conceptualises middle
years social education from the perspective of teacher as curriculum maker
(Clandinin & Connelly, 1992; Craig & Ross, 2008). On the other hand, a limitation
of the study is whether the experiences described by the teachers at that time
continue to be pertinent. While they were a fair reflection of the teachers’
conceptions at that time, changing teaching environments and contexts will
inevitably lead to further development.
Chapter 1 summary
Chapter 1 provides an overview of the issues and contexts that have led to this
study. The landscape of middle years teaching in the social sciences is set to change
in the next few years, from an integrated social education approach to a focus on the
disciplines of the humanities and social sciences. Recent education policies, both
Federal and State-based, indicate that middle years teachers will be encouraged to
select content of high intellectual quality with a new focus on deep learning based in
the disciplines of history, geography and economics.
One of the outcomes of the study is that it addresses a perceived lack of
understanding in the current research literature in Australia about the nature of
middle school teachers’ professional knowledge for teaching. The use of
phenomenography to investigate this issue yields a unique, qualitative perspective on
SOSE teachers’ knowledge. The study is framed within Shulman’s (1986, 1987)
theory of the knowledge base of teaching, conceptualising the teacher as curriculum
maker. Researching the question, “What are Queensland middle years teachers’
conceptions of essential knowledge in social education?”, addresses a gap in
understanding about teaching social education by identifying a limited number of
qualitatively different conceptions of essential knowledge among middle years social
education teachers. Further, by investigating teachers’ conceptions of essential
knowledge in SOSE, aspects of the nature of middle years teachers’ professional
identity are illustrated.
42 Middle school social sciences: Exploring teachers’ conceptions of essential knowledge
Thesis outline
In Chapter 1, the scope of the research as an investigation into conceptions of
“essential knowledge” held by Queensland middle school social education teachers
was explored. The significance of the research question was considered within the
context of recent Federal and Queensland educational and curriculum policy.
Shulman’s (1986, 1987) theory of the knowledge base for teaching frames the study,
and a brief introduction to phenomenography as the research approach was provided.
Chapter 2 presents an overview of the research literature on teaching social
education, both in Australia and overseas, and of the nature and philosophy of
middle schooling. Chapter 3 explores the theory of discipline-based curriculum
based on the work of Dewey (1897, 1916) and Shulman’s (1986, 1987) theory of
teachers’ knowledge. Chapter 4 discusses further details of phenomenography as the
research methodology, building on the initial discussion presented in Chapter 1.
Chapter 5 describes the findings of the research and the structure of awareness of the
phenomenon. The categories of description are linked and differentiated in the
outcome space through the dimensions of variation. Chapter 6 analyses the findings
in reference to theories of teachers’ knowledge and draws some conclusions from the
study. The theorisation of middle years social education, and its contribution to
research on the middle years, studies on teacher identity and curriculum integration,
is considered. Finally, the contribution of phenomenography as a suitable research
tool to examine conceptions of teachers’ knowledge, rather than questions of
teaching and learning, is explored. By drawing attention to teachers’ knowledge in
middle years social education, this thesis opens up new avenues for research in
teacher-education and identity, especially within the era of a discipline-based
national curriculum.
Chapter 2: The Middle Years and SOSE Curriculum 43
Chapter 2: The Middle Years and SOSE Curriculum
The aim of this study is to investigate middle years teachers’ conceptions of
“essential knowledge” in social education to address a perceived lack of
understanding in the research literature of middle school teachers’ professional
knowledge for teaching the social sciences. While Chapter 1 situated this study in the
context of Australian and Queensland educational and curriculum policies, Chapter 2
considers middle years policies and the literature on the middle years of schooling.
The middle phase of schooling is a well-established area of interest for teachers,
academics, teacher-educators and curriculum developers in Australia because of
widespread concern that the period of early adolescence is a time of “traumatic
transition”, leading adolescents to take risks that may affect their future (Carrington,
2006, p. 66).
Chapter 2 reviews the literature on the middle years of schooling and examines
the SOSE curriculum as an example of curriculum integration. The nature of the
Queensland SOSE syllabus is described, and the underlying influences of
disciplinary and integrated curriculum approaches are discussed. The philosophical
foundation of integrated curriculum, and its application in middle schooling, is
reviewed. Further, the literature on teachers’ attitudes and beliefs as a feature of
conceptions of knowledge is considered in relation to an integrated curriculum.
Finally, as SOSE is an example of integrated curriculum, the challenges of
curriculum integration are considered in relation to middle years teachers’ identity
and the conceptualisation of the teacher as curriculum maker that was introduced in
Chapter 1.
Middle years of schooling
The middle years are a distinct period of schooling directed towards meeting
the educational needs of early adolescents. However, it is only relatively recently
that the structure of schooling in Australia has recognised the defining characteristics
of middle years in terms of curriculum, teaching and learning. Carrington (2006)
argues that middle years teachers struggle to find a legitimate space between primary
school learning, which, stereotypically, focuses on pastoral care rather than
44 Middle school social sciences: Exploring teachers’ conceptions of essential knowledge
intellectual work, and secondary school learning, which is discipline-oriented.
Indeed, The Middle Phase of Learning State School Action Plan(Education
Queensland, 2003, p. 11) states that teaching in the middle years is not valued due to
a “perceived lack of identity, status and recognition for these teachers as a cohort”.
Learning in the middle phase of schooling bridges learning in primary and secondary
by focusing on intellectual work to build the foundation for discipline-oriented study.
This phenomenographic study offers a unique opportunity to identify the nature of
teachers’ intellectual work and knowledge in relation to middle years social
education curriculum from the perspective of teachers themselves.
The middle years learner
Interest in the middle years of schooling emerged in the late 1980s and early
1990s, with adolescent growth and development linked to social problems such as
teenage pregnancy, drug-taking and anti-social behaviour. “Middle years” is a
general term used both to refer to the years of schooling and as a description of
“early adolescents” (Carrington, 2006, p. 101). However, “adolescence” is a
contested term, with middle years learners considered to be “young” adolescents
(Bahr, 2005, p. 48). A scan of contemporary literature on adolescence from 2004
onwards reveals that researchers disagree on the age of adolescence (Pendergast,
2007b). The period of early adolescence, bounded either by age or by qualitative
markers, such as onset of puberty, appears to start from about the ages of 11 to 14
(Rice & Dolgin, 2005). Carrington (2006, p. 101) defines “the middle years” as the
education of students between the ages of 10 and 14, while Pendergast (2007b, p.
205) considers middle years students to be those aged between 10 and 15.
While all students in this age category are in the “middle years”, they may or
may not attend a “middle school” (an organisational unit located within a primary or
secondary school or in a purpose-built separate school building) or experience
“middle years schooling”, which refers to an educational model of schooling for
early adolescents (Carrington, 2006, pp. 101-103). According to Pendergast (2007b,
p. 206), the term “middle schooling” refers to a philosophy of teaching and learning
that addresses the unique developmental and educational needs of middle years
students. In Queensland, the term “Middle Phase of Learning” is used for learning
from Years 4 to 9. Learning from Years 6 to 9, or upper middle school, which is the
Chapter 2: The Middle Years and SOSE Curriculum 45
focus of this study, is characterised by the “physical, social, emotional and
intellectual development of early adolescence” (Education Queensland, 2003, p. 4).
In current literature on the middle years, the terms “middle schooling”, “middle years
of schooling” and “middle phase of learning” are used interchangeably to describe
new initiatives in the education of early adolescents (Pendergast, 2007b). Despite
variations in middle schooling reform initiatives across the States and Territories, the
unique developmental needs of students in the middle years are widely recognised
across Australia, requiring “a purposeful approach to schooling” to ensure that
students are engaged and education meets their needs (Pendergast, 2007b, p. 216).
The current study provides some insights into teachers’ knowledge in relation to an
integrated curriculum area that aims to meet the needs of middle years’ students.
Middle years students are often subject to deficit views of youth and
adolescence in the media (Bahr, 2010; Carrington, 2006), but a new approach to
middle years learners proposes that they are considered individuals who are
maturing, “with a set of personal characteristics or assets including global awareness
and self-orientation” (Bahr, 2005, p. 62). An important consideration is the cultural
and social context of middle years students (Bahr, 2005). Further, Bahr and
Pendergast (2006) maintain that the distinctive social and generational factors that
impact on young people in Australia shape contemporary constructions of
adolescence. The Millennial Generation, also known as Generation Y, were born
between 1982 and 2002; the last born of this generation will be in school till 2020
(Pendergast, 2007a). In contrast to their parents, young adolescents in the Millennial
Generation are “digital natives” (Prensky, 2005/2006), due the way technology is
embedded in the way they live and learn. Unlike previous generations, Millennials
are part of a globally networked community, which is optimistic, cooperative, street
smart, focused on both achievement and lifestyle, and believe in the future (Howe &
Strauss, 2000). Young adolescents in the Millennial Generation are impatient with
the book-based culture of schooling and, given the fast pace at which knowledge
now evolves, rather than becoming expert at any one thing, the school curriculum
will need to give students the skills to become life-long learners (Bahr & Pendergast,
2006). Clearly, the nature of the curriculum, the what, why and how of middle
schooling (Pendergast, 2007b, p. 219) are important aspects of how successfully
46 Middle school social sciences: Exploring teachers’ conceptions of essential knowledge
adolescents engage with schooling, and studying the social sciences plays a
significant role in this.
Approaches to middle schooling in Australia
The Australian approach to middle schooling draws on middle schooling
philosophies that have developed in the USA since the 1970s (Prosser, McCallum,
Milroy, Comber & Nixon, 2008). Proponents of middle schooling in Australia
believe that the middle years curriculum should be developmentally appropriate,
negotiated with students and linked to their world outside the classroom (Pendergast,
2005). Outcomes-based education is associated with middle schooling, focusing on
the process aspects of learning as well as the content. These middle school reforms,
first initiated in the USA, attempt to cater for the developmental and educational
needs of middle school students in an effort to arrest the disengagement from
schooling that occurs during early adolescence. Similarly, the rationale for middle
schooling in Australia was the need to give special support to early adolescents. An
Australian version of middle schooling was developed in the 1990s and emphasised
the need to address students’ needs based on social justice approaches and quality
teaching (Prosser, 2008a).
One of the key initiatives in middle schooling is the focus on a curriculum that
will better address the developmental needs of early adolescents. Following the first
Turning Points report, which proposed the initial middle school reforms (Carnegie
Council on Adolescent Development, 1989), a second Turning Points project in 2000
focused on the importance of a more intellectually demanding curriculum, backward
mapping of teaching activities from the learning outcomes, and increased
standardisation (Prosser, 2008a). The Queensland SOSE syllabus (Queensland
School Curriculum Council, 2000) may be seen as part of this thrust towards
curriculum innovation based on outcomes-based education. However, the influential
“Beyond the Middle” report into literacy education in Australia (Luke, et al., 2003)
raised concerns that middle schooling reform in Australia was unfinished because it
had not resulted in systemic reforms that promoted an increased depth of knowledge
and met the higher intellectual demands of middle school students. It found that the
integrated curriculum and authentic assessment in middle school reform in Australia
had not been adequately matched with student-centred pedagogy. The report
Chapter 2: The Middle Years and SOSE Curriculum 47
highlighted the need for new middle school reform based on relationships, relevance
to students, “productive pedagogies” and increased academic rigour. Prosser et al.
(2008) challenge the view that middle years reform in Australia is unfinished and
note the importance of teachers and students as informants in future research on
middle schooling. The current phenomenography of middle school teachers’
conceptions of essential knowledge for social education addresses gaps in our
understanding of how teachers approach middle schooling, in particular the role of
curriculum integration through SOSE in meeting adolescents’ needs.
Characteristics of middle years curriculum
Curriculum integration is a feature of the middle school reform agenda in
Australia and overseas (Wallace, Venville & Rennie, 2010). It is based on Beane’s
(1997) view that an integrated approach is concerned with questions and issues of
personal and social significance identified collaboratively by teachers and students.
Beane (1997, p. xi) argues that curriculum integration based on real life themes
encourages students to engage in critical inquiry “into real issues and to pursue
social action where they see the need.” Such an approach dissolves subject
boundaries and promotes democratic relations in the classroom. Curriculum
integration, however, is a contested idea. There are numerous arguments that middle
years curriculum should be both integrated and discipline-based (Turning Points
2004 as cited in Pendergast & Bahr, 2005; Jackson & Davis, 2000). Conversely,
Beane (1997) argues that the middle years curriculum should be integrated, while
Chadbourne and Pendergast (2005) question whether it is in fact philosophically
possible for a curriculum to be both discipline-based and integrated.
In addition to the issue of integration, a developmental approach to middle
years (Chadbourne & Pendergast, 2005; Lee Manning, 2002) takes particular note of
the physical, cognitive and emotional needs of adolescents. In a developmental
approach, “a coherent curriculum appropriate to the needs of early adolescents is
focused on identified needs; it is negotiated and linked to the world outside the
classroom. In addition, it is explicit and outcome based….” (Pendergast, 2005, p. 5).
Drawing on the foundational work of Barratt (1988), Carrington (2006, p. 103)
affirms that an integrated, negotiated curriculum is one of the “signature practices”
of middle schooling. Ideally, such a curriculum is learner-centred, community-
48 Middle school social sciences: Exploring teachers’ conceptions of essential knowledge
oriented and outcome-based in terms of progress and achievement, and is taught by
interdisciplinary teaching teams. Carrington (2006) notes that middle years schooling
focuses on the developmental needs of early adolescents, pastoral care and learner-
centred, constructivist approaches to learning. The middle years approach to learning
is thus typically responsive to the identified needs of students based on with
integrated core content. These priorities are manifested in Queensland middle years
education policies and the SOSE curriculum.
Queensland policies on the middle years
In response to new understandings of the educational needs of early
adolescents, the middle years of schooling have been an area of policy development
for the Queensland Government. Table 1.9 lists the Queensland middle school
education policies (see shaded text) that were adopted almost five years before
national and State-based curriculum reforms were adopted. These policies are briefly
explored below.
Table 2.1
Queensland Policy Documents on the Middle Years
Date National/Qld Policy (P) or Curriculum (C) statements
2002 Qld – P Education and Training Reforms for the Future: A White Paper (ETRF)
2003 Qld – P The Middle Phase of Learning State School Action Plan (State School Action Plan)
2006 National – P Statements of Learning for Civics and Citizenship (Statements of Learning)
2007 National – P The Future of Schooling in Australia: A Report by the States and Territories (Future of Schooling)
2007 Qld – P Queensland Curriculum Assessment and Reporting Framework (QCARF)
2007 Qld – C Studies of Society & Environment (SOSE) Essential Learnings
Six years before the 2008 Melbourne Declaration (MCEETYA, 2008)
committed to the middle years as a significant transition between primary and senior
schooling, interest in Queensland in the middle years as a distinct phase of early
adolescence was reflected in the Queensland Government’s Smart State agenda in
the Queensland the Smart State: Education and Training Reforms for the Future: A
Chapter 2: The Middle Years and SOSE Curriculum 49
White Paper (ETRF) (Education Queensland, 2002). The policy defined middle years
as learning across Years 4 to 9 and sets forth the commitment to “strengthen the
middle years of schooling by focusing on students’ learning needs”, aimed at
providing “a smooth transition to the senior years” (Education Queensland, 2002, p.
7). Followed by The Middle Phase of Learning State School Action Plan (Education
Queensland, 2003), the middle years were prioritised as a time when students were
most likely to become disengaged from learning due to a variety of physical,
emotional, intellectual and social factors. Partially in response to these policies, the
Queensland Curriculum and Assessment and Reporting Framework (Queensland
Studies Authority, 2007a) was introduced to reform the outcomes-based curriculum
and streamline assessment practices across Queensland.
A key action area identified under the State School Action Plan was
curriculum, teaching and assessment. In relation to teaching, the policy highlighted
the need for deep learning and increased intellectual rigour in the middle years
because “over-elaboration of curriculum content, outcomes and goals has the effect
of limiting depth, relevance and intellectual engagement” (Education Queensland,
2003, p. 9). It acknowledged that the large number of outcomes to be addressed in
outcomes-based curricula was daunting for teachers and reduced the capacity for
consistency across classes and schools. While the policy did not refer to integrated
learning, a key feature of middle school philosophy, it argued for “uncluttering” the
middle phase curriculum to provide more opportunities for “deeper understanding
and higher levels of engagement in learning” (Education Queensland, 2003, p. 9).
Significantly, the State School Action Plan identified that there was a lack of
identity and recognition for middle school teachers. It argued that the separation of
teaching sectors into primary and secondary did not recognise the middle phase of
learning, the importance of the relationship between teachers and students or the
professional role of middle years teachers. Further, the plan noted “that teaching in
the Middle Learning is not identified as a discrete and valued career option for many
teachers and there is a perceived lack of identity, status and recognition for these
teachers as a cohort” (Education Queensland, 2003, p. 11). It recommended further
professional development, better preparation of pre-service middle years teachers
and recognition of the middle phase in teacher awards.
50 Middle school social sciences: Exploring teachers’ conceptions of essential knowledge
The Queensland middle school policies are significant to this study because it
is clear that, at least since 2002, Queensland SOSE teachers have been working in a
policy and curriculum context that has appeared to value the philosophies of middle
schooling. Of all the policies reviewed for this study, only the Queensland State
School Action Plan notes the role and perception of teachers in middle school. This
chapter will explore the notion of middle years teacher identity, first highlighted in
the policy, in relation to knowledge for teaching the curriculum. The following
section examines the Queensland SOSE curriculum and its relevance to the middle
years context.
Studies of Society and Environment (SOSE)
Studies of Society and Environment (SOSE), integrates the social sciences into
one subject, posing many challenges for middle school teachers. A compulsory
subject for all students in the primary and middle years of schooling in Queensland,
it is worth noting that the term “SOSE” refers to both the national KLA and its
various State and Territory curriculum manifestations. This study investigates
Queensland middle school SOSE teachers’ conceptions of essential knowledge in
SOSE which, for the most part, is informed by their understanding of the Queensland
SOSE syllabus (Queensland School Curriculum Council, 2000) and revisions in the
form of the Queensland SOSE Essential Learnings (Queensland Studies Authority,
2007b; 2007c) in the period immediately prior to the articulation of the new
discipline-based national curriculum.
The Queensland SOSE curriculum documents referred to in this study are the
Studies of Society and Environment: Years 1-10 Syllabus (Queensland School
Curriculum Council, 2000), referred to hereafter as the SOSE Syllabus, and the
Studies of Society and Environment; Years 1-10 Sourcebook Guidelines (Queensland
School Curriculum Council, 2001), referred to hereafter as the SOSE Guidelines. The
latter is a teacher’s guide to the syllabus, containing content and process elaborations
on each of the core learning outcomes found in the syllabus. As discussed in Chapter
1 (Education policy on social education – post-2000), the Queensland SOSE
Essential Learnings (Queensland Studies Authority, 2007b; 2007c), referred to
hereafter as the Essential Learnings, are the most recent addition to the SOSE
curriculum materials. These curriculum statements replaced the outcomes in the
Chapter 2: The Middle Years and SOSE Curriculum 51
previous curriculum and target what is important for students to know, understand
and be able to do in SOSE by the end of Years 3, 5, 7 and 9. While the Essential
Learnings replaced the outcomes, the conceptualisation of the learning area is
consistent with the original Queensland SOSE Syllabus and underpins teachers’
conceptions of knowledge in this study.
The SOSE Syllabus is based on the principles of outcomes-based education and
comprises Foundation Level Statements for each of the six levels from Years 1 to 10,
with Core Learning Outcomes for each of the four SOSE strands. Each of the SOSE
outcomes states what students “know and can do” in relation to the concepts and
processes associated with the levels of learning, in increasing levels of
“sophistication and complexity of learning outcomes” (Queensland School
Curriculum Council, 2001, p. 12). SOSE is usually taught as an integrated study,
although in Years 9 and 10, there is also the option to study SOSE based on optional
civics, history or geography syllabuses. The organisation of the conceptual and
procedural/process detail of the SOSE curriculum using the outcomes-based
approach, according to Marsh (2010), was part of a national approach to all the
KLAs under the Australian Education Council. The focus on outcomes-based
education has implications for teachers’ knowledge, which are examined below.
The SOSE outcomes in the Queensland curriculum are complex and highlight
concerns regarding teachers’ knowledge for SOSE. For example, the following two
outcomes depict progression in terms of content and process from Level 4 to Level 5
in the strand of Place and Space:
PS 4.5 Students explain whether personal, family and school decisions
about resource use and management balance local and global considerations.
PS 5.5 Students evaluate ideas concerning sustainability to identify who
may benefit and who may be disadvantaged from changes to a Queensland
industry. (Queensland School Curriculum Council, 2000, p. 20)
Clearly, there is an increased level of sophistication from the process of “explain” in
Level 4 to “evaluate” in Level 5. However, in writing a program for Level 4 learners,
it seems that there is huge scope in terms of what could be taught in relation to
“resource use and management” in comparison with Level 5, which is far more
specific because it deals with the sustainability of a Queensland industry. The SOSE
52 Middle school social sciences: Exploring teachers’ conceptions of essential knowledge
Guidelines (Queensland School Curriculum Council, 2001) provide suggestions for
interpreting outcomes but use of the examples was not mandated. Marsh maintains
that teachers had considerable difficulty “in assessing the levels of students and
mastering the number and complexity of outcomes” (Marsh, 2010, p. 7). As this
example illustrates, the disciplinary foundation in geography or environmental
education is ambiguous to all but the most informed teachers, indicating that the
conceptual structure of the curriculum posed difficulties for teachers’ knowledge.
Curriculum conceptualisation of SOSE
Despite a lack of clarity in the outcomes for SOSE, the rationale for the
Queensland SOSE Syllabus conceptualises and clearly states the role of the
disciplines in the curriculum: “A range of interrelated concepts associated with
particular key values and processes underpins the Studies of Society and
Environment key learning area. These are drawn from the disciplines including
history, geography, economics.” (Queensland School Curriculum Council, 2000, p.
1). The social science disciplines play a vital role in the conceptualisation of the
SOSE syllabus through its concepts, values and processes. The term “disciplinarity”
is used in this chapter to describe the significance of the social science disciplines as
a core component of the SOSE KLA and the Queensland SOSE syllabus as seen
below:
The concepts that underpin this key learning area are drawn from various
disciplines and studies and provide knowledge about people and their
environments that is important for students to understand. This knowledge is
always tentative. It remains open to challenge because of new evidence,
perspectives and methods of inquiry (Queensland School Curriculum
Council, 2000, p. 3).
The concepts in the syllabus derive from discipline-based ways of knowing. Further,
the SOSE Guidelines state that the processes of social and environmental inquiry in
the SOSE syllabus (investigating, creating, participating, communicating and
reflecting) are also “derived from various disciplines and studies” (Queensland
School Curriculum Council, 2001, p.3).
While the original conceptualisation of Studies of Society and Environment
has been criticised by some educators as inadequate (Taylor, 2007), Marsh (2010)
Chapter 2: The Middle Years and SOSE Curriculum 53
reflects that educational priorities have changed since the 1990s, when SOSE was
first introduced. At the end of the first decade of the 20th century, there was a
significant push for higher national standards in education. Marsh (2008b) maintains
that, when SOSE was first defined as single-discipline studies, multidisciplinary
studies and integrated studies, it was a considered a positive step towards reducing a
crowded curriculum and providing maximum flexibility for teachers. However, he
argues that “[T]he arguments put forward in favour of SOSE in the early 1990s about
the potential of SOSE in Australian schools now appear to be very weak” (Marsh,
2010, p. 8) due to poor conceptualisation of the knowledge base of SOSE, teachers’
lack of appropriate content and pedagogical knowledge to engage in interdisciplinary
learning, and the abandonment of outcomes-based education. Although SOSE as a
KLA is being phased out in favour of national curricula in history and geography,
some teachers might continue to teach integrated topics (such as Multiculturalism
and Australian National Identity) because they see such topics as relevant to their
students (Marsh, 2010).
Weak curriculum conceptualisation is a criticism of the social studies
curriculum. As discussed in Chapter 1, SOSE is similar to social studies as taught in
the USA. Sexias (2001) maintains that the boundaries of social studies are quite
porous; social studies rejects disciplinary definition because, as a school subject, it
does not easily correspond to the academic disciplines. Particularly in the area of
civics and citizenship, much of what is learned in SOSE is personal, procedural
knowledge, linked to broad concepts such as democracy and sustainability. This type
of learning allies poorly with a syllabus based on disciplinary structures. The uneasy
conceptualisation of SOSE based on the disciplines and integrated learning areas
may impact on teachers’ conceptions of knowledge for integrated social education.
Disciplinarity is also evident in the learning and assessment focus of the
Essential Learnings in SOSE, enacted seven years after the introduction of the
Queensland SOSE Syllabus in 2000. For example, by the end of Year 7, students will
demonstrate their knowledge and understanding through the “use of inquiry
processes and models to apply their understandings of social and environmental
topics and issues in a range of contexts” (Queensland Studies Authority, 2007b, p.1).
A constructivist approach derived from a disciplinary basis is implied in the Year 7
“Ways of Working”, as students are expected to use primary and secondary sources
54 Middle school social sciences: Exploring teachers’ conceptions of essential knowledge
and “evaluate sources of information and evidence for relevance, reliability, origins
and perspective” (Queensland Studies Authority, 2007b, p.2). By the end of Year 9,
the Essential Learnings for SOSE stipulate that students will be able to “plan
investigations using discipline-specific inquiry models and processes” (Queensland
Studies Authority, 2007c, p.2). The Queensland SOSE curriculum appears to centre
on teaching issues (Kennedy, 2008a), however, the support materials for teachers
explicitly refer to how teaching and learning can be undertaken through the
disciplinary perspectives of history and geography (Queensland School Curriculum
Council, 2001). In contrast to the original conception of SOSE, in line with the
national push towards a discipline-based curriculum (see Chapter 1), the Essential
Learnings emphasise the disciplinary basis of SOSE. This gradual shift from
integration to disciplines is significant for this study for it may manifest itself in
middle years’ teachers’ conceptions of essential knowledge for social education.
Although disciplinarity is key to the conceptualisation of the content and
process basis of the Essential Learnings, a first glance at the nomenclature of the
Queensland curriculum reveals that the syllabus is not easily defined by the social
science disciplines. The curriculum is organised into four “strands”, which are based
on the disciplines and related areas of study: Time, Continuity and Change is based
on history; Place and Space is based on geography and environmental education;
Culture and Identity incorporates cultural studies, Aboriginal and Torres Strait
Islander studies, sociology and media studies; and Political and Economic Systems
draws on political science, legal studies, economics, civics and citizenship. The
strands integrate and interrelate the concepts of the social science disciplines through
the common learning “processes” and the key “values” of democratic process, social
justice, sustainability and peace. Thus, although the social science disciplines are an
important feature of the syllabus, they are only one aspect of a multi-dimensional
curriculum.
SOSE – an example of middle years curriculum
From this analysis of the Queensland SOSE Syllabus and Essential Learnings,
it is clear that, while the curriculum is underpinned by the disciplines, it is generally
conceptualised and taught as an integrated curriculum. In this way, SOSE may be
considered a good example of middle school curriculum (Carnegie Council on
Chapter 2: The Middle Years and SOSE Curriculum 55
Adolescent Development, 1989; Jackson & Davis, 2000). Carrington (2006, p. 103)
considers that an integrated curriculum is one of the “signature practices” of middle
schooling. A curriculum that is negotiated and responsive to the needs of learners
was endorsed in the depiction of learners and learning presented in the 2000
Queensland SOSE syllabus: “learning requires active construction of meaning and is
most effective when it is developed in meaningful contexts and accommodates,
acknowledges and builds on prior knowledge” (Queensland School Curriculum
Council, 2000, p. 8). The syllabus promoted a learner-centred approach based on the
principles of inquiry learning “by using problem-solving and decision-making
techniques of various traditions of inquiry” (Queensland School Curriculum Council,
2000, p. 8). Through the use of reflective inquiry, social education related the
disciplines to the interests, concerns and educational needs of young people in the
middle years of schooling. As discussed in Chapter 1, the 2007 QCARF reforms that
resulted in the SOSE Essential Learnings aimed to improve learning in the middle
years through greater attention to the disciplines.
However, there is a lack of consensus on whether middle years social
education is best achieved by focusing on single disciplines, studying social issues
rather than the disciplines, or taking an integrated approach involving a range of
disciplines (Kennedy, 2005, pp. 7-12). Teachers’ perspectives have not been taken
into consideration by researchers, leading to some gaps in our understanding of
teachers’ perspectives on how the social science sciences should be taught in the
middle years of schooling. This is particularly important, as social sciences are
taught as separate disciplines in the senior phase of schooling in all Australian
jurisdictions and study in the middle years provides the foundation.
A phenomenographical study offers the opportunity to explore conceptions of
knowledge from the perspective of teachers, revealing a different and hitherto
unexamined perspective on knowledge of SOSE. Queensland SOSE is an example of
efforts to meet the cognitive, social and developmental needs of middle school
students through curriculum integration. Moreover, the wide scope of social and
environmental topics in SOSE enables middle years teachers, as curriculum makers
(see Chapter 1), to help students to better understand their world. As teachers of an
integrated curriculum, middle years SOSE teachers are uniquely placed to interpret
the curriculum with students’ needs in mind. Such practice reveals SOSE teachers as
56 Middle school social sciences: Exploring teachers’ conceptions of essential knowledge
curriculum makers in the classroom, illustrating Clandinin and Connelly’s (1992)
view that the teacher is integral to curriculum constructed in the classroom.
The philosophical basis of SOSE is now explored to establish its conceptual
foundation.
Philosophical basis of SOSE
The philosophical foundation of the Queensland SOSE curriculum appears
indebted to Dewey (1916/1944) and may be understood in relation to Habermas’
(1971) theories of knowledge constitutive interests. Each is explored in the following
sections.
Dewey (1916/1944)
The philosophical foundation for studying the disciplines in a way that
connects established bodies of knowledge can be traced back to John Dewey
(1916/1944), who did not want to abandon traditional subjects in the curriculum but
“wanted them to be taught in a way that makes them genuine subject matter”
(Noddings, 1998, p. 37). Dewey held that studying history and geography was “a
way of explaining human activity, enlarging social connections, or solving social
problems” (Noddings, 1998, p. 37).
Dewey’s discussion of history and geography as, “the information studies par
excellence of the schools” (Dewey, 1916/1944, p. 210) is rooted in a disciplinary-
based understanding of the two areas. He stated that:
To “learn geography” is to gain in power to perceive the spatial, the natural,
connections of an ordinary act; to “learn history” is essentially to gain in
power to recognize its human connections. For what is called geography as a
formulated study is simply the body of facts and principles which have been
discovered in other men’s experience about the natural medium in which we
live, and in connection with which the particular acts of our life have an
explanation. So history as a formulated study is but the body of known facts
about the activities and sufferings of the social groups with which our own
lives are continuous, and through reference to which our own customs and
institutions are illuminated. (Dewey, 1916/1944, p. 210)
Chapter 2: The Middle Years and SOSE Curriculum 57
For Dewey, “the body of known facts and principles” of history and geography are
important, not purely because they suggest “the matter which has been traditionally
sanctioned in schools” (Dewey, 1916/1944, p. 210) but because they give us power
to understand our world better. His conceptualisation of the disciplines as school
subjects is that they are much more important than facts, principles and details.
Dewey (1916/1944) maintained that the proper study of history and geography
provided students with empowering ways of knowing about their world. In an age
when the distinctions between disciplines were well regarded, Dewey (1916/1944)
proposed that it was through understanding the interdependence of history and
geography that each discipline as an area of school study gained importance. He
maintained that:
Examination of the materials and the method of their use [history and
geography] will make clear that the difference between penetration of this
information into living experience and its mere piling up in isolated heaps
depends upon whether these studies are faithful to the interdependence of
man and nature which affords these studies their justification. (Dewey,
1916/1944, p. 210)
Dewey’s (1916/1944) use of the term “interdependence” points to the
complementary aspects of history and geography; in his view, the one should inform
the other, so that the study of each is not reduced to a study of facts and principles:
When this interdependence of the study of history, representing the human
emphasis, with the study of geography, representing the natural, is ignored,
history sinks to a listing of dates with appended inventory of events, labelled
important “important”, or else it becomes a literary phantasy—for in purely
literary history the natural environment is but stage scenery. (Dewey,
1916/1944, p. 211)
While Dewey (1916/1944) believed that history and geography should be studied as
interdependent subjects, he was not, however, arguing for integrating history with
geography. Rather, his idea that the lines between the disciplines should be less rigid
and that students should be able to make sense of the curriculum in terms of their
own experience, is one that resonates with us today (Noddings, 1998).
58 Middle school social sciences: Exploring teachers’ conceptions of essential knowledge
The dual focus on disciplinarity and on the students’ own lives, which
characterised Dewey’s work, is apparent in the 2000 Queensland SOSE curriculum,
particularly the 2007 SOSE Essential Learnings. For example, the Essential
Learnings for Year 9 SOSE state:
Students use their knowledge and understanding about the complex
interactions between people, and between people and their environments, to
investigate social, political, economic, environmental and cultural ideas and
issues. They clarify their personal values and acknowledge others’ values
and world views in a range of contexts and settings. (Queensland Studies
Authority, 2007c, p.1)
As the quotation above illustrates, the curriculum intends that students learn more
about themselves as they learn more about the world. SOSE is also characterised by
socially-critical approaches to knowledge and pedagogy, attributed to Habermas
(1971).
Habermas (1971)
The socially-critical approach to knowledge derived from the work of the
German critical theorist, Jürgen Habermas (1971), on knowledge-constitutive
interests underpins the 2000 Queensland SOSE Syllabus (Queensland School
Curriculum Council, 2000, p. 8; Hoepper & McDonald, 2004). Habermas’ (1971)
proposals on the foundation of human knowledge and action provide a framework
for making meaning of curriculum practice (Grundy, 1987). Although he did not
comment directly on education as social practice, Habermas’ (1971) theory of
knowledge-constitutive interests has been widely applied in education (Grundy,
1987; Ewart, 1991) and underpins the view implicit in the SOSE curriculum that
students should learn about the world in order to make a difference to society.
Habermas’ (1971) theory of knowledge-constitutive interests is concerned with
three domains of human interest: the technical interest; the interpretive (practical or
hermeneutic) interest; and the emancipatory interest. First, the technical interest
refers to empirical knowledge of the laws that control the environment. In curriculum
construction, the technical interest is concerned with defining and controlling the
outcomes of student learning (Grundy, 1987). In SOSE, the technical interest
includes the propositional knowledge of the social science disciplines, emerging
Chapter 2: The Middle Years and SOSE Curriculum 59
from “what” and “how” questions (Hoepper, 2011). Second, the interpretive interest
takes into consideration the pre-understanding held by the interpreter: “Hermeneutic
knowledge is always mediated through this pre-understanding, which is derived from
the interpreter’s initial situation” (Habermas, 1971, p. 309). The interpretive or
practical interest is broadly directed towards student/teacher interaction to develop
meaning and understanding of human experience and the world in which we live. In
SOSE, the interpretive interest emerges in response to “why” questions and is
interested in understanding motives and actions (Hoepper, 2011). Third, the basis of
the emancipatory interest or what Habermas (1971, p. 310) calls the “critique of
ideology” is self-reflection. In contrast, to the technical and interpretive interests, the
emancipatory interest in the curriculum is concerned with empowering students to
understand how their aims and purposes may have been distorted or repressed by
hegemonic beliefs (Carr & Kemmis, 1986). The focus of the emancipatory interest is
to actively engage learners in meaningful experiences so that they perceive the world
in a critical way, enabling them to engage in responsible, authentic actions to make a
difference (Grundy, 1987).
In their discussion of forms of knowledge in curriculum integration, Wallace,
Venville and Rennie (2010) posit that the technical interest refers to understanding
the techniques, ideas and concepts from the disciplines, the practical interest refers to
how students make sense of the topic themselves and communicate their ideas, and
the critical interest is concerned with how students examine and question the existing
status quo, with a view to taking action to achieve change. All three knowledge-
constitutive interests have a role in SOSE, however, the emancipatory interest is of
most significance as it forms the basis of critical pedagogy and socially-critical
thinking to create a just, democratic and sustainable society (Gilbert, 2004). As with
Dewey’s (1916/1944) views on the interdependence of the disciplines, Habermas’
(1971) theory of knowledge-constitutive interests may provide an insight into
teachers’ ways of thinking about knowledge for SOSE.
In sum, in the seven years between the introduction of SOSE in 2000 and the
Essential Learnings in 2007, the focus of Queensland SOSE shifted to emphasise the
disciplines while retaining the overarching framework of an integrated curriculum.
The integrated approach to knowledge, based on discipline-specific ways of
knowing, necessitates well-informed teachers conversant in humanities and social
60 Middle school social sciences: Exploring teachers’ conceptions of essential knowledge
sciences. Moreover, from 2011 onwards, Queensland SOSE teachers will teach the
discipline-based Australian Curriculum. As indicated in the section on “Expectations
of teachers in the Australian Curriculum” in Chapter 1, although there is scope in the
Australian Curriculum for interdisciplinary learning, the national curricula in history
(ACARA, 2010c) and geography (ACARA, 2010a; ACARA. 2011) are clearly
discipline-based. A foundation in the individual disciplines is now perceived to
prepare students to work effectively across discipline boundaries. A
phenomenographic investigation of teachers’ conceptions of essential knowledge in
social education will shed some light on middle years teachers’ capacity in this area.
Accordingly, the following section explores diverse understandings of integrated
curriculum frameworks.
Integrated curriculum frameworks
The conceptualisation of “integration” in SOSE curriculum frameworks
continues to be a matter for debate. Integrated curriculum frameworks contrast with
disciplinary frameworks and include three distinct forms of curriculum –
interdisciplinary, multidisciplinary and trans-disciplinary curricula (Harris & Marsh,
2007; de Leo, 2006). The following is a brief look at each approach.
Multidisciplinary and interdisciplinary approaches are types of integrated
curriculum. In both approaches, the areas of study are organised around a unifying
theme but retain the distinguishing characteristics of the disciplines. The difference
is that in a multidisciplinary approach, students draw connections between the
disciplines, which are studied separately, though connected through a theme or issue.
In contrast, interdisciplinary curriculum approaches work at the periphery of
established disciplines to consider important social issues that do not fall neatly into
one or other of the disciplines (Harris & Marsh, 2007). Venville, Wallace, Rennie
and Malone (2002, p. 48-49) affirm that in “an interdisciplinary approach the
subjects are interconnected beyond a theme or issue and the connections are made
explicit to the pupils”. In contrast to both multidisciplinary and interdisciplinary
approaches, a trans-disciplinary approach dissolves the boundaries between the
social science disciplines and “teachers and students work across a range of
disciplines to address a particular problem or issue” (Harris & Marsh, 2007, p. 10).
Chapter 2: The Middle Years and SOSE Curriculum 61
In a trans-disciplinary approach, study begins with a real-life context, such as climate
change, rather than the disciplines.
In each of these integrated approaches, it is held that the boundaries between
disciplines are broken down and the connections between them are emphasised for a
deeper understanding of the issue. Although the teaching of SOSE may draw on
elements of each approach, it is argued that a multidisciplinary focus on a range of
disciplines and study areas is dominant. Harris and Marsh (2007) assert that SOSE
attempted a multidisciplinary curriculum structure, although at its inception in the
1990s, it was not clear what form of curriculum integration would emerge. The
implementation of SOSE was an attempt at curriculum integration, although it was
under-conceptualised as a KLA and introduced at a time when there was an
established disciplinary culture of school subjects (Harris & Marsh, 2007).
Based on her study of the national SOSE blueprints, Johnston (2007) argues
that, while SOSE drew on disciplinary frameworks, it promoted a multidisciplinary
approach where the distinctive elements of the disciplines were brought together in
one KLA. Indeed, Dowden (2007, p. 58) argues that the SOSE KLA is an example of
“fused curriculum” within a multidisciplinary framework, as diverse subject areas
such as history, geography economics, values education and citizenship were
absorbed into one without regard for subject boundaries. While this
conceptualisation may describe SOSE as a KLA, it does not accurately describe the
implementation of middle school SOSE in Queensland, where both discrete
discipline-based and integrated units were implemented within an overarching
integrative framework. In sum, the consensus seems to be that SOSE is
multidisciplinary, even though the integrative curriculum structures were not clearly
articulated at its inception.
However, is a multidisciplinary approach a suitable foundation for curriculum
integration in middle school? Dowden (2007, p. 55) observed that the terminology
associated with curriculum integration is confusing, with terms such as “integrated
curriculum, interdisciplinary curriculum, multidisciplinary curriculum, fused
curricula, transdisciplinary curriculum, cross-disciplinary curriculum and
integrative curriculum” used to label various models of curriculum integration.
Wallace et al. (2010) maintain that reference to these approaches in the literature
62 Middle school social sciences: Exploring teachers’ conceptions of essential knowledge
presupposes a hierarchy of curriculum integration and that some forms of integration
are better than others. Further, “it assumes a particular view of knowledge itself,
where integrated knowledge is said to stand separately from other discipline-based
forms of knowledge” (Wallace et al., 2010, p. 200). The Australian Curriculum
(ACARA, 2010a) appears to manifest such ambiguities; Phase 1 subjects are based
on the disciplines with general capabilities and cross-curriculum priorities developed
as a separate measure to link areas of knowledge. Given the opposing views on the
merits of integration, the following examines theories of middle school curriculum.
Theories of middle school curriculum
Curriculum integration in middle schooling, according to Dowden (2007), is
generally based on either Beane’s (1997) student-centred integrative model or
Jacob’s (1989, 1997) subject-centred, interdisciplinary model. Curriculum
integration describes curriculum organised around organising centres, which are
significant problems or themes that connect school learning with the world at large.
The organising centres unify the knowledge. Knowledge is developed when the
theme or organising centre is explored. Beane (1997, pp. 1-2) argues that, “here is a
curriculum that seeks connections in all directions, and because of that special kind
of unity, it is given the name curriculum integration”. It is argued that curriculum
integration draws on important ideas from the disciplines which have real meaning in
students’ lives (Beane, 1995). The dimensions of curriculum integration, according
to Beane (1997), are integration of experience, social integration and integration of
knowledge across different subject fields. Curriculum integration is about making
links to all areas (school subjects, the community, the past, the future, and the
environment) so that knowledge is more accessible and meaningful to students,
helping them understand themselves and their world (Beane, 1997).
In contrast, Jacobs’ (1989) subject-centred model emphasises that
interdisciplinary programs must be carefully designed to include scope and sequence,
encourage thinking skills and incorporate both discipline-based and interdisciplinary
experiences. While a thorough knowledge of the disciplines is central to the nature of
knowledge, interdisciplinary curriculum “consciously applies methodology and
language from more than one discipline to examine a central theme, issue, problem,
topic or experience” (Jacobs, 1989, p. 8). In contrast to Beane’s (1997) student-
Chapter 2: The Middle Years and SOSE Curriculum 63
centred model, Jacobs (1989, p. 55) does not emphasise making the curriculum
relevant to students and acknowledging individual differences, although students are
accorded a limited role in planning integrated units. Jacobs (1997) emphasises long-
term planning and integration of different subject areas through curriculum mapping
to ensure that core subject matter and skills are covered.
However, drawing on Dewey’s (1902) criticism that subject-centred
approaches to curriculum lack relevance to students, Dowden (2007) maintains that
the subject-centred, interdisciplinary model is less appropriate for middle school
curriculum design because it does not does not encourage students to take
responsibility for their learning and is indifferent to the developmental needs of early
adolescents. Adopting a position midway between Beane’s (1997) student-centred
approach and Jacob’s (1997) subject-centred approach, Marsh (1994) suggests that
curriculum integration in social education may be considered a continuum, ranging
from the teaching of separate discipline-based subjects at different times through to
activities where teachers and students jointly plan and implement activities. In this
study, curriculum integration is understood within Beane’s (1997) student-centred
integrative model, as the SOSE national Statements and Profiles, based on the
principles of outcomes-based education, were primarily concerned with making
social education accessible and relevant to the learner.
What are the perceived benefits of curriculum integration? According to Beane
(1997), making knowledge accessible and meaningful to students encourages a more
democratic relationship between teachers and students. These arrangements “help to
create democratic classroom settings as a context for social integration” (Beane,
1997, p. 6). A key aspect of curriculum integration is involving students in the
process of curriculum development (Frazer & Rudnitski, 1995; Beane, 1997).
Further, curriculum integration is said to focus on educating the person rather than
achieving subject mastery: “Curriculum integration centres the curriculum on life
itself rather than on the mastery of fragmented information within the boundaries of
subject areas” (Beane, 1997, p. 18). It reduces the fragmentation of knowledge taught
in separate school subjects and encourages students to search for the patterns in, and
connections between, subject areas (Frazer & Rudnitski, 1995). Clearly Queensland
SOSE subscribes to these views, as the section on pedagogy curriculum advocates
“learner-centred inquiry” (Queensland School Curriculum Council, 2000, p. 8).
64 Middle school social sciences: Exploring teachers’ conceptions of essential knowledge
However, there are problems with implementation, particularly in schools that
strongly value the disciplines. Beane (1997) identifies two main criticisms of the
integrative curriculum. First, the emphasis on “subject area sequences” disappears
and disciplinary knowledge is called upon when it is relevant to the theme (Beane,
1997, p. 45). Second, there is concern about whether all of the information and skills
that would have been taught satisfactorily in separate subject areas will be achieved
in curriculum integration. Beane (1997, p. 46) acknowledges these criticisms but
asserts that curriculum integration has the virtue of addressing “knowledge that
ordinarily falls between the cracks of disciplines and subject areas”. The claim that
those who fear that integrated curriculum will destroy the integrity of the disciplines
are really responding to a loss of subject boundaries and “dominant-culture
knowledge” (Beane, 1997, pp. 46-47). The conceptualisation of the Queensland
SOSE curriculum preserved a significant role for discipline-based knowledge taught
within an integrative framework. Despite concerns about maintaining discipline-
specific knowledge, the structure of Queensland SOSE attempted to facilitate the
teaching of disciplinary structures within an overarching integrated framework. How
this structure may have influenced teachers’ conceptions of knowledge forms a key
focus of this study. To date, researchers have not paid attention to this area of
teachers’ knowledge.
In reference to the learner-centred approach in Queensland SOSE, different
forms of integration have a bearing on middle school practice. Wallace et al. (2010,
p. 191) describe six forms of integration based on their observations of Australian
middle schools, which fit within a “worldly perspective on integrated practice”.
These include: 1) the synchronised approach, where elements of the middle school
curriculum are planned in advance and involves teachers from different subject areas
making links to other topics, sometimes using common assessment tasks; 2) the
cross-curricular approach, which harmonises common skills, concepts or attitudes
embedded across the curriculum, often through big ideas and important life skills; 3)
the thematic approach, where common middle school subjects are taught separately
in subject-specific classes but are linked by a common theme across a term or a
semester; 4) the project-based approach, where the curriculum is organised around a
series of projects or tasks that blurs the boundaries between subjects; 5) a school-
specialised approach, where there is an extended commitment to integration through
Chapter 2: The Middle Years and SOSE Curriculum 65
the infrastructure of the school, such as through the performing arts; and 6) a
community-focused approach, where students try to solve or make recommendations
based on an issue or problem in the community. These forms of curriculum
integration indicate a holistic view of knowledge, where the “big issues, concerns or
interests become the organising framework rather than serving as illustrations of
disciplinary concepts” (Wallace et al., 2010, p. 200). In holistic education, teaching
about big ideas and issues is more important than teaching discipline-based concepts.
Issues in implementing integrated curriculum in middle school
The need for curriculum integration in middle school is not widely understood
amongst teachers, even though some may integrate the curriculum as part of their
practice (Venville, Wallace, Rennie & Malone, 2002). On the one hand, it has
“intrinsic virtue, in terms of the way that knowledge is organised—as connected,
embodied, ecological, harmonised knowledge” (Venville et al., 2002, p. 51), and on
the other (based on the work of Hargreaves, Earl, Moore & Manning, 2001),
curriculum integration is promoted as a response to practical problems related to
adolescents who are alienated from school, disengaged from the curriculum and
under-achieving in the early years of secondary school. An “authentic” approach to
curriculum has also been proposed to engage students in academic work and connect
the classroom to the world beyond it (Marks, 2000). While primary teachers are well
used to integrating diverse areas, secondary teachers are far more resistant to the
challenge of developing sound conceptual understandings and suitable assessment
across subject areas (Godinho, 2007).
The question of maintaining academic rigour within an integrated curriculum
framework concerns teachers in schools with a dominant disciplinary culture
(Venville et al., 2002). Disciplinary knowledge is not the starting point for activities;
rather, according to Beane (1997), the disciplines are resources for the context of the
theme. As a result, the direct teaching associated with subject-specific content in a
discipline-based curriculum may not be emphasised. Further, curriculum integration
is also associated with outcomes-based education because it focuses on long-term
educational outcomes and “big ideas” as a way of integrating subject-specific content
(Chadbourne & Pendergast, 2010; Jackson & Davis, 2000). However, if curriculum
and pedagogy must be “authentic” and connected to the real world (Newman &
66 Middle school social sciences: Exploring teachers’ conceptions of essential knowledge
Associates, 1996), middle school students may be denied the opportunity to learn
about things they find intrinsically interesting or that have enduring educational
value but no direct, practical application (Chadbourne & Pendergast, 2010).
Another important consideration in curriculum integration is the context of
schooling and the perception of school subjects within the school. Venville et al.
(2002, p. 56) assert “that traditional school subjects like science occupy ‘high
ground’ status”. Compared with history and geography, the integrated nature of
SOSE may render it a low status subject. Some teachers’ reluctance to work in
middle schools was based on the perception that it was more prestigious to work in
senior schools because of the academic nature of the subject matter (Wallace,
Sheffield, Rennie, & Venville, 2007).
In her seminal work on the role of subject matter in teaching, Stodolsky (1988)
found that the teaching approach adopted for mathematics and social studies
programs depended on how the field was structured. She argued that the teacher-
centred approach was found in sequential subjects such as history and geography,
compared to more progressive approaches to social studies, where “the flexibility of
content coverage in other aspects of social studies, indeed the arbitrariness and
fuzziness, may permit or encourage a broader range of instructional arguments”
(Stodolsky, 1988, p. 116).
Teachers’ beliefs about and actions on the importance of covering content may
be based on their perceptions of the status of the subject (Stodolsky & Grossman,
1995). High status, academic school subjects, such as chemistry, physics, biology
and mathematics, are perceived to be coherent in scope and more sequentially
dependent, compared to general, integrated subjects such as social studies, where
students can move easily from one topic to another (Grossman & Stodolsky, 1995;
Venville et al, 2002). In contrast, social studies, English and science (in comparison
with mathematics and foreign languages) were found to be dynamic subjects, giving
teachers much greater autonomy and high levels of curriculum control (Stodolsky &
Grossman, 1995). Investigating teachers’ conceptions of essential knowledge for
SOSE will provide a unique insight into the perception of integrated social education
in the middle school curriculum from the perspective of teachers.
Chapter 2: The Middle Years and SOSE Curriculum 67
Finally, Queensland SOSE demanded a new role for teachers, with significant
adjustments to their self-identity as subject specialists (Dowden, 2007). While
teachers’ subject knowledge of the disciplines is still very important, “in curriculum
integration, teachers work first as generalists on integrative themes and secondarily
as content specialists” (Beane, 1997, p. 45). As Beane and Brodhagen (2001) attest,
moving to a student-centred, integrative curriculum was a paradigm shift for those
attached to their identity as subject teachers:
One needs to explore more fully what happens to teachers’ thinking and
work as they engage in curriculum approaches that involve philosophies of
curriculum, learning, and knowledge organization that are fundamentally
different from the separate subject approach. How does the teacher role
change? How do teacher-student relationships change? (Beane &
Brodhagen, 2001, p. 1169)
In light of this call for research into teachers’ thinking, investigating teachers’
conceptions of essential knowledge through phenomenography is an opportunity to
explore teachers’ thinking in relation to the Queensland SOSE curriculum. Even
though Australia is currently shifting to a discipline-based national curriculum,
elements such as general capabilities and cross-curriculum priorities in the
Australian Curriculum are ways in which interdisciplinary connections between
subject boundaries are promoted (see Chapter 1, pp. 31-32). In researching teaching
beyond subject boundaries, issues of teacher identity as part of the knowledge base
for teaching integrated social education may be revealed. Questions of identity are
linked to attitudes and beliefs and this type of teacher thinking is explored in the next
section.
Teachers’ attitudes and beliefs
Considering the challenges of teaching in the middle years, teachers’ attitudes
and beliefs towards students, teaching and the curriculum play a significant role in
informing practice in the middle years. Pajares (1992) argues that the study of
teachers’ beliefs is a legitimate area of inquiry as it can inform how students learn.
Insufficient attention has been paid “to the structure and functions of teachers’
beliefs about their roles, their students, the subject matter areas they teach, and the
schools they work in” (Nespor, 1987, p. 317). While research into teachers’ beliefs is
68 Middle school social sciences: Exploring teachers’ conceptions of essential knowledge
closely allied with the field of educational psychology, in this study it is relevant to
consider the role of teachers’ beliefs and attitudes in relation to curriculum
implementation and teaching practice.
Pajares (1992) points to the “strong relationship between teachers’ educational
beliefs and their planning, instructional decisions, and classroom practices” (Pajares,
1992, p. 326). He noted that many terms were used to define beliefs, including
attitudes, values, perceptions, conceptions and perspectives, to name a few from the
literature; furthermore, there was confusion around the distinction between beliefs
and knowledge. The theorisation of teachers’ knowledge by Clandinin and Connelly
(1987) as personal practical knowledge found that studies of teachers’ beliefs used a
huge variety of terms, including principles of practice, teachers’ conceptions,
personal knowledge and practical knowledge. This view of teachers’ knowledge
refers to knowledge held by “teachers as knowers: knowers of themselves, of their
situations, of children, of subject matter, of teaching, of learning” (Connelly &
Clandinin (1999, p. 1). In many cases, different words were used for the same
construct, which made it difficult to ascertain the difference between knowledge and
beliefs (Clandinin & Connelly, 1987; Pajares, 1992).
In this phenomenographic study, the term “conception” is used to describe the
way that teachers conceive of, or conceptualise, their understanding of “knowledge”
for SOSE. The aim is to elicit a qualitative understanding of teachers’ perceptions of
their knowledge from their point of view; however, given the difficulty in identifying
clear differences between knowledge and beliefs, the notion of “knowledge” in this
research is broad. Accordingly, the study aims to identify the cognitive and affective
dimensions of SOSE teachers’ knowledge. The following briefly explores the nature
of each dimension.
In teaching practice, cognitive aspects of what teachers expect students to learn
are commonly stated in relation to the Taxonomy of Educational Objectives (Bloom,
Engelhart, Furst, Hill & Krathwohl, 1956). Originally devised as a tool to classify
and measure educational objectives, Bloom et al. (1956) considered that the
Taxonomy could be used to communicate learning goals in relation to students,
subject matter and grade levels. In the six original categories of the Taxonomy of
Knowledge, Comprehension, Application, Analysis, Synthesis and Evaluation, the
Chapter 2: The Middle Years and SOSE Curriculum 69
Knowledge category was dual in nature, where subject matter was framed as
“content” and as a cognitive “process”, entailing what had to be done with the
content. Recognising the contribution of cognitive psychology since the original
Taxonomy was framed, the revised Taxonomy Table (Krathwohl, 2002) has two
dimensions: Knowledge and Cognitive Processes. The Knowledge Dimension
incorporates Factual knowledge, Conceptual knowledge, Procedural knowledge and
Metacognitive knowledge, and the Cognitive Process Dimension features Remember,
Understand, Apply, Analyse, Evaluate and Create. The revised structure is still
hierarchical but is less rigid than its predecessor and acknowledges the more
complex cognitive processes involved in teaching such as Understand and Create.
The Taxonomy Table (Krathwohl, 2002) is significant for this study because it may
reflect features of teachers’ conceptions of essential knowledge for SOSE, even
though teachers may not consciously separate the knowledge and cognitive processes
in describing their knowledge.
In addition to the cognitive dimension, this study also embraces a view of
knowledge for teaching subject matter that includes the affective dimension. Pajares
(1992, p.310) argues that cognitive knowledge also has “its own affective and
evaluative component”, which is more closely associated with attitudes and beliefs
than with knowledge. Nespor (1987, p. 319) theorises that the affective and
evaluative components of belief systems are separate from the cognition associated
with knowledge systems, stating, “Thus knowledge of a domain can be conceptually
distinguished from feelings about that domain” and arguing that teachers’
conceptions of subject matter are influenced by the values they place on the content.
For example, Nespor (1987) found that those history teachers who did not feel that
teaching facts was the main goal of history education, because it was focused on
short-term memorisation, developed other teaching goals with more long-term
student impact, such as manners, how to behave in class, or learning skills such as
note-taking. Clandinin and Connelly (1987) conclude that, although many studies of
teacher thought are framed in cognitive terms, in their view, personal and practical
knowledge of teachers based on cognitive and affective understanding promotes a
more useful and viable understanding of what it means to be educated. Clearly,
knowledge and beliefs are closely intertwined in the literature (Pajares, 1992). The
70 Middle school social sciences: Exploring teachers’ conceptions of essential knowledge
current phenomenographic study may reveal features of the cognitive and affective
dimensions of teachers’ conceptions of essential knowledge for SOSE.
In sum, curriculum integration is promoted in middle schools to deal with the
practical problems of alienated adolescents who are under-achieving at school.
Challenge to teachers in integrating curriculum
Despite the significant benefits for students’ overall learning, integrated
subjects such as SOSE may be perceived as soft, low status and less rigorous,
presenting a challenge to teachers working in this milieu. What do teachers think of
curriculum integration? Teachers’ attitudes to curriculum integration were generally
positive because it was perceived that integrating subjects saved time on the time-
table and also promote student-centred learning (Shriner, Schlee, & Libler, 2010;
Weilbacher, 2001). Despite their initial enthusiasm, the four teachers in Weilbacher’s
case study (2001) were hindered by time constraints around planning, difficulties in
working collaboratively with other teachers and the need to defend curriculum
integration teaching practices. These teachers returned to more traditional teaching
approaches but continued to use elements of curriculum integration periodically.
Long-term educational reforms like the changes to middle school curriculum
place new demands on teachers. Shulman and Sherin (2004, p. 136) observe that,
“School reform efforts in the USA have often emphasised disciplinary or
interdisciplinary ideas, but ignored the demands upon teachers of these aspects of the
reform.” Teachers who introduce interdisciplinary reforms into their classrooms face
four problems that challenge the domain-specific nature of their work. These are: 1)
the challenge to devise, adapt and plan instruction around a substantive big
curriculum idea; 2) the need to jigsaw the connecting sub-topics or discipline-based
concepts to the big idea; 3) the challenge of bringing together teachers and different
curriculum traditions; and 4) the different ways of implementing interdisciplinary
curriculum in a learning community (Shulman & Sherin, 2004). Wallace et al. (2010)
noted the significance of these challenges, as curriculum integration in middle school
requires teachers to do different things with the curriculum and to work outside the
disciplinary culture of schooling.
Chapter 2: The Middle Years and SOSE Curriculum 71
Genuine efforts at curriculum integration entail a different way of teaching;
teachers must let go of a disciplinary orientation in teaching concepts in order to
make substantive connections between the disciplines, based on integrating topics or
themes. Murdoch (2007) contends that, although curricula such as the Essential
Learnings movements in Tasmania and Queensland have provided distinctive
system-level initiatives to promote curriculum integration, it is only when teachers
are clear about the “big picture” that integrative teaching can take place. Moreover,
to understand and make these deep connections, teachers need time for reflective
conversations with other teachers to build curriculum connections. They need to be
skilled at asking good questions, have a repertoire of teaching practices that promote
higher order thinking, and have a genuine interest in integrating the curriculum with
the needs and interests of the students (Murdoch, 2007).
The literature on the challenge of implementing an integrated curriculum in
middle schools is largely framed in relation to middle schooling within a secondary
schools context. Godinho (2007) points out that resistance to curriculum integration
is often exercised by secondary subject teachers. Some see themselves as gatekeepers
of discipline-based knowledge to ensure that it is not diluted or devalued. This may
especially be the case in schools where discipline-based subjects have high status
and are entrenched in school structures such as timetabling, assessment and course
progression (Godinho, 2007; Shulman & Sherin, 2004; Wallace, Venville & Rennie,
2005). Problems have also been noted with teachers’ commitment to integrated
curriculum planning, their confidence and competence in teaching the subjects
integrated, and concerns that subjects such as science, mathematics and technology
would be poorly differentiated and become an “amorphous mass” (Chan, 2006;
Venville, et al., 2002, p. 55; Weilbacher, 2001).
Despite the perceived benefits of integration in terms of students’ conceptual
understanding, some teachers felt insecure when teaching outside their knowledge
base and worried that students’ learning was compromised (Venville, Wallace,
Rennie & Malone, 2000). Underlying resistance to curriculum integration was
manifested in teachers’ defence of the integrity of their subject (Beane & Brodhagen,
2001; Godinho, 2007; Jacobs, 1989). The current research into middle years
teachers’ conceptions of essential knowledge for SOSE may illustrate aspects of the
72 Middle school social sciences: Exploring teachers’ conceptions of essential knowledge
challenges that teachers face in regard to teaching disciplinary knowledge in an
integrated framework and professional identity.
Teachers’ identity in the middle years
Teachers’ attitudes and beliefs about teaching in middle school seem to impact
their professional identity as teachers. Research into middle school practice has
alluded to compromises to teacher identity when teaching beyond separate subjects
as part of middle schooling reforms (Beane & Brodhagen, 2001; Wallace et al.,
2007). The personal investment in teaching and its impact on the professional self,
the “unavoidable interrelationships between professional and personal identities”
cannot be underestimated (Day, Kington, Stobart, & Sammons, 2006, p. 603).
Middle school teaching requires teachers to think and teach in different ways outside
the disciplinary culture of schooling. Further, as Beane and Brodhagen, (2001, p.
1166) acknowledge, “it eventually requires that teachers make changes that also
involve the more complex issues of self-identity, collegial relationships, and content
loyalty”. This study of middle school teachers’ conceptions of essential knowledge
for SOSE may illustrate the implications of the knowledge base for integrated social
education on teachers’ sense of self and their identity as teachers.
Since the late 1980s, teachers’ identity has emerged as an area of research,
although researchers have conceptualised professional identity in different ways
(Beijaard, Meijer & Verloop, 2004). The various meanings described in the literature
generally indicate that identity is not fixed, but a “relational phenomenon” or an
ongoing process (Beijaard, et al., 2004, p. 108). Teachers’ identities are constructed
around the technical and emotional aspects of teaching in schools (Nias, 1989, 1996).
The intense interaction between teachers’ personal experiences and schools is
beautifully captured in the opening quotation, “I love teaching. I hate schools” (Nias,
1996, p. 1). In work with primary teachers in the UK, Nias (1989) identified the
personal, professional, emotional and organisational aspects of teacher identity. She
argued that there was a distinction between teachers’ personal and professional
identities and noted how, over a period of time and with growing experience, they
connected to individual agency and the organisation of schools.
However, compared with primary teachers, the research on secondary teachers’
identity paints a different picture. Beijaard (1995) found that the professional identity
Chapter 2: The Middle Years and SOSE Curriculum 73
of secondary teachers derived primarily from the subject they taught. Relationships
with colleagues in the same school who taught the same subject, and the status of
these school subjects, were pivotal to secondary teachers’ professional identity.
Changes in the situation for secondary teachers, for example, the integration of
subjects, impacted negatively on their professional identity (Beijaard, 1995; Beane,
1997). These findings were further supported by a mixed methods study from the
Netherlands of eighty experienced secondary school teachers’ perceptions of
professional identity (Beijaard, Verloop & Vermunt, 2000). These teachers saw
themselves as a combination of subject matter experts, didactical experts and
pedagogical experts although, with experience, teachers’ professional identity shifted
from subject matter expertise to didactical and pedagogical expertise. As middle
years teachers are working in an upper primary or lower secondary setting, teacher
identity is likely to reflect elements from both primary and secondary teacher
identity, depending on the extent of their identification with the organisational aspect
of school or subject expertise. In relation to this study, teachers’ perception of
essential knowledge in relation to SOSE may define aspects of teacher identity.
In their review of research into professional identity, Beijaard et al. (2004)
report that teachers of low-status subjects locate their professional identity in
teaching in general, rather than in subject expertise (Paechter & Head, 1996). In a
subject such as SOSE, which might be perceived to be low status because it
integrates a range of disciplines and learning areas, middle school teachers working
in a secondary context may feel besieged. Wallace et al. (2007) observe that for
many middle school teachers, working outside their subject boundaries erodes
identification with the subjects they teach. Day et al. (2006) conclude that while
research has revealed different notions of teacher identity for primary and secondary
teachers, teachers’ identity is not always stable because all teachers are affected by
external policies, internal organisation issues and personal experiences. Emotions
also play a significant role in constructing teachers’ identity (Zembylas, 2003) as
teachers’ emotions impact on how reforms are adopted and implemented (Day et al.,
2006). Research into teachers’ responses to different contexts reveals uncertain and
fragmented “mini-narratives of identification”, including “the recollected pupil,
pressured individual, subject specialist, the person/teacher I am” and so on
(Stronach, Corbin, McNamara, Stark & Warne, 2002, p. 116). Developing close
74 Middle school social sciences: Exploring teachers’ conceptions of essential knowledge
teacher-student relationships is central to middle school practice, requiring a
significant investment of personal resources and emotional labour (Prosser, 2008b).
It seems emotional commitment, rather than subject expertise, is key to middle years
teacher identity.
While research into in-service middle years teacher identity is scarce, three
recent studies have examined pre-service middle years teacher identity. Research
into identity formation with a cohort of youthful and mature third year, pre-service
middle years teachers in Australia found teacher identity was constructed primarily
in relation to the discourse of the good teacher (Whitehead, Lewis & Rossetto,
2007). Some individuals in this group saw themselves as specialists in adolescence
and others as subject specialists, but all saw themselves as guiding dependent
students into the future. This confidence in an emerging professional ability to deal
with the challenges of middle schooling was reflected in a longitudinal study of two
cohorts of pre-service middle years teachers from the University of Queensland from
2003-2006 (Garrick, Pendergast, Bahr, Dole & Keogh, 2008). The study found that
pre-service teachers constructed a middle years teacher identity through a strong
philosophy of middle schooling, being aware of the middle years reform movement,
and confidence in their training to become skilled professionals. Finally, research
into three Australian middle years teacher education programs revealed pre-service
middle school teachers were conscious of developing a teacher identity distinct from
primary and secondary teachers (Pendergast et al, 2007). None of these studies,
however, have explored middle years teacher identity in relation to conceptions of
essential knowledge in middle years curriculum.
In sum, research on middle school teachers to date has highlighted that
professional identity is a significant underlying issue for middle school teachers
(Beane & Brodhagen, 2001; Wallace et al, 2007), perhaps linked to perceptions that
integrated subjects have low status in hierarchical school structures. The literature on
teachers’ professional identity explored above indicates there are gaps in the
literature on in-service middle school teachers’ knowledge and integrated
curriculum. Moreover, little attention has been paid to the wider significance of
middle years teachers’ knowledge in relation to the what of teaching. The
conceptualisation of teachers as curriculum makers in Chapter 1 argues that middle
years teacher identity is shaped in the context of knowledge for teaching. As
Chapter 2: The Middle Years and SOSE Curriculum 75
phenomenography explores teachers’ conceptions of essential knowledge from their
perspective, the significance of identity as a feature of middle school teachers’
conceptions of essential knowledge for SOSE will be considered.
Chapter 2 summary
Chapter 2 situates this study of middle years teachers’ conceptions of essential
knowledge for SOSE in the broader context of research into the middle years of
schooling and reform. The Queensland SOSE curriculum was explored, revealing
that it is an example of a student-centred, integrated middle years curriculum. Dewey
(1916/1944) established the philosophical and theoretical basis for learning history
and geography in an interdependent way, a view of curriculum that has been
interpreted for the middle years as being either student-centred (Beane, 1997) or
subject-centred (Jacobs, 1989). Habermas’ (1971) theory of knowledge-constitutive
interests underpins the socially-critical pedagogical approach of SOSE. National
blueprints establish SOSE as a student-centred, multidisciplinary curriculum, even
though the integrative curriculum structures were poorly articulated at the inception
of SOSE. Curriculum integration challenges teachers to work outside subject
boundaries, often in hierarchical school settings that support a disciplinary culture.
As such, teachers’ attitudes towards and beliefs about curriculum integration are
closely intertwined, encompassing the cognitive and affective dimension of
knowledge for SOSE. The emotional investment in curriculum integration was
examined and it was argued that this phenomenographic investigation of conceptions
of essential knowledge for SOSE may also reveal aspects of middle years teacher
identity.
This review of the middle years curriculum integration demonstrates the
continuing interest of researchers in middle years reforms in Australia. However,
teaching an integrative curriculum is a paradigm shift for content specialists (Beane
& Brodhagen, 2001). This chapter illustrates that there is very little systematic
research into middle years teachers’ beliefs and conceptions of knowledge; neither is
there research into teacher’s implementation of the middle years social education
curriculum. Prosser (2008a) observes that there is a need to examine the views of
teachers as informants in future research on the middle years, supporting the call for
new research that explores teachers’ thinking as they engage in teaching a
76 Middle school social sciences: Exploring teachers’ conceptions of essential knowledge
curriculum that is student-centred, beyond subject boundaries (Beane & Broadhagen,
2001). The difficulties experienced in teaching middle years curricula raise
significant questions of teacher identity. As argued in Chapter 1, the middle school
teacher is a curriculum maker. By examining teachers’ conceptions of knowledge for
SOSE, this phenomenography aims to uncover teachers’ thinking on the middle
years social education curriculum and to substantiate the portrayal of teacher as
curriculum maker. Chapter 3 will explore this notion within Shulman’s (1986, 1987)
theory of teachers’ knowledge.
Chapter 3: Theory of Teachers’ Knowledge 77
Chapter 3: Theory of Teachers’ Knowledge
The integrated nature of SOSE appears to be a valuable vehicle for the ideals
of middle school curriculum but, as demonstrated in Chapter 2, it presents significant
and hitherto unexamined challenges for SOSE teachers in regard to teachers’
knowledge and identity. In Chapter 3, Shulman’s (1986, 1987) theory of teachers’
knowledge is explored as the framework for this study, in light of the
conceptualisation of the role of the teacher as a curriculum maker presented in
Chapter 1.
In Chapter 3, Shulman’s (1986, 1987) theorisation of teachers’ knowledge base
for teaching is explored. First, the theoretical framework for teachers’ knowledge is
considered by examining the distinction between disciplines and school subjects in
relation to Dewey’s (1897) notion of “psychologised” school subjects. Second, the
theory of the knowledge base for teaching and the nature of “the missing paradigm”
in teachers’ knowledge (Shulman, 1986, 1987) are discussed in relation to the
knowledge base of integrated social education (SOSE). Third, the literature on
teachers’ knowledge in the disciplines and associated learning areas of SOSE is
explored. The scholarship on teachers’ specialised subject knowledge in the
disciplines and integrated learning areas, such as global perspectives, citizenship and
environmental education, is also considered. This review highlights the gap in the
literature on teachers’ knowledge of social education and, more generally, a lack of
research in the area of SOSE. Finally, the implications from Shulman’s (1986, 1987)
theorisation of teachers’ knowledge for this study are considered.
Academic disciplines and school subjects
The vexed relationship between the academic disciplines and school subjects is
a matter for concern in an integrated curriculum such as SOSE which is underpinned
by history and disciplines of the social sciences. According to Deng (2007a),
Shulman’s theorisation of the knowledge base for teaching is “predicated on the
necessity of classroom teachers’ understanding and transformation of the subject
matter of an academic discipline” (Deng, 2007a, p. 503). The key words here are
“understanding” and “transformation” of the subject matter of a discipline for
78 Middle school social sciences: Exploring teachers’ conceptions of essential knowledge
teaching, a theme developed throughout this chapter. In this context, the distinction
between academic disciplines and school subjects is important to help understand the
nature of teachers’ knowledge in an area such as SOSE that integrates several
academic disciplines. Deng and Luke (2008, p. 81) maintain that school subjects
(which draw on the disciplines) are “distinct entities that constitute an important area
of curriculum inquiry”. A critical evaluation of the literature will highlight a general
dearth of Australian research into middle years teachers’ subject knowledge and a
particular lack of research into subject knowledge in the social sciences. The current
phenomenographical study aims to address this gap in the literature.
The shaping of curriculum, and the status of school subjects in relation to the
academic disciplines, has been the subject of recent research (Deng, 2007a; Deng &
Luke, 2008). First, however, it is worth exploring Goodson’s (1988) discussion of
the study of curriculum in which he refers to the two views of curriculum identified
by Young (1971): “curriculum as fact” and “curriculum as practice” (Goodson,
1988). From these perspectives, “curriculum as fact” is a historical and social reality
that places importance on the written curriculum and past intellectual achievements.
In contrast, “curriculum as practice” is contemporary and subjective, relating to the
social reality of teachers’ and students’ actions (Goodson, 1988, p. 13-14). The
written curriculum is the public face of schooling. One aspect of consensus views of
schooling is that school subjects are derived from the disciplines and are “translated”
into school subjects (Goodson, 1988, p. 163), as both fact and practice.
Indeed, in relation to the knowledge base of the SOSE curriculum, Gilbert
(2011, p. 64) observes that it is not possible to specify facts and topics in social and
environmental education because of the changing nature of knowledge. Gilbert
maintains that while certain concepts, generalisations, values and skills must be
taught, teachers should have the flexibility to choose the examples and activities
through which these ideas and skills are taught. Further, as social and environmental
education “consists of a range of contested and competing discourses” (Gilbert,
2011, p. 64), knowledge for social and environmental education should, to some
degree, be negotiated with the community and be tailored to students, the school
context and current events. Gilbert’s (2011) views on curriculum content resonate
with Goodson’s (1988) notion of “curriculum as practice”, in relation to the social
reality of students and teachers. While this view accords with preferred middle
Chapter 3: Theory of Teachers’ Knowledge 79
school curriculum practice, it contradicts the prescriptive knowledge base of history
and geography represented in the Australian Curriculum (ACARA, 2010a).
Moreover, Gilbert’s (2011) view of knowledge for SOSE appears to respect teachers’
autonomy as well-informed professionals but fails to take into account that some
middle years teachers, as generalists rather than subject specialists, may have little or
no grasp of some of the concepts, generalisations and skills in humanities and social
sciences.
Given the dearth of research into social education curriculum in Australia, it is
significant for this study that Gilbert (2011, p. 65) refers to the role of teachers and
schools in constructing and implementing curriculum, implicitly acknowledging the
role of teacher as curriculum maker (Clandinin & Connelly, 1992). He posits that
teachers and schools construct and implement the curriculum, based on the sources
of curriculum knowledge: (1) the academic disciplines and (2) everyday or “common
sense” knowledge. The latter refers to “the role of taken-for-granted discourses of
common sense in the way we think about the world” (Gilbert, 2011, p. 65). He
argues that everyday knowledge such as how we relate to each other is often
unexamined, yet we take that knowledge for granted and tend to see it as natural and
inevitable. Gilbert (2011) states that common sense ideas about how society works
should be closely scrutinised and that a critical construction of curriculum is
essential. The significance of everyday knowledge in knowledge for the humanities
and social sciences links to the idea that “curriculum as practice” refers to the lived
experiences of teachers (Goodson, 1988). By asserting common sense as a
curriculum source, Gilbert (2011) reminds us of the teachers’ role in constructing the
curriculum and of contemporary views that social education, while academic in
nature, should also prepare students for life.
As Gilbert (2011) notes, the academic disciplines are a source of curriculum
knowledge for social education. Yet, as Leonardo (2004) has shown, the status of
disciplinary knowledge in education has been challenged in recent times. First,
postmodernist thinkers such as Foucault (1977) have questioned the insularity of the
disciplinary knowledge base as problematic. Second, students’ social experience in a
practical sense cannot necessarily be understood in terms of a historian’s or
mathematician’s disciplinary perspective. Third, the boundaries between the
disciplines have themselves become more “porous” (Leonardo, 2004, p. 3).
80 Middle school social sciences: Exploring teachers’ conceptions of essential knowledge
However, disciplinary knowledge is still closely linked with “quality education”
(Leonardo, 2004, p. 4) and for this reason it is valid to consider its role in school
subjects such as SOSE and the relationship between disciplinarity and teachers’
knowledge.
As Goodson (1988) explained twenty-five years ago, the school subject is often
quite different from its parent discipline. The school context is different from the
university context, where disciplinary and scholarly knowledge is propounded.
Schools adapt the disciplines in school subjects to the point where they may be
barely recognisable in terms of academic concepts and methodologies. Furthermore,
some “school subjects are often either divorced from their discipline base or do not
have a discipline base” (Goodson, 1988, p. 164). Goodson questioned the view that
disciplines always precede school subjects, as some school subjects precede the
discipline, bringing about the creation of a university discipline so that teachers can
be trained to teach it. He gave the example of how geography emerged as a
university-based discipline in the first half of the 20th century after it had established
a foothold in the school system. Goodson (1988) maintained that it was necessary to
introduce academic geography in universities in order to establish its intellectual and
pedagogical credibility in public and grammar schools. While disciplinarity is a
feature of most curricula, in Goodson’s (1988) view, it was not always the case that
school subjects derived from the disciplines. The process of developing school
subjects, he asserted, was very much a case of school subjects aspiring to the status
of disciplines. These debates have been revisited by Deng (2007a), who referred
back to Dewey’s (1916/1944) view that the school subject provides an introduction
to the discipline, “implying that the school subject necessarily precedes the academic
discipline” (Deng, 2007a, p. 511).
But what is the broader socio-cultural effect of this emphasis on disciplines as
the basis of what is taught in schools? In their review of research into teacher subject
knowledge, Deng and Luke (2008) found that the “ways of knowing or thinking
embedded in an academic discipline” dominated the subject matter of school subjects
and that researchers and policymakers “continue to unproblematically link academic
disciplines to school subjects” (Deng & Luke, 2008, p. 79). Rogers (1997) has
identified four problems with this privileging of the disciplines in schools: 1)
disciplines do not consider the child’s experience; 2) disciplines continue to change;
Chapter 3: Theory of Teachers’ Knowledge 81
3) disciplines are only one source of knowledge today; and 4) the term “discipline” is
often confused with “subject matter” by parents and teachers. Conflating school
subjects and academic disciplines “legitimates and reproduces canonical divisions of
knowledge” thus reproducing the power, interests and tastes of those in power (Deng
& Luke, 2008, p. 80). These observations, while particularly applicable to the
secondary school curriculum, also have a bearing on the middle school curriculum,
since the foundations for learning in senior years are laid in the middle years of
schooling. In this sense, the SOSE curriculum, while attempting to dissolve
disciplinary boundaries, still maintains the structure of the disciplines by preserving
disciplinary models of inquiry, thus legitimating and reproducing the status quo in
terms of traditional subject and discipline boundaries.
Transforming disciplinary knowledge
The distinction between school subjects and academic disciplines is worth
exploring further because SOSE is a school subject that attempts to transform
disciplinary knowledge through an integrated, outcomes-based teaching approach.
SOSE concepts and learning approaches are derived from the disciplines, yet the
school subject of SOSE integrates these disciplinary traditions into one. According to
Deng (2007a), in the literature on teachers’ subject knowledge, the “academic
discipline, not the school subject, is construed as providing the frame of reference for
defining and delineating what classroom teachers need to know about the subject
matter they are supposed to teach” (Deng, 2007a, p. 505). Teachers play a unique
role “as brokers of scholarly knowledge” (Kennedy, 1990, p. 14) and transform
disciplinary knowledge in the classroom into school-based subjects. Stengel (1997)
identifies three possible relationships between academic disciplines and school
subjects, stating that they may be (1) continuous, (2) discontinuous or (3) different
but related. In the last category, Stengel posits three approaches: (a) the academic
discipline precedes the school subject, (b) the school subject precedes the discipline
or (c) there is a dialectic relationship between the two.
This theorisation of the relationship between academic disciplines and school
subjects offers powerful ways to tap into how SOSE teachers conceptualise essential
knowledge. From the earlier analysis of the Queensland SOSE Syllabus (Queensland
School Curriculum Council, 2000), it appears that knowledge and disciplinary ways
82 Middle school social sciences: Exploring teachers’ conceptions of essential knowledge
of knowing are privileged, even as the content and pedagogy are integrated and the
syllabus structured on the principles of outcomes-based education. This hybrid
position may provide the source of its legitimacy in the general scheme of
curriculum (Stengel, 1997). Perhaps SOSE fits best into the:
dominant “folk theory” of the relation between school subject and academic
discipline is the common sense view that the two are different but related in
that the discipline inevitably precedes and delimits the school subject. One
crude, but widespread (even among educators) view is that a school subject
is a “watered down” version of the academic discipline. (Stengel, 1997,
p. 589)
If, for example, a school subject such as mathematics bears little resemblance to its
parent discipline, this criticism is even more likely to be levelled at SOSE, as the
boundaries between the disciplines of history, geography and economics and other
social science disciplines are eroded through integration, so as to make the
disciplinary aspects indistinguishable. Stengel’s view that school subjects are
different but related to the disciplines is also problematic in relation to SOSE.
Stengel (1997) asserts that teachers’ subject knowledge often does not include the
semantic and syntactic disciplinary knowledge that scholars have; neither “can they
ever really be knowledgeable enough to transform disciplinary content to school
subject material” (Stengel, 1997, p. 590). SOSE demands that teachers are
knowledgeable across a range of disciplines but the breadth required means they may
lack depth. While, integrated subjects such as SOSE promise to address the interests
and concerns of students more than the disciplines do, the question of what
constitutes teachers’ knowledge in integrated subjects remains elusive. The
educational psychology of school subjects provides further insight into how school
subjects are related to the academic disciplines.
Teaching “psychologised” school subjects
The educational psychology of school subjects was first pioneered by Dewey
(1897), who believed that the psychology of school subjects and philosophy of
education were closely linked (Shulman & Quinlan, 1996). The psychology of
school subjects (Dewey, 1897) refers to the way in which the disciplines are
transformed into school subjects. The term “psychologising the subject matter”
Chapter 3: Theory of Teachers’ Knowledge 83
means thinking about how the discipline is transformed from that of the expert to
how it is prepared to present to pupils (Shulman & Quinlan, 1996). The
transformation process occurs during the process of teaching. So, what is the role of
the teacher in bridging discipline or expert subject knowledge and preparing it for
students? According to Dewey (1902), the teacher plays an enormous role in the
psychologising of school subjects because it is through their expertise and
knowledge of both subject matter and child that the subject matter becomes part of
the child’s experience.
Dewey (1897/1972) argued what is known as the logical-psychological
position on school subjects. It provides the most sophisticated and useful way of
characterising the relationship between school subjects and the disciplines by
arguing that they are “different but related in a dialectic fashion” (Stengel, 1997, p.
590).The basis for the logical-psychological position was argued by Dewey
(1897/1972) in an early work titled The Psychological Aspect of the School
Curriculum, in which he distinguished between “curriculum and “method”:
There is a rough and ready way, in current pedagogical writing, of
discriminating between the consideration of the curriculum or subject-matter
of instruction and the method. The former is taken to be objective in
character, determined by social and logical considerations without any
particular reference to the nature of the individual. It is supposed that we can
discuss and define geography, mathematics, language, etc., as studies of the
school course, without having recourse to principles which flow from the
psychology of the individual. (Dewey, 1897/1972, p. 164)
Dewey (1897/1972) argued that the absence of any psychological understanding of
the subject matter of the curriculum “assumed that the facts and principles exist in an
independent and external way, without organic relation to the methods and functions
of the mind” (Dewey, 1897/1972, p. 165). Thus, he maintained that the distinction
between disciplines and school subjects was the difference between the logical and
the psychological:
The logical standpoint assumes the facts to be already discovered, already
sorted out, classified, and systematized....from the psychological standpoint,
we are concerned with the study as a mode or form of living or form of
living individual experience. (Dewey, 1897/1972, p.168)
84 Middle school social sciences: Exploring teachers’ conceptions of essential knowledge
So, for Dewey (1987), geography was not just a set of facts and principles (the
logical standpoint), but also “a way in which some actual individual feels and thinks
the world” (the psychological standpoint). Psychological aspects of the curriculum
centre on privileging the students’ experience first: “it is not the question of how to
teach the child geography, but first of all the question what geography is for the
child” (Dewey, 1897/1972, p. 169). In The Child and the Curriculum, Dewey (1902)
argued that the difference between the logical and psychological meant that the
former stood for the subject matter in itself while the latter stood for the subject
matter in relation to the student.
Dewey’s concept of the psychologising of school subjects is important for this
study as teachers’ knowledge in SOSE will reflect the way that they transform
discipline-based knowledge and school subject knowledge into a form that is
accessible to their students. Deng (2007a) explains that Dewey’s (1897) position is
that, for geography to make sense when the teacher has to teach it to the child, it
must draw on the child’s personal experience first, rather than on the geography of
scholars. Drawing on Dewey’s (1902) logical-psychological position, Deng (2007a)
asserts that a school subject is set apart from the academic discipline by “distinct
psychological, epistemological, logical, and social issues” (Deng, 2007a, p. 513).
However, the two are dialectically related, in that the school subject reconceptualises
the discipline by psychologising the subject matter through its transformation and
connection to the experience of the learner. The significance of Dewey’s (1897) view
is that teaching the disciplines first takes note of the learner’s experience of the
discipline and tailors teaching disciplinary knowledge in relation to it.
The “logical-psychological” framing of SOSE in terms of different but related
dialectical understandings of the connection between school subjects and disciplines
is manifested in the SOSE Essential Learnings (Queensland Studies Authority,
2007d). The Year 9 SOSE Essential Learnings detail the connection between the
students’ knowledge, understanding, values and role in the community: “They clarify
their personal values and acknowledge others’ values and world views in a range of
contexts and settings” (Queensland Studies Authority, 2007c, p. 1). The focus in the
SOSE Essential Learnings is on students’ values and experience, thus
psychologising the subject matter to the experience of the learner. Such a
conceptualisation of the relationship between academic disciplines and school
Chapter 3: Theory of Teachers’ Knowledge 85
subjects, as mediated by and through the teacher, makes a phenomenographical
exploration of teachers’ lived experiences, as undertaken in this study, particularly
pertinent.
From the arguments presented here, one may conclude that SOSE bears a
different but related dialectical connection with its parent disciplines. The disciplines
form one way of knowing in SOSE, but equally, the student’s own values and
experiences are an important starting point for teaching SOSE. In common with
other middle school subjects, because of the emphasis on integration in SOSE, it may
demonstrate only fleeting references to its parent disciplines. The extent to which the
boundaries between the disciplines are dissolved in the implementation of SOSE will
depend on how it is taught in different schools and on teachers’ subject knowledge.
For example, Venville et al. (2000) describe a solar boat project in middle school
science, which drew on the disciplines of mathematics, science and technology; it
was taught in a way where the disciplines remained autonomous. The contribution of
individual teachers’ subject knowledge was key to the success of this remarkable
example of integration, redefining the original subject boundaries. However, one
major difference between this example of successful middle school science
integration and SOSE is that usually, in SOSE, one teacher is expected to have both
subject knowledge and pedagogy in all SOSE-related disciplinary areas.
Knowing and understanding what one is about to teach is critically important,
but how important is teachers’ knowledge to student outcomes? While knowledge of
subject matter is central to the knowledge base of teaching (Grossman et al., 1989),
apparently teachers’ content knowledge is not strongly associated with student
performance (Grossman & Schoenfield, 2005; Good, 1990). In early work on
teachers’ knowledge, Good (1990) argued that content knowledge alone was
insufficient and that knowledge of teaching methods was essential to successful
teaching. He contended that more research evidence was needed “about those skills
that allow teachers effectively to transform subject matter knowledge into
instructional knowledge” (Good, 1990, p. 41). More recently, in their review of
research on teaching subject matter, Grossman and Schoenfield (2005, p. 205) found
that “the links between content knowledge and teaching performance are not all that
easy to document”. In Queensland, the gap between teachers’ knowledge and
inadequate pedagogy was highlighted in classroom observations gathered for The
86 Middle school social sciences: Exploring teachers’ conceptions of essential knowledge
Queensland School Reform Longitudinal Study (Education Queensland, 2001).
Alarmingly, the study found that some Queensland teachers rated “basic skills as the
highest of their priorities, and intellectual engagement and demand as the lowest”
(Education Queensland, 2001, p. xiv). Although this study encompassed all areas of
teaching (not only SOSE), it indicated the overall low priority given to subject
knowledge and a correspondingly high emphasis on process-based knowledge. While
these findings predate the new emphasis on discipline-based education in
Queensland, more research is needed on the kinds of subject knowledge needed for
teaching (Wilson, Floden & Ferrini-Mundy, 2001; Grossman & Schoenfield, 2005).
The current study aims to address this gap in the literature in relation to integrated
social education.
The current review of the literature on teachers’ subject knowledge is rooted in
the premise that there is an identifiable relationship between the centrality of middle
years SOSE teachers’ subject knowledge and teachers’ professional practice. I now
turn to the literature that has addressed the knowledge base for teaching.
Shulman (1986, 1987)
Research into teachers’ conceptions of subject content knowledge needs first to
consider the broader question of what constitutes the knowledge base of teaching.
This basic but profoundly important question was raised by Lee Shulman (1987) in
the context of providing a statement of direction for research into teacher education
and the foundations of “new reform” affecting US schools and society in the 1980s.
Shulman’s theorisation of teachers’ knowledge and professionalisation (Grossman,
1990; Grossman et al., 1989; Shulman, 1986, 1987; Shulman & Sherin, 2004;
Shulman & Shulman, 2004; Wilson et al., 1987) has inspired a large research
literature on teachers’ specialised subject matter knowledge, which has dominated
the drive for certification and teaching standards over the last twenty years.
Shulman’s (1987) formulation of the knowledge base of teaching was
particularly concerned with “the professionalisation of teaching—the elevation of
teaching to a more respected, more responsible, more rewarding and better rewarded
occupation” (Shulman, 1987, p. 3). However, distinctions need to be drawn between
Shulman’s (1987) concern with professionalisation in teaching, that is, “teaching
demands an explication of the knowledge base to justify professional status” and
Chapter 3: Theory of Teachers’ Knowledge 87
professionalism which refers to “the manner of conduct within an occupation”
(Sockett, 1987, p. 216). Professionalism refers to the integration by teachers of the
“practical and theoretical knowledge and skill in a context of collegiality and the
contractual relationship with their various clients” (Sockett, 1987, p. 216). Thus,
although Shulman’s (1987) question, “What are the sources of the knowledge base
for teaching?” (Shulman, 1987, p. 4) was raised over twenty years ago to improve
teacher professionalisation, it is still a relevant question to explore in the context of
teacher professionalism and identity today. As the nature of school subjects changes,
and integrated curriculum perspectives continue to challenge the disciplinary hold on
subject offerings in the school curriculum, the knowledge base for teaching is a
critically important focus of this study.
Shulman (1986, p. 9) distinguished three areas of subject-matter knowledge:
content knowledge; pedagogical content knowledge; and curricular knowledge.
Based on these three general areas, he proposed the following seven categories of
knowledge for teaching:
– content knowledge;
– general pedagogical knowledge with special reference to those broad
principles and strategies of classroom management and organisation that
appear to transcend subject matter;
– 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 form of
professional understanding;
– knowledge of learners and their characteristics;
– knowledge of educational contexts, ranging from the workings of the
group or classroom, the governance and financing of school districts, to the
character of communities and cultures; and
– knowledge of educational ends, purposes and values and their
philosophical and historical grounds. (Shulman, 1987, p. 8)
88 Middle school social sciences: Exploring teachers’ conceptions of essential knowledge
The areas of knowledge referred to above will be considered in the following
sections, under the broad areas of content knowledge, pedagogical content
knowledge, and curricular knowledge. Research into the remaining four areas of
general pedagogical knowledge (knowledge of learners and their characteristics,
knowledge of educational contexts and knowledge of educational ends) has been
included and expanded in models of teacher education that build on Shulman (1986,
1987).
Content knowledge
Shulman (1986) defines content knowledge simply as referring “to the amount
and organization of knowledge per se in the mind of the teacher” (Shulman, 1986, p.
9). However, this does not merely mean a collection of facts about a topic or an
issue. Drawing on the work of Schwab (1978), Shulman (1986) states:
In the different subject matter areas, the ways of discussing the content
structure of knowledge differ. To think properly about content knowledge
requires going beyond knowledge of the facts or concepts of a domain. It
requires understanding the structures of the subject matter .... Teachers must
not only be capable of defining for students the accepted truths in a domain.
They must also be able to explain why a particular proposition is deemed
warranted, why it is worth knowing, and how it relates to other propositions,
both within the discipline and without, both in theory and in practice.
(Shulman, 1986, p. 9)
Teachers clearly need a deep understanding of how their discipline is structured, as
well as knowledge of facts and concepts.
Shulman’s conceptualisation of content knowledge is further defined and
explored by Grossman, Wilson and Shulman (1989) in terms of “the four
overlapping dimensions of subject matter knowledge that are relevant to teaching:
content knowledge, substantive knowledge, syntactic knowledge, and beliefs about
subject matter” (Grossman et al., 1989, p. 24). These four conceptualisations of
subject knowledge for teachers are virtually the same as the knowledge of specialists
or scholars (Deng, 2007a). However, influenced by Dewey (1983) who considered
that subject knowledge for the scientist was related to but different from subject
knowledge for the teacher, Grossman et al. (1989) maintain that the basis of these
distinctions draws on the “fundamental differences between the subject matter
Chapter 3: Theory of Teachers’ Knowledge 89
knowledge necessary for teaching and subject matter knowledge per se” (Grossman
et al., 1989, p. 24). Teachers are different from scholars. While teachers need a
scholarly or disciplinary basis for their knowledge, their understanding of subject
matter needs to promote learning. This is because the goals of teachers are different
from those of scholars, in that “scholars create a new knowledge in the discipline.
Teachers help students acquire knowledge within the discipline” (Grossman et al.,
1989, p. 24).
The distinction between the work of scholars and the work of teachers thus
hinges on the nature of their work in the chosen discipline. However, the role of
teachers in developing new knowledge is supported by Grossman (1995), who
considers that teacher knowledge is dynamic in nature:
Teachers’ knowledge is not static. In the process of teaching and reflecting
upon teaching, teachers develop new understandings of the content, the
learners, and of themselves. While teachers can acquire knowledge from a
variety of sources, they also create new knowledge within the crucible of the
classroom. (Grossman, 1995, p. 22)
Grossman’s (1995) views support what experienced teachers already know – that
classroom teaching broadens teachers’ subject knowledge; such experience is valued
for its role in the production of knowledge between teachers and students.
The dimensions of subject matter knowledge identified above make a case for
the importance of teachers having a clear and well-founded knowledge of the
disciplines as their knowledge base. Content knowledge for teaching is described as
“the ‘stuff’ of a discipline: factual information, organizing principles, central
concepts” (Grossman et al., 1989, p. 27). Such knowledge is central to teaching. The
ability to define concepts separately within the field, as well as relationships with
concepts outside the discipline, characterises this type of knowledge. Thus, in their
example, a European history teacher needs to know about the Renaissance and the
Reformation as well as about chronology and causation (Grossman et al., 1989, p.
28). Teachers need to learn new content and those who opt not to teach unfamiliar
topics may depend heavily on the textbook and use transmission approaches to
teaching to avoid students’ questions (Grossman et al., 1989, p. 28). The authors
emphasise that, because teachers cannot know everything about their subjects before
90 Middle school social sciences: Exploring teachers’ conceptions of essential knowledge
they begin teaching, they have a “responsibility to acquire new knowledge
throughout their careers” (Grossman et al., 1989, p. 29). For SOSE teachers, the
obvious imperative here is to be familiar with the disciplinary bases of the KLA and
then widen their knowledge of a variety of topics or issues that could be taught in the
classroom.
In her work to clarify and explicate all of the knowledge bases for teaching
further, Turner-Bisset (2001) characterises Shulman’s (1986) view of content
knowledge as “substantive knowledge, syntactic knowledge and beliefs about the
subject” (Turner-Bisset, 2001, p. 14). Substantive knowledge can be understood as
“the substance of the discipline: the facts and concepts of a subject...[and] the
frameworks used to organise these facts and concepts” (Turner-Bisset, 2001, p. 14).
However, syntactic knowledge is different from substantive knowledge. Through
syntactic knowledge of the discipline, for example, in the teaching of history,
students go “beyond learning about history, to doing history for themselves”
(Grossman et al., 1989, p. 30). In other words, syntactic knowledge is a type of
content knowledge developed by learning and practising the process skills of the
discipline. Drawing on work by Wilson and Wineburg (1988), Turner-Bisset (2001)
asserts that beliefs about subject matter are “just as an important aspect of subject
matter knowledge as substantive and syntactic knowledge, and influenced by one’s
understanding, or lack of understanding of these structures” (Turner-Bisset, 2001, p.
14). She does not elaborate on teachers’ beliefs but infers that beliefs about
substantive and syntactic knowledge influence the way a topic is taught. Supporting
the case that beliefs about subject matter affect teaching of content, Grossman et al.
(1989) cite the example of a social studies teacher, Fred, whose undergraduate
degree was in political science. He believed that history was a collection of facts of
little relevance to students’ lives. As a result, Fred taught history through the prism
of political science, which, in his view, involved interpretation and was relevant to
students as future participants in a democracy. In this example, Fred’s belief that
history was purely about facts, which had little to do with students’ own lives,
coloured his approach to teaching it (Grossman et al., 1989, p. 31).
It would appear that in terms of content knowledge alone, teachers need far
more than a shallow grasp of the main issues or facts – rather, their beliefs about a
subject, knowing the essential facts and concepts, as well as being able to defend
Chapter 3: Theory of Teachers’ Knowledge 91
why something is worth knowing, are all part of the subject content knowledge base
of teaching. The next section addresses the other two categories of Shulman’s (1986,
1987) theorisation of subject-matter knowledge: pedagogical content knowledge and
curricular knowledge.
Pedagogical content knowledge and curricular knowledge
Shulman’s (1986, 1987) theorisation that pedagogical content knowledge is the
type of professional knowledge that distinguishes secondary teachers from academic
scholars is widely known and respected (Poulson, 2001). Within pedagogical content
knowledge, Shulman (1987) distinguishes between “general pedagogical knowledge”
and “pedagogical content knowledge” (Shulman, 1987, p. 8). The former refers to
general teaching principles, including classroom management and organisation.
While these are essential aspects of the craft of teaching, Shulman (1986) considers
pedagogical content knowledge as a “second kind of content knowledge” which
refers to “the particular form of content knowledge that embodies the aspects of
content most germane to its teachability” (Shulman, 1986, p. 9). Pedagogical content
knowledge refers to the use of teaching strategies to represent the topic through
analogies, examples, explanations and illustrations in such a way that it can be
understood by the students. It is knowledge that distinguishes content specialists
from teachers because it “represents the blending of content and pedagogy into an
understanding of how particular topics, problems or issues are organized,
represented, and adapted to the diverse interests and abilities of learners, and
presented for instruction” (Shulman, 1987, p. 8).
The third category of subject-matter knowledge distinguished by Shulman
(1986, 1987) is curricular knowledge. This refers to the full range of “materials and
programs that serve as ‘tools of the trade’ for teachers” (Shulman, 1987, p. 8). It
includes curriculum and instructional materials and knowledge of alternative
curriculum materials on a given topic. Considered “strategic knowledge” (Shulman,
1986, p. 10), curricular knowledge includes knowledge of the curriculum and other
curriculum approaches to teaching the same topic, and familiarity with the
curriculum materials being used by the students at the same time in other subjects.
Shulman (1986) argues that knowledge of the lateral curriculum is particularly
appropriate in secondary education because it enables the teacher to make
92 Middle school social sciences: Exploring teachers’ conceptions of essential knowledge
connections and relate the content of a given lesson to other topics being studied
simultaneously (Shulman, 1986, p. 10).
Shulman (1986, 1987) is best known for his theorisation of content knowledge,
pedagogical content knowledge and curricular knowledge, as discussed in the
sections above. The following sections consider the impact of Shulman (1986, 1987)
on research into teachers’ knowledge and teacher professionalisation.
Impact of Shulman’s (1986, 1987) work
Shulman’s (1986, 1987) theory of teachers’ knowledge has had a profound
impact on research into all areas of teachers’ work, from school-based teaching and
tertiary education to pre-service teacher education and in-service professional
development. In the last decade, there has been a large amount of work that has built
on and expanded the broad categories of subject content knowledge, pedagogical
content knowledge and curricular knowledge.
For example, Shulman (1986, 1987) emphasised the importance of subject
knowledge (SK) as a key area of teachers’ professional knowledge, leading to
research in the last decade on the development of subject knowledge in school-based
subjects. Ellis (2007) argues that Shulman’s work offered a professional typology of
the knowledge base of teaching underpinned by three assumptions: 1) dualistic
assumptions that subject matter was presented as “fixed and universal” while other
categories of teachers’ knowledge were considered “tacit and uncodifiable” (Ellis,
2007, p. 449); 2) objectivism, that is, subject knowledge as something that can be
described, quantified and considered the basis of teacher standards; and 3)
individualism, that is, it is seen as something that exists as a cognitive process
belonging to an individual rather than as a relational activity developed with and in
relation to other people. In Ellis’ (2007) view, the result of these three assumptions
on educational research into teachers’ subject knowledge is that it has been theorized
in much less complex ways compared to pedagogical content knowledge.
Ellis (2007) argues that for pre-service teachers, the categories of teachers’
knowledge are not distinctive, rather, subject knowledge is generated in the course of
teaching. Ellis (2007) cites a British typology of teacher professional knowledge by
Leach and Moon (2000) which builds on Shulman’s work (1986, 1987) and, it is
argued, offers “a complex and situated account of teachers’ knowledge and
Chapter 3: Theory of Teachers’ Knowledge 93
development” (Ellis, 2007, p. 453) by emphasising the significance of the “personal
construct and goals” in addition to Shulman’s (1986, 1987) categorisation. Ellis
(2007) makes the case that subject knowledge is developed communally in schools,
that is, it is “a form of collective knowledge” (Ellis, 2007, p. 458) that is developed
in the classroom. This view that the development of subject knowledge is relational
and subject to “collective processes” (Ellis, 2007, p. 459) based in the school and the
classroom offers new insight into Shulman’s (1986, 1987) original conceptualisation
of subject knowledge. In the last ten years, further work has continued into the
significance of subject knowledge in diverse curriculum areas such as science (Deng,
2007a), physical education (Capel, 2007), history (Fallace, 2009; Lawless, 2003) and
geography (Lane, 2009).
Shulman is best known for identifying pedagogical content knowledge
(PCK) as a tenet of teacher professional knowledge, a concept now widely
recognised in professional discourse and teacher education (Deng, 2007b; Ellis,
2007). The defining feature of PCK is that it is a special “amalgam of content and
pedagogy that is uniquely the providence of teachers” (Shulman, 1987, p. 8). PCK,
as envisaged by Shulman (1986, 1987), is said to hold the key to transforming
subject knowledge and linking it with curricular knowledge (Deng, 2007b). Despite
its prominence in the literature, there has been some reconsideration of PCK and its
relevance in the last decade. For example, Hashweh (2005) argues that the wide use
and research into PCK means that it has lost its direct relation to teaching specific
topics and is now regarded as a general form of knowledge. Hashweh (2005)
proposes a new term, teacher pedagogical constructions (TPCs) which draws on the
practical, topic-specific, professional knowledge or “wisdom of practice” that a
teacher develops when repeatedly teaching a topic. He asserts that viewed in this
way, PCK is “a collection of professional constructions” (Hashweh, 2005, p. 290)
which clarifies and relates to other forms of teacher knowledge, values and beliefs,
rather than a subset of subject knowledge or a generic, all-embracing form of
knowledge.
Others in the research community, however, support research into PCK with
many studies on PCK in diverse fields including history (Reitano, 2004; Reitano &
Bourke, 2009), secondary science (Henze, van Driel & Verloop, 2007; Loughran,
Berry & Mulhall, 2006; Park & Oliver, 2008) and civics and citizenship (Jimemez,
94 Middle school social sciences: Exploring teachers’ conceptions of essential knowledge
2001). For example, Abell (2008) maintains that PCK transforms other types of
knowledge for teaching science and that not enough is known about how science
teachers transform subject matter knowledge during teaching. In science, topic-
specific knowledge is very important, as is discipline-specific knowledge which,
again, is different from general science which is based on inquiry-based teaching.
Abell (2008) argues that PCK for science “is about developing a complex and
contextualised set of knowledge to apply to specific problems of practice” (Abell,
2008, p. 1414) that differentiates and distinguishes, for example, knowledge for
teaching science from teaching literature. As middle school science is an integrated
school subject much like SOSE, these comments on the nature of knowledge in
science resonate with the knowledge base of SOSE identified in Chapter 2. It may be
inferred, that like science, PCK is similarly important in social science.
Further, in light of the importance of technology in the way all school subjects
are now taught, a new category of teacher knowledge extending PCK called
technological pedagogical content knowledge (TPCK) has also been developed.
Teaching with technology creates new challenges and opportunities for teachers in
all subject areas, representing a new dimension to teachers’ professional knowledge
base (Hofer & Swan, 2008; Mishra & Koehler, 2006; So & Kim, 2009).
Deng (2007b), however, questions the almost universal acceptance of
transformation of subject knowledge as a pedagogical task made possible by the
classroom teacher’s PCK. Deng (2007b) asserts that the transformation of subject
matter of a discipline into a school subject is “first and foremost, a complex
curricular task … that requires the participation of … curriculum theorists or
specialists, subject matter experts, and classroom teachers” (Deng, 2007b, p. 280). In
other words, the transformation of subject matter is a “curricular endeavour” (Deng,
2007b, p. 290), indicated in the body of curriculum materials developed for the use
of students and teachers. He asserts that the focus on PCK and subject knowledge
has not given sufficient attention to the significance of the curriculum as a feature of
teachers’ professional knowledge. Deng’s (2007b) critique of PCK is pertinent to the
current study, for in an integrated subject such as social education, there is clearly
much work that teachers undertake in interpreting the curriculum and then making
the discipline explicit to the learner through a manageable school subject.
Chapter 3: Theory of Teachers’ Knowledge 95
As the last decade of research into teachers’ professional knowledge has
shown, Shulman’s (1986, 1987) model of the knowledge base for teaching has had
wide impact. It continues to be the foundation of theorisation and research into
secondary teachers’ knowledge (Poulson, 2001). However, considering that
secondary teachers generally work with discipline-specific school subjects, this
raises an important question about the role of subject knowledge and pedagogical
content knowledge for middle school teachers who, like primary teachers, favour an
integrated teaching approach. Shulman (1987) himself questioned the applicability of
subject content knowledge as the central basis of knowledge for primary teachers,
acknowledging that the relationship between subject knowledge and pedagogical
content knowledge was far more complex for primary teachers who taught numerous
subjects (Grossman et al., 1989).
Similarly, it is argued that, because middle school bridges the gap between
primary and secondary schools, middle years teachers’ knowledge draws on both the
integrated approach in primary and elements of the discipline-specific approach to
school subjects in secondary. Shulman’s work is relevant to middle years teachers’
knowledge because middle years students are in a period of transition from primary
to secondary. Shulman’s (1986, 1987) model was premised on a subject-specific,
discipline-based curriculum; the current research builds on Shulman’s categories of
teachers’ knowledge by addressing the paucity of research into teachers’ knowledge
in the middle years. The study extends Shulman’s (1986, 1987) original theorisation
of teachers’ knowledge to reflect contemporary approaches to social science
education in middle schools, an area which has not had the same level of attention
from researchers as, for example, science or mathematics education.
The focus on Queensland middle school teachers’ knowledge in this research is
timely; as part of a Queensland educational initiative called A Flying Start for
Queensland Children (Queensland Government, [DETA], 2011), Queensland
students in Year 7, which was previously part of primary, will attend high school
from 2015. A key objective of this initiative is to improve students’ transition to
secondary school and support adolescent development. Moreover, a discipline-based
social science curriculum, rather than integrated social education, will be introduced
from 2012 with the national history curriculum (ACARA, 2010c). With large
numbers of younger students studying in a high school setting in Queensland, the
96 Middle school social sciences: Exploring teachers’ conceptions of essential knowledge
changes to school structures and curriculum mean that it will be even more important
to retain middle school initiatives in Years 7, 8, and 9, when students are aged
between 12 and 15 years old.
“The missing paradigm” – subject knowledge
While the work of Shulman (1986, 1987; Turner-Bissett, 2001) uncovered the
many facets of what teachers need to know in order to practice their profession, the
question of “what do teachers know about their subject?” has long been a deeply
unfashionable question to ask. The emphasis in the teacher-education literature has
been on the process aspects of teaching, such as effective teaching, managing
classrooms, knowledge of learners in different socio-cultural contexts, and the
culture of schools. For example, in their preface to a widely used, contemporary
teacher-education textbook, Groundwater-Smith, Ewing and Le Cornu (2007)
describe teaching in the following manner:
It is intellectual, emotional and physical work and it is also socially
responsible work. It is incontestable that teachers need a considerable array
of skills in identifying, analysing and assessing learning, and in designing,
implementing and evaluating classroom programs. Teachers also need to be
capable communicators beyond their classroom. They need to be effective
colleagues, careful and sensitive in their dealings with the community and
guided by precepts of equity and justice. Learning to be a teacher goes far
beyond learning to be an instructor. (Groundwater-Smith et al., 2007, p. ix)
The focus of teacher education seems to be on the how (teaching strategies, skills,
communication, pedagogy) rather than the what (subject knowledge) of teaching.
Shulman (1986) held that research into the procedural aspects of teaching was
intended to identify patterns of behaviour amongst teachers that would improve
pupils’ academic performance and knowledge of student learning. However, he also
stated that subject matter was the “missing paradigm” in the teacher-education
literature (Shulman, 1986, p. 6). Shulman (1986) made this criticism in light of
efforts in the 1980s in the United States to professionalise teaching. In his critique of
Shulman’s (1986) approach, Sockett (1987, p. 215) states that, in Shulman’s view,
“[w]hat is to count as teaching knowledge is only valid if it can be measured, or at
least publicly assessed and explained. Professionalisation, Shulman is saying,
Chapter 3: Theory of Teachers’ Knowledge 97
demands an account of the knowledge base of teaching. That knowledge base frames
both teacher education and teaching practice”.
So what did Shulman (1986) mean by “the missing paradigm”? He referred to
historical understandings of teaching when the defining characteristic of good
teaching was knowledge of content; the distinct separation of content and process
was not common, for, “a century ago the defining characteristic of pedagogical
accomplishment was knowledge of content” (Shulman, 1986, p. 7). In contrast,
according to Shulman (1986, p. 5), teacher education emphasised the process or
procedural aspects of teaching: Thus:
The missing paradigm refers to a blind spot with respect to content that now
characterizes most research on teaching and, as a consequence, most of our
state level programs of teacher evaluation and teacher certification
(Shulman, 1986, pp. 7-8).
Shulman’s (1986) assessment was that the substance of teacher-education, and hence
teaching practice, had long ignored questions of the what of teaching; he stated that,
“What we miss are questions about the content of the lessons taught, the questions
asked, and the explanations offered” (Shulman, 1986, p. 8). While it does not
discount the importance of pedagogy as an essential aspect of the overall knowledge
base of teachers, “the missing paradigm” refers to the substantive and syntactical
knowledge base of teaching. As Shulman (1986) stated, “Mere content knowledge is
likely to be as useless pedagogically as content-free skill. But to blend properly the
two aspects of a teacher’s capacities requires that we pay as much attention to the
content as we have recently devoted to the elements of teaching process” (Shulman,
1986, p, 8). Questions pertaining to both the what and how of teachers’ knowledge
are relevant to the current phenomenographic study of teachers’ conceptions of
integrated social education.
Shulman’s (1986, 1987) view of teaching
As this study draws heavily on elements of Shulman’s (1986, 1987) approach
to teachers’ knowledge, it is worth exploring his view of teaching (1987) for its
relevance to the work of middle school teachers today. Based on Fenstermacher
(1986), Shulman (1987, p. 7) propounded what appear to be commonly held notions
of teaching: that “teaching necessarily begins with a teacher’s understanding of what
98 Middle school social sciences: Exploring teachers’ conceptions of essential knowledge
is to be learned and how it is to be taught”. This view is based on the notion that the
“teacher knows something not understood by others, presumably the students”
(Shulman, 1987, p. 7). Thus, teaching can be described as “ways of talking, showing,
enacting, or otherwise representing ideas” (Shulman, 1987, p. 7) through instruction
and a series of activities, so that the student has the opportunity to learn, though
learning itself is the student’s responsibility. Eventually, teaching leads to greater
understanding by the teacher and the student.
Viewed from a distance of twenty-five years after Shulman (1987) put forward
his views on teaching, we detect a very traditional, even limited, understanding of
the role of the teacher and the process of teaching for understanding. At the time,
Shulman (1987) qualified these views by asserting that his conception of teaching
was not limited to a passive transmission of knowledge. He acknowledged that
knowing subject matter or content, while not an end in itself, “at least at the
secondary level, subject matter is a nearly universal vehicle for instruction”
(Shulman, 1987, p. 7). This view of teaching thus reasserted the traditionally held
notion of “knowing your stuff” and appeared to put the teacher, rather than the
student, at the centre of the teaching-learning process in the secondary school
context.
Shulman’s (1987) view of teaching could perhaps be characterised as a
“rational or means-end approach” to the curriculum, where learning content and
acquiring more information are central to education (Groundwater-Smith et al. 2007,
pp. 85-87). It assumes that the teacher is the source of knowledge and students are
perhaps deficient as they do not have this knowledge. It assumes that, due to a lack
of prior knowledge, students have an inadequate knowledge base on which to build
further understanding of concepts and issues. The rational approach to learning
conceptualises learners as deficient and in need of preparation for life through
acquiring content and knowledge through education (Grundy, 1994).
While this interpretation of Shulman’s (1987) approach may be harsh, his
conceptualisation of pedagogical content knowledge is quite distinctive. His view of
the teacher’s professional knowledge acknowledges the centrality of the learner in
the teaching-learning nexus, where students’ needs and abilities are critical to the
conceptualisation and delivery of content. Pedagogical content knowledge “is the
Chapter 3: Theory of Teachers’ Knowledge 99
category most likely to distinguish the understanding of the content specialist from
that of the pedagogue” (Shulman, 1987, p. 8). Any analysis of teachers’ knowledge
needs to consider conceptions of pedagogical content knowledge as well as subject
content knowledge.
Beyond Shulman (1987)
Shulman’s (1987) views on teacher knowledge have since been reinforced and
reinterpreted. Drawing on research in educational reform and subject matter
knowledge in science and mathematics, Kennedy (1998) summarises “optimal”
teacher knowledge in the following way:
(a) conceptual – ... understanding the central ideas in the discipline,
understanding the relationships among ideas, having detailed and elaborated
knowledge... (b) pedagogical – having an ability to generate metaphors and
other representations of these ideas ... (c) epistemological – having an
understanding of the nature of work in the disciplines; and (d) attitudinal –
having respect for, and an appreciation of, the processes by which
knowledge is generated through these disciplines. (Kennedy, 1998, p. 260)
The four categories of teachers’ knowledge described here could equally be applied
to other areas of education besides science and mathematics. Reformers of
mathematics and science education want teachers to be able to teach in new and less
didactic ways and to encourage students to explore mathematics and science for
themselves, rather than relying on traditional ways of teaching and learning. A multi-
faceted approach to subject knowledge, as described above, together with a
knowledge of how students learn (Kennedy, 1990) would result in enriched teaching
and deeper learning. The same argument could be made in other areas of education,
including SOSE.
The significance of subject knowledge was emphasised in scholarship that
followed Shulman’s (1986, 1987) theorisation of teachers’ knowledge. For example,
Wilson, Shulman and Richert (1987) asserted that the purpose of education in
secondary school was the transformation of subject-matter knowledge for teaching.
While subject knowledge was paramount, there were other “ways of knowing”,
which were equally important in terms of teachers’ knowledge base:
100 Middle school social sciences: Exploring teachers’ conceptions of essential knowledge
In all the processes involved in transformation, subject matter knowledge
provides the focal point. Beyond subject matter knowledge, however, the
teacher draws on knowledge of learners, pedagogical content knowledge,
knowledge of context, knowledge of educational aims, and knowledge of
other disciplines. (Wilson et al., 1987, p. 120)
Deng (2007a), however, asserts that, although Shulman and colleagues’ view
(Shulman, 1986, 1987; Wilson et al., 1987) of subject matter transformation
resembles Dewey’s (1897) psychologising of school subject matter, they actually
construe the academic discipline (rather than the students’ experience) as the source
of the school subject. It does not reflect the more progressive middle school
approach, in which the teacher-student relationship aspires to be more democratic
and student-centred (Beane, 1997). Deng’s (2007a) critique affirms that Shulman’s
(1987) view of teaching is quite traditional, reflecting its origin in secondary
subjects.
The sources of knowledge for teaching, according to Deng (2007a), are
different from those identified by Shulman (1986, 1987) and relate more closely to
Dewey’s view (1897) that the experience of the learner is central. Deng’s (2007a)
examination of Dewey’s (1897) logical-psychological distinction in school subjects
reveals that teachers transform curriculum materials prepared for classroom use and,
as such, teachers effectively psychologise the subject matter for teaching by tailoring
it to meet the needs and interests of students. Teachers are “curriculum developers”
(Deng, 2007a, p. 514), creating their own version of the school subject. Deng
(2007a) cautions that Dewey’s (1897) logical-psychological distinction in school
subjects focused on the experience of younger students rather than secondary
students. In the current study, because middle school students are in a period of
transition between lower and higher school levels, it would seem that Dewey’s
(1897) approach to school subjects is still relevant. For teachers, this knowledge is
based on understanding the school subject for teaching, which is related to, but
ultimately different from, their knowledge of the academic discipline.
The theoretical distinction between Shulman (1986, 1987) views of teachers’
knowledge in transforming disciplinary knowledge for teaching, and Deng’s (2007a)
view of the teacher as curriculum developer of school subjects, based on
understanding the discipline for teaching, is significant. In Shulman’s (1986, 1987)
Chapter 3: Theory of Teachers’ Knowledge 101
case, teachers’ knowledge is based on making the discipline explicit to the learner.
For Deng (2007a), inspired by Dewey (1897), teachers’ knowledge is centred first on
knowing the learner. Both approaches to teachers’ knowledge offer compelling
insights to this study of middle school teachers’ knowledge, as the middle years
bridge the primary and secondary phases of schooling. The implications of
Shulman’s (1986, 1987) theorisation of teachers’ knowledge for teacher education
and professionalisation are now considered.
Models of teacher knowledge
Shulman’s (1986, 1987) work must be contextualised within a wider effort to
delineate the knowledge base of teaching. Over the last thirty years, several models
of teacher knowledge and professionalisation have been developed. Among the most
well known are Elbaz (1983), Shulman (1986, 1987), Grossman (1990), Bransford,
Darling-Hammond and Le Page (2005) and Clandinen and Connelly, 1987. While
Shulman’s (1986, 1987) work was most pertinent to secondary teachers’ knowledge,
subsequent research on teachers’ knowledge, professionalisation, teacher identity
and teacher education draw on elements of these models of teacher knowledge and
professionalisation for all sectors of schooling. In addition to Shulman (1986, 1987),
in relation to the current research, each model offers insights into features of
teachers’ knowledge for middle schooling.
First, Elbaz (1983, p. 3) describes the “practical knowledge” of teachers as
knowledge of self, knowledge of the milieu of teaching, knowledge of subject matter,
knowledge of curriculum development and knowledge of instruction. The five
categories were generated through a case study of the experiential knowledge of one
teacher. Elbaz (1983, p. 11) viewed teachers as “originators of knowledge”.
Second, Grossman’s model of teacher knowledge (1990) is based on Shulman
(1986, 1987). She proposed that the cornerstones of professional knowledge for
teaching were subject matter knowledge, general pedagogical knowledge,
pedagogical content knowledge and knowledge of context. Knowledge of context
refers to knowledge of school settings, contextual factors that affect schooling and
individual students. Like Shulman (1986, 1987), Grossman’s (1990) model is
teacher-centred to make the subject matter known to the students.
102 Middle school social sciences: Exploring teachers’ conceptions of essential knowledge
Third, Bransford, et al. (2005) posit a Framework for Understanding Teaching
and Learning based on three intersecting areas of teachers’ knowledge: 1)
knowledge of learners and their development in social contexts, 2) knowledge of
subject matter and curriculum goals and 3) knowledge of teaching. Of these areas,
knowledge of teaching embraces content, plus content pedagogy, teaching diverse
learners, assessment and classroom management. Unlike Shulman’s (1986, 1987)
categories based on the wisdom of practice, it is “a vision of professional practice”
(Bransford, et al., 2005, p. 11) that gives equal consideration to the needs of students,
subject and curriculum knowledge, as well as knowledge for teaching centred on
meeting the diverse educational needs of students. Bransford, et al. (2005) maintain
that their model is reminiscent of Dewey (1902). The three areas of teachers’
knowledge they depict are far more inclusive and student-centred than Shulman’s
(1986, 1987).
The fourth theorisation of teachers’ knowledge considered here is teachers’
personal and practical knowledge (Clandinin & Connelly, 1987). Of the previous
four models of teacher knowledge briefly described here, only Elbaz (1983) gave
serious consideration to teachers’ knowledge of self. Subsequently, these ideas were
explored by Connelly and Clandinin (1999, p. 1) who describe “teachers as knowers”
or as professionals who know themselves, their students, their subject matter and the
context for teaching. The theorisation of teachers’ knowledge as personal practical
knowledge (Clandinin & Connelly, 1987) embraces teachers’ identity and knowledge
of themselves. They maintain that this kind of knowledge, which straddles the
personal and the professional, is demonstrated in teaching practice and can be
understood in terms of teachers’ life histories and narratives. The focus on the
interactive or pedagogical aspects of teachers’ knowledge parallels the interpretive
knowledge interest (Habermas, 1971) and draws on Elbaz’s (1983) theorisation of
teachers’ practical knowledge. The concept of teachers’ personal practical
knowledge (Clandinin & Connelly, 1987) captures the emotional and personal
knowledge embedded in teachers’ identity.
The significance of each these theorisations of teachers’ knowledge for the
findings of this study will be re-visited in Chapter 6. The following section examines
current research in the field of social science teachers’ knowledge.
Chapter 3: Theory of Teachers’ Knowledge 103
SOSE teachers’ knowledge
There are very few studies of SOSE teachers’ knowledge base, so this section
of the chapter draws on studies that document the knowledge of teachers and pre-
service teachers in disciplines and studies associated with SOSE in primary and
secondary schools, in Australia and internationally. The intention is to paint a picture
of the knowledge base of teachers and highlight the dearth of literature on teachers’
knowledge from an Australian perspective.
SOSE teachers’ knowledge: similarities with social studies
As an interdisciplinary curriculum, SOSE challenges teachers to work outside
the disciplinary culture of schools (Shulman & Sherin, 2004; Wallace et al., 2005). A
small study of secondary geography teachers (Lam & Lidstone, 2001) during the
early implementation of SOSE in Brisbane secondary schools found geography
teachers lacked the professional and subject matter knowledge to integrate
geography and non-geography topics properly. A strong subject identity as
geography teachers meant “it would not be possible to change the subject identity,
the beliefs and discipline outlook of teachers” (Lam & Lidstone, 2001, p. 76).
Conducted at the very early stages of the implementation of the SOSE syllabus, the
study identified subject content knowledge, pedagogical knowledge and teacher
identity as important issues for teachers of SOSE.
SOSE in Australia shares some similarities with social studies in the USA.
Since the beginning of the 20th century, there has been a long tradition of integrated
humanities education in the US school subject called “social studies”. Characterised
by a tenuous disciplinary basis, social studies centres on “citizenship” as its main
purpose or unifying theme. However, the fragmented knowledge base of social
studies has meant that it is generally presented as a practical school subject with a
strong focus on inquiry-based pedagogy and constructivist approaches, aimed at
socialising young people as citizens (Mintrop, 2004). In researching four social
studies teachers, two student teachers and two veterans, using a constructivist,
integrative teaching model called “Fostering a Community of Learners” (FCL),
Mintrop (2004) found that the discipline-basis of big ideas and concepts tended to
get lost in the planning process. Student teachers had the most difficulty with the
FCL approach, the search for big ideas and the ability to transform them in the
104 Middle school social sciences: Exploring teachers’ conceptions of essential knowledge
classroom, “exacerbated by tenuous content knowledge and inexperience in
pedagogical thinking or ‘psychologizing’ subject matter” (Mintrop, 2004, p. 151). In
contrast, the experienced teachers focused on the students’ tasks and learning
activities but had difficulty in accessing the disciplinary and conceptual thinking that
underpinned the big ideas. Moreover, experienced teachers who perceived social
studies knowledge as facts were not concerned about the loss of disciplinary
perspectives in their teaching. Mintrop (2004) concluded that this indicated a weak
relationship between the disciplines and the school subject. Mintrop’s (2004)
findings support earlier, influential research by Wilson and Wineburg (1988) whose
study of four beginning social studies teachers found that the varied disciplinary
backgrounds of each teacher influenced their perspective on teaching American
history. The teachers differed along the dimensions of factual knowledge, the place
of interpretation, chronology and continuity, reflecting each one’s particular
disciplinary background. As social studies teachers, like SOSE teachers, teach a
variety of disciplines, they need to have knowledge of the structures of the social
science disciplines in addition to their own to do justice to the subject knowledge
required (Wilson & Wineburg, 1988; Banks, 1989).
While many similarities exist between social studies and Queensland SOSE, an
important difference is that SOSE has a strongly identified discipline basis and also
draws on perspectives such as citizenship, globalisation, media studies and
environmental education. However, the pedagogical approach of “reflective inquiry”
(Queensland School Curriculum Council, 2000, p. 8) promoted in SOSE is similar to
the inquiry-based pedagogy of social studies. As the SOSE Sourcebook Guidelines
emphasise, “inquiry-based learning in Studies of Society and Environment stresses
the active role of students in terms of effective learning” (Queensland School
Curriculum Council, 2001, p. 6). The role of SOSE teachers promoted by the SOSE
curriculum documents is very much one of facilitating students’ knowledge rather
than engaging in direct instruction or explicit teaching:
The teacher’s role includes motivating students and raising their awareness
of complexities, alternative perspectives and other options for action and
information. Teachers also assist students to understand how and when to
apply knowledges. (Queensland School Curriculum Council, 2001, p. 6)
Chapter 3: Theory of Teachers’ Knowledge 105
It is inferred that facilitating is different from explicit teaching, arguing a different
approach to subject knowledge and pedagogy. Facilitating privileges the “how” of
SOSE, while explicit teaching focuses on both the “how” and the “what” of SOSE.
Investigating SOSE teachers’ conceptions of essential knowledge will illuminate this
area of study from an Australian perspective.
This study of middle school SOSE teachers’ conceptions of essential
knowledge is now contextualised in the wider literature on research into expert and
novice teachers’ subject knowledge in the social sciences.
SOSE teachers’ knowledge: the disciplines
In this section the literature on teachers’ knowledge of the disciplines of
geography and history is explored. The following section explores research into
teachers’ knowledge of associated studies, such as global education, civics and
citizenship and environmental education.
Research from overseas amongst geography pre-service teachers indicates
difficulties with lack of disciplinary knowledge in geography in the USA (Gilsbach,
1997). Similarly, research into a small group of undergraduate geographers enrolled
in pre-service secondary teacher education at the University of London Institute of
Education found that, although most felt confident about teaching aspects of physical
geography, as beginning secondary teachers they did not have a well-defined
common body of knowledge (Rynne & Lambert, 1997). A phenomenographic study
into undergraduate geographers’ conceptions of teaching, learning and geography in
Australia, the UK and the USA by Bradbeer, Healey and Kneale (2004) revealed a
very general understanding of conceptions of geography as the separation of the
human and physical world and a non-relational study of people and environment
interactions. Spatial patterns and processes and areal differentiation were far less
well understood. The study concluded that undergraduate geographers’ conceptions
of geography lacked sophistication and a distinctive methodology (Bradbeer et al.,
2004). Clearly discipline-based knowledge of geography is complex; it may be
inferred that those middle years SOSE teachers not trained in geography who have to
teach it as part of integrated social science are even more likely to have weak
conceptions of geography.
106 Middle school social sciences: Exploring teachers’ conceptions of essential knowledge
Compared with geography teachers, the research into the teaching of history
and history teachers’ knowledge is more extensive. In their “wisdom of practice”
study, Wineburg and Wilson (1991a) studied the teaching practice of two expert
history teachers, Jensen and Price. They found that, while both had excellent
knowledge of subject matter, they needed more than knowledge of content to make
historical knowledge accessible to their students. The kinds of historical knowledge
in Jensen and Price’s classrooms were described as “epistemological
representations” that modelled “ways of knowing” in history and “contextual
representations” where “a concept, idea, or event [is] rooted in a specific time and
place” (Wineburg & Wilson, 1991a, p. 409). These representations appear to show
“flexible understanding of a subject”. This term is used to describe the ability to
draw relationships within a subject, across disciplinary fields and to the world
outside school (McDiarmid, Ball & Anderson, 1989). “Flexible understanding”
means knowing about the discipline and respecting its integrity.
While the two teachers in Wineburg and Wilson’s study (1991a, 1991b) clearly
demonstrate “flexible understanding”, the authors caution that, “knowledge of
subject matter is central to teaching, but expert knowledge of content is not the sole
determinant of good teaching” (Wineburg & Wilson, 1991a, p. 411). The “wisdom of
practice” was demonstrated by the teachers being able to draw from a wide
knowledge base in addition to history (Wineburg & Wilson, 1991a). In further
analysis, Wineburg and Wilson (1991b) suggest that, for their case study teachers,
the main task was to represent the subject matter rather than create new historical
knowledge. In this sense, the researchers acknowledge that the goals of a history
teacher are different from those of a historian. While the history teacher aims to
represent knowledge in the minds of students, the goal of a historian is to broaden
the discipline, discover new knowledge and create new interpretations of knowledge.
Thus, the expertise or the “wisdom” of the history teachers was most successfully
indicated in their pedagogical content knowledge (Wineburg & Wilson, 1991b).
In contrast to this positive picture of expert history teachers’ subject
knowledge (Wineburg & Wilson, 1991b), Wineburg (1991) reports that history
teachers sometimes lack a deep understanding of the nature of historical sources,
tending to rely on textbooks, and do not always question the views and
interpretations they put forward. His study illustrates the difference between the
Chapter 3: Theory of Teachers’ Knowledge 107
disciplinary practices of historians and history students, and the nature of history as a
school subject. He concludes that school history must strive to become more like the
discipline itself, that is, “a site of inquiry in its own right, a place to explore the
complex cognitive processes we use to discern pattern and significance in the past”
(Wineburg, 1991, p. 518).
If this is to be the case, however, the subject knowledge of teachers who teach
history either as a school subject in its own right or in an integrative framework such
as SOSE or social studies is paramount. On this score, the evidence is worrying. A
US study of how social studies teachers in community service-learning programs
implemented historical inquiry identified serious shortcomings, such as failing to
examine different perspectives, evaluate the reliability of historical sources or
develop historical narratives (Ohn & Wade, 2009). Likewise, Yilmaz (2008) found
naïve, incomplete and fragmentary conceptions of history in a study of 12
experienced social science teachers from public and middle schools in the USA.
Despite many years of experience, these teachers’ conceptions of history did not
reflect an understanding of the syntactic structure of history or its interpretative
nature. In Australia, the report into The National Inquiry into School History (NISH)
entitled The Future of the Past (Taylor, 2000) indicates concerns about teachers’
subject knowledge in history. The Executive Summary of the report states:
There was widespread concern about the quality of many recently-trained
graduate teachers who were applauded for their enthusiasm but who were a
source of anxiety because of an apparently deficient knowledge-base in
historical studies. This anxiety applied both to primary and secondary
trainees. (Taylor, 2000, p. vii)
Efforts are being made by some teacher-educators to address the problem of subject
matter preparation in history (Sim, 2001; Triolo, 2001). Moreover, Australian
research shows that in light of an ageing teaching workforce, the experience of
teaching history contributes significantly to the knowledge base of teachers in
knowing both “what” to teach and “how” to teach it (McMeniman, Cumming,
Stevenson, Wilson & Sim, 2000; Sim, 2010). However, as middle school SOSE
teachers are drawn from both primary and secondary schools, some may have had
little experience of history teacher education or of teaching history except as part of
SOSE, so their grasp of the disciplinary base of history is likely to vary.
108 Middle school social sciences: Exploring teachers’ conceptions of essential knowledge
To summarise, the international research on social science teachers’ knowledge
of the disciplinary basis of history and geography indicates conceptual weaknesses
and a poor understanding of disciplinary practice. This study aims to fill the void in
the literature on research into middle years teachers’ knowledge via a
phenomenographic approach. SOSE adopts a distinctive approach to social science
curriculum integration in the middle years, as its disciplinary basis in history and
geography is well articulated. Phenomenographic analysis in Chapter 5 will identify
the extent to which this is part of SOSE teachers’ thinking.
SOSE teachers’ knowledge: other associated studies
As SOSE also draws on studies associated with the social sciences; the
following section explores research on teachers’ knowledge of global perspectives,
citizenship education and environmental education, as each area is integral to SOSE.
A global perspective and civics and citizenship education are essential aspects
of the Queensland SOSE syllabus, with concepts associated with multiculturalism,
racism, diversity and cultural identity found in the Culture and Identity strand, and
concepts devoted to civics and citizenship in the Political and Economic Systems
strand of SOSE (Queensland Studies Authority, 2007b; 2007c). These concepts are
not taught within the disciplinary scope of SOSE. They require a different pedagogy
to encourage students to examine their attitudes and beliefs and encourage
transformative learning, to promote students’ disposition for change and personal
action. Teachers’ knowledge in each of these areas is just as critical as in the
disciplines that underpin SOSE, yet because they fall outside the scope of the
traditional disciplines, teachers may not have the opportunity for formal learning or
in-service training in these areas.
Global education is concerned with developing students’ understanding of the
world that is interconnected and interdependent; thus it depends on transforming
students’ attitudes and aims to empower them to celebrate the world and address
injustice. Global education is an interdisciplinary perspective on education that
“promotes open-mindedness leading to new thinking about the world and a
predisposition to take action for change” (Curriculum Corporation, 2008, p. 2).
Global education, with its potential for “transformative education” (Dyer, 2006, p.
3), has special relevance to SOSE. Dyer (2004) argues that the teaching of global
Chapter 3: Theory of Teachers’ Knowledge 109
education must be based on teachers’ reflective practices of their own identities and
background experiences that shape their approach to teaching. The attributes of a
“global teacher” (Pike & Selby, 1988) include being global centric, future focused,
and respectful of diversity and others’ perspectives (Bliss, 2005), with broad
interdisciplinary knowledge and a disposition to participate in a globalised world
(Kirkwood, 2001). Through the process of self-reflection, the interdisciplinary
knowledge base and dispositional attributes to teach global education are enhanced.
The importance of knowledge of self as part of the knowledge base and
conceptual basis for teaching multiculturalism and citizenship education in SOSE is
supported by Banks (2001). He asserts that there is a need for a new approach to
citizenship education, due to the large numbers of immigrants and continuing
institutional racism, discrimination and the gap between rich and poor. He advocates
a transformative approach to knowledge to change society and believes that,
“teachers must develop reflective cultural, national, and global identifications
themselves if they are to help students become thoughtful, caring, and reflective
citizens in a multicultural world society” (Banks, 2001, p. 5). The knowledge base of
SOSE teachers must therefore move beyond formal learning and extend to examining
and critiquing their own cultural and racial world view. Personal reflective
approaches, drawing on an interdisciplinary knowledge of the world, are needed to
teach global education, multiculturalism and citizenship as part of SOSE.
In addition to global education and civics and citizenship, environmental
education is a significant component of Queensland SOSE. It emphasises concepts
such as ecological sustainability and knowledge of the complex nature of
environments. The need to protect and sustain natural, built and social environments
with economic imperatives is embodied in the SOSE value of “ecological and
economic sustainability” (Queensland School Curriculum Council, 2000, p. 2).
Reporting on a qualitative ethnographic study and a quantitative survey of
environmental education in pre-service teacher education, Cutter-Mackenzie and
Tidbury (2002) found that student teachers’ knowledge of facts, principles and
concepts about the environment were weak. They lacked an understanding of the
vocabulary, basic concepts and theories associated with environmental education,
and appeared unconcerned about their own lack of knowledge. Rather, novice
110 Middle school social sciences: Exploring teachers’ conceptions of essential knowledge
teachers valued positive beliefs and values about environmental education over the
“content, substantive and syntactic knowledge of environmental education” (Cutter-
Mackenzie & Tidbury, 2002, p. 30). In further research with Queensland primary
school teachers, Cutter-Mackenzie and Smith (2003, p. 497) found that these
teachers “are likely to be functioning at a ‘knowledge’ level of ecological illiteracy
and/or nominal ecological literacy”. Primary SOSE teachers lacked subject matter
knowledge in key areas of environmental education. Primary teachers’ lack of
sophisticated knowledge of the concepts, principles and principles of environmental
education is attributed to the notion amongst teachers that a positive attitude to the
environment was more important than content knowledge, (Cutter-Mackenzie &
Smith, 2003, p. 516). While feelings and attitudes are very important, they cannot
satisfactorily take the place of knowledge of concepts, facts and theories about
environmental education.
In sum, teachers need a wide, interdisciplinary knowledge and the disposition
to push subject boundaries and make a difference to teach global education, civics
and citizenship and environmental education as part of SOSE. The importance of
making this wisdom of practice (Shulman, 1987) or tacit knowledge, an explicit part
of the knowledge base of teaching, should not be underestimated (Loughran,
Mitchell & Mitchell, 2003). Given the disciplinary basis of Queensland SOSE, the
significance of understanding the concepts, substantive and syntactical knowledge of
history and geography are key. In the absence of substantial studies on middle years
teachers’ knowledge in Australia, the aim of this phenomenography is to reveal the
significance that middle school teachers attach to these tacit conceptions of
knowledge for SOSE.
Chapter 3 summary
In Chapter 3, I have theorised middle school SOSE teachers’ conceptions of
essential knowledge using Shulman’s (1986, 1987) theory of the knowledge base of
teaching. The significance for this study was considered and contextualised in
models of teachers’ knowledge. Disciplinarity as the basis of school subjects was
discussed, and the philosophical basis for teaching integrated social science
curriculum was illustrated by drawing on Dewey’s (1897) logical-psychological
approach to school subjects. The distinction between school subjects, and the
Chapter 3: Theory of Teachers’ Knowledge 111
disciplines on which many of them are based, was discussed in detail (Stengel, 1997;
Deng, 2007a). Clearly, SOSE privileges disciplinary “ways of knowing”, even as the
content and pedagogy are integrated. The hybrid position occupied by SOSE may be
the source of both its legitimacy as a school subject and the reason it poses such a
challenge to teachers’ knowledge base.
The literature review considered international research into teaching the
disciplines as school subjects in order to contextualise the current study of SOSE
teachers’ knowledge base. The literature on history teaching (Wilson & Wineburg,
1991a, 1991b; Wineburg, 1991), in particular, shows that a school subject based on a
discipline is very different in its conceptualisation and practice from the discipline
itself. In light of the characteristics of integrated curriculum (Beane, 1997) examined
in Chapter 2, sound disciplinary knowledge is critically important in teaching an
integrated curriculum. Concerns about teachers’ subject knowledge base have been
raised in studies of integrated science in Australia (Wallace, Rennie, Malone &
Venville, 2001) and integrated social studies in the USA (Mintrop, 2004; Ohn &
Wade, 2009; Wilson & Wineburg, 1988; Yilmaz, 2008).
With the exception of middle years science education (Venville et al., 2000,
2002; Wallace et al., 2001), there appear to be few Australian studies into practising
middle years teachers’ knowledge. The conclusion that teachers’ subject knowledge
in the disciplines is a critical factor in successful teaching of integrated curriculum
supports the finding of the QSRLS (Education Queensland, 2001) study that
Queensland teachers rate skills more highly than intellectual engagement. In terms of
disciplinary knowledge, the deficit nationally in primary and secondary history
teachers’ subject knowledge base was identified (Taylor, 2000). Teachers of
environmental education displayed little concern about their relative lack of
knowledge about the environment because they believed that developing attitudes
and feelings about environmental issues was more important (Cutter-Mackenzie &
Smith, 2003). Certainly the evidence of geography teachers teaching SOSE (Lam &
Lidstone, 2001) showed ambiguity and a lack of confidence in teaching content in
other discipline areas associated with SOSE. The current literature suggests that
there is a risk that some Queensland SOSE teachers are teaching engaging issues and
topics in the absence of any real understanding of the underlying conceptual
complexity. This does not bode well for the next phase of social science education
112 Middle school social sciences: Exploring teachers’ conceptions of essential knowledge
with the emerging discipline-based Australian Curriculum in history (ACARA,
2010c) and geography (ACARA, 2011). Indeed, in feedback to the writers of the
Australian Curriculum, the Queensland Studies Authority called for source books of
content modules and resources in history to assist non-specialist teachers
(Queensland Studies Authority, 2010).
In the middle years of schooling, teachers are curriculum makers (Craig &
Ross, 2008; Clandinin & Connelly, 1992), as they interpret and implement integrated
curricula such as SOSE. As such, their conceptions of knowledge are critical to their
work. Research into middle school teachers’ conceptions of essential knowledge will
address the gap in the current literature in Australia on the nature of SOSE teachers’
knowledge. Shulman’s (1986, 1987) theory of the knowledge base of teaching
provides the foundation for further research into middle school teachers’ subject
knowledge, as it incorporates both disciplinary and integrated “ways of knowing”
and embraces a broad conceptualisation of teachers’ knowledge (Wilson et al.,
1987). A wider implication of this study is to shed light on the nature of middle
school teacher identity. Phenomenography will open up research into the nature of
SOSE teachers’ knowledge, as it privileges the voice of teachers themselves. Chapter
4 will examine the potential of phenomenography as a suitable research approach to
investigate middle school SOSE teachers’ conceptions of essential knowledge.
Chapter 4: Research Methodology 113
Chapter 4: Research Methodology
This chapter is a description of the research method used to explore middle
school social science teachers’ conceptions of essential knowledge.
Phenomenography is used to investigate the research question, What are Queensland
middle years teachers’ conceptions of essential knowledge in social education?
Phenomenography is a qualitative research specialisation that aims to map “the
qualitatively different ways in which people experience, conceptualize, perceive, and
understand various aspects of, and various phenomena in, the world around them”
(Marton, 1988, p. 178-179). By investigating teachers’ experiences of essential
knowledge for social education, the use of phenomenography builds on the
conceptualisation of the teacher as curriculum-maker identified in Chapter 1. First,
the epistemological and ontological assumptions of phenomenography and its
characteristics are considered. Next, the participants and the procedures for selecting
a sample for the study are described and the ethical issues are explored. Data
collection strategies are then outlined, followed by the method by which the data was
analysed. Finally, issues of research rigour in phenomenography are outlined.
Methodology and research design
Qualitative research makes the world visible through interpretation of different
phenomena to identify the meanings that people bring to them (Denzin &Lincoln,
2005). Phenomenography is a qualitative “research approach” (Dall’Alba, 2000 p.
16) used to examine questions relevant to learning and understanding in an
educational setting (Marton & Booth, 1997). Research approaches such as grounded
theory, ethnography and phenomenology share some characteristics with
phenomenography and some of the similarities and differences are explored briefly
to establish the relevance of phenomenography to this study.
Rationale for phenomenography in this study
Calderhead (1996, p. 710) maintains that, given teachers’ “vast, somewhat
idiosyncratic knowledge base”, different methodologies are needed to uncover the
nature of their knowledge and beliefs. As such, grounded theory is concerned with
114 Middle school social sciences: Exploring teachers’ conceptions of essential knowledge
qualitative procedures to develop a general explanation or “grounded theory” about a
social phenomenon. It is concerned with explaining a process or interaction among
people demonstrating the relations between conceptual categories in order to
generate a theory or explanation (Glesne, 2006). In common with phenomenography
which typically relies on interviews, grounded theory is generated from the
participants’ views.
Similarly, traditional ethnography seeks to examine, describe and analyse the
values, beliefs, language, actions and behaviours over time of an identified group.
However, critical ethnography raises awareness with an emphasis on action and
bringing about change (Glesne, 2006). Data gathered during ethnographic studies
result in rich descriptions of people’s language, beliefs and behaviours from which
conclusions can be drawn. The emphasis on rich description has some similarity to
categories of description in phenomenography, however in phenomenography the
focus is exclusively on the phenomenon being investigated.
While phenomenology has much in common with phenomenography, the key
difference is that investigations in phenomenology centre on understanding the
“essence” of the phenomenon being investigated. Van Mannen (1990, p. 9) states
that in phenomenology, the researcher is interested in “gaining a deeper
understanding of the nature or meaning of our everyday experience”.
Phenomenology is concerned with subjective experience and how that experience
becomes part of a person’s reality (Patton, 2002). However, in contrast to
phenomenology, phenomenography is focused on identifying the dimensions of
variation in the categories of description, that is, “[T]he aim of phenomenographic
research studies have been, from the start, to describe the variation of ways of
thinking about specific phenomena” (Pramling, 1995, p. 136) represented in an
outcome space. While phenomenology focuses on the essence of a phenomenon, an
essential feature of phenomenography is the nature and range of variation in the
conceptions held by the participants.
Dall’Alba (2000, p. 27) concludes that although phenomenology, ethnography
and phenomenography share some similar features, the distinguishing feature of the
latter is “on mapping qualitatively different conceptions.” In this study,
phenomenography is used to situate the researcher in the world of middle school
Chapter 4: Research Methodology 115
teachers to investigate and make sense of the phenomenon of essential knowledge for
teaching integrated social science.
Phenomenography is situated within the interpretivist paradigm, which seeks to
uncover the ways in which a phenomenon may be experienced through empirical
means (Marton, 2000; Svensson, 1997). Phenomenography appeared in the
mainstream literature in 1981, when Ference Marton (1981) proposed that the study
of variation between phenomena should be a research specialisation its own right
(Åkerlind, 2002; Svensson, 1997). The comparatively recent history of
phenomenography (Dall’Alba, 2000; Svensson, 1997) tells us that this research
approach emerged from investigations of students’ experience of learning. It focused
on how university students approached their learning in terms of how and what they
learned in relation to real academic tasks (Marton & Saljo, 1976; Svensson, 1997.
These early studies established phenomenography within the interpretivist paradigm,
focusing on the way that something is experienced (Marton & Booth, 1997).
Described alternatively as a “research approach” (Åkerlind, 2002, p. 1) and as a
“research specialisation” (Svensson, 1977, p.159), phenomenography aims to
distinguish and describe variations in the way that people experience a specific
phenomenon (Pramling, 1995; Sandberg, 2000). In this study, phenomenography
provides a way to research the variation in teachers’ experience of the phenomenon
of essential knowledge for teaching social education.
Overview of phenomenography
The object of phenomenography is to map the qualitatively different ways in
which people perceive and experience phenomena in the wider world (Marton,
1986). The object of conducting phenomenographic research is to focus on the way
that something is experienced to identify the variation in the ways of experiencing
the phenomenon and discern structures of awareness of the phenomenon (Marton &
Booth, 1997). The categories of description which emerge from phenomenographic
analysis document the participants’ relational understanding of the phenomenon. The
structure of awareness of the phenomenon, depicted in the outcome space, captures
the variation between ways of experiencing, conceptualising, or understanding
something. The structure of awareness of a phenomenon is multi-layered (Marton,
1995), and as Marton and Booth (1997) affirm, “in a sense we could say we are
116 Middle school social sciences: Exploring teachers’ conceptions of essential knowledge
aware of everything all the time” (Marton & Booth, 1997, p. 98). Discerning
variation between these layers of meaning and awareness is the process by which
meaning is elucidated in phenomenographic analysis (Irvin, 2005/6).
Ontological and epistemological basis of phenomenography
Research on teachers’ cognitions in the interpretive tradition seeks to
understand their actions in the context of their work (Calderhead, 1996). The
ontological and epistemological assumptions that underpin phenomenography
illustrate the non-dualistic basis of phenomenography. Ontology refers to the study
of teachers’ beliefs about the nature of reality (Lincoln & Guba, 2000) which, in this
study, will be examined through information gathered from interviews with teachers.
The interviews provide insights into the way that teachers experience the
construction of knowledge in the classroom. Epistemology broadly refers to
teachers’ theory of knowledge (Schraw & Olafson, 2008, p. 27). Based on the
definition of epistemology as “the nature and justification of human knowledge”
(Hofer & Pintrich, 1997, p. 88), in this study, epistemology refers to the study of
teachers’ beliefs of how they conceptualise, acquire and justify knowledge for
teaching.
The ontological basis of phenomenography is non-dualistic, that is, the inner
and outer worlds are seen to relate internally to each other and are not formally
distinguished (Bowden, 2005; Marton & Booth, 1997). What this means is that there
is only one world where the subjective inner world of the person is constituted in
relation to the objective outer world (Bowden, 2005; Marton & Booth, 1997). The
relational aspect of phenomenography is based on the principle of intentionality and
a non-dualist view of human awareness (Marton, 2000; Marton & Pang, 2008).
A constitutionalist perspective which is based on the phenomenographic
position of a non-dualistic view of the world (Marton & Neuman, 1989) argues that
knowledge is constituted in the internal relationship between the knower and what is
known (Bowden, 2005; Marton & Booth, 1997). In this sense, constitutionalism is
akin to constructionism, where knowledge is based on interaction with the world,
rather than individual constructions of knowledge. In a constitutionalist view of
knowledge, the experience of the phenomenon is framed as the internal relationship
between the person partaking of the experience and the thing that is being
Chapter 4: Research Methodology 117
experienced. Marton and Neuman (1989) maintain that “there are not two separate
entities (individual and world) plus a relation between them; the world-as-
experienced is all there is” (Marton & Neuman, 1989, p. 36). In light of these
arguments, a constitutionalist epistemology underpins this study because the
phenomenon of essential knowledge for social education is constituted by the
internal relationship between the teacher (subject) and their world (object), which is
the basis of phenomenography.
At this point, it is worth noting the difference between social constructionism
and constructivism. According to Silverman (2005), social constructionism focuses
on people’s behaviour and “prioritises interaction rather than meaning and, therefore,
prefers to look at what people do without any necessary reference to what they are
thinking or feeling” (Silverman, 2005 , p. 10). Although this description of the
differences between social constructionism and constructivism may seem arbitrary,
Crotty (1998) distinguishes between the two by emphasising that social
constructionism looks at the way in which culture shapes our world, and how we
think and see the world. In contrast to constructionism, constructivism is concerned
with the unique experience of each individual. According to Crotty (1998), the
constructivist view is that knowledge is constructed in the mind, which is separate
from external reality. In general, Young and Collin (2004) maintain that social
constructionism holds that “knowledge is sustained by social processes and that
knowledge and social action go together” (Young & Collin, 2004, p. 376). It appears
that the terms “social constructionism” and “constructivism” are used
idiosyncratically and inconsistently at times (Young & Collin, 2004). Considering
the potential for confusion in the use and application of these key terms, Crotty
(1998) proposes that:
It would appear useful then, to reserve the term constructivism for
epistemological considerations focusing exclusively on “the meaning-
making activity of the individual mind” and to use constructionism where
the focus includes “the collective generation [and transmission] of meaning”.
(Crotty, 1998, p. 58)
Based on Crotty’s (1998) distinctions outlined above, it appears that the key
difference between constructivism and constructionism is that constructivism is
associated with the way individuals make meaning of their world in relation to pre-
118 Middle school social sciences: Exploring teachers’ conceptions of essential knowledge
existing social and natural systems (Young & Collin, 2004), while constructionism
focuses on the collective making of meaning through interaction with the world.
According to Marton and Neuman (1989), dualistic assumptions are the basis of
constructivism, in other words, the inner world is separate from the outer world.
They maintain that, in constructivism, our mental and material actions are the source
of our knowledge, which is separate from the subjective or inner world of the person.
However, phenomenographers question the constructivist approach to
knowledge because the act of knowing, thinking or experiencing something always
presupposes that there is a world out there to be known. The paradox of
constructivism is that the separation of the inner (subjective) from the outer
(objective) world means that, for an individual, reality is always out of reach. Marton
and Neuman (1989) assert that the principle of intentionality that underpins
phenomenography (and phenomenology) offers an alternative to constructivism
because the act of thinking or perceiving is always directed towards thinking or
perceiving something. As such, constitutionalism which asserts the significance of
the internal relationship between the inner world and the outer world offers an
alternative to constructivism (Marton & Neuman, 1989).
While the ontological stance of phenomenography is inconsistent with
constructivism, like constructionism, a constitutionalist epistemology is focused on
the ways in which meaning is made and knowledge is experienced. Constitutionalism
is relevant to this study because it elucidates “a didactic ‘knowledge interest’”
(Marton & Neumann, 1989, p. 45) to make visible the objective and subjective world
of teachers’ knowledge. To this end, phenomenography focuses on the participants’
experience of the phenomenon: “the object and subject are not separate, the subject’s
experience of the object is a relation between the two” (Marton, 2000, p.104).
Bowden (2005) goes further, maintaining that, “the object of study in
phenomenographic research is not the phenomenon being discussed per sé, but rather
the relation between the subjects and that phenomenon” (Bowden, 2005, p. 12). A
non-dualistic understanding of the world underlies qualitatively different, relational
understandings of a phenomenon based on experience.
Chapter 4: Research Methodology 119
Phenomenographic traditions
Several variations in phenomenographic analysis have been identified and
questions have been raised about what the categories of description really represent
(Hasselgren & Beach, 1997). Hasselgren and Beach (1997) argue that, while there is
no consensus method of phenomenographic research, within Göthenburg
phenomenography, there are five recognisable traditions: (1) experimental; (2)
discursive; (3) naturalistic; (4) hermeneutic and (5) phenomenological (Hasselgren &
Beach, 1997, p. 195). Each tradition is now briefly explored.
Experimental phenomenography is linked to the analysis and categorisation of
a limited number of ways of experiencing a phenomenon in the outcome space
(Marton, 1975, as cited in Hasselgren & Beach, 1997). Discursive phenomenography
may be considered “pure” phenomenography, in that the knowledge of the
phenomenon does not go beyond the phenomenographic investigation itself. The
well-known example here is Dahlgren’s (1979) research into students’ conceptions
of price formation (Dahlgren, 1979, as cited in Hasselgren & Beach, 1997).
Naturalistic phenomenography is about collecting and recording data from real
situations without any direct involvement or interference from the researcher. In
naturalistic phenomenography, what is recorded as data can also be observed in a
routine setting or in authentic settings (Lybeck, 1981, as cited in Hasselgren &
Beach, 1997). Hermeneutic phenomenography (Lindblad, 1995, as cited in
Hasselgren & Beach, 1997) is based on interpreting texts that were not originally
gathered for phenomenographic research in terms of their subject-object-subject
relationship, or whole-part relationships. Finally, phenomenological
phenomenography has been described by phenomenographers who have attempted to
identify a phenomenological aspect in their work, where the researcher wants to
know and describe what is going on in the mind of the participant during an
interview. An example is Neumann (1997, as cited in Hasselgren & Beach, 1997),
who studied young children’s acquisition of elementary mathematical skills.
While each of these traditions is quite different from the others, Bowden
(2000) makes the distinction between two kinds of phenomenography: “pure
phenomenography” and “developmental phenomenography” (Bowden, 2000, p. 3;
Bowden & Green, 2005). According to Marton (1986, p. 38), “pure”
phenomenography is concerned with describing the full range of ways in which
120 Middle school social sciences: Exploring teachers’ conceptions of essential knowledge
people experience a certain phenomenon. Pure phenomenography may be considered
discursive phenomenography, as described by Hasselgren and Beach (1997). In
contrast, “developmental” phenomenography “seeks to find out how people
experience some aspect of their world, and then to enable them or others to change
the way their world operates” (Bowden, 2000, p. 3). Developmental
phenomenography usually occurs within an educational setting. Its purpose is to use
the findings of other teaching or learning contexts to enable a more powerful
understanding of the phenomenon, or to develop generalisations about how learning
could be organised within that field of study (Bowden, 2000). The outcomes of the
research may particularly be used in programmes for teachers (Bowden, 2000). As
will be discussed further on page 134, the current study shares some characteristics
of developmental phenomenography as the findings could be implemented in teacher
education and teachers’ in-service professional development. The variety of ways in
which phenomenographic approaches may be implemented demonstrates the
richness of the approach.
Value of phenomenography in this study
The value of phenomenography as the research approach for this study is that it
aims to describe how variation in knowledge of SOSE is experienced by teachers.
Underpinned by a relational, non-dualistic view of the world which is the basis of
constitutionalism (Marton & Neuman, 1989), the phenomenon of teachers’ essential
knowledge for social education is discerned from accounts of their experience.
Three lines of development can be identified in phenomenographic research.
According to Marton (1986, 1988), the first line of phenomenographic research was
content-related studies that related the differences in students’ learning outcomes to
the differences in their learning approaches. In reference to teachers, a body of
phenomenograhic research exists which examines university educators’ conceptions
of teaching and learning (Åkerlind, 2004; Åkerlind, 2008), teachers’ conceptions of
student engagement (Harris, 2008; Harris, 2011a) and pedagogic teacher-student
interactions (Beutel, 2010). The second line of research focused on the study of
learning in particular domains, such as economics, mathematics and physics
(Marton, 1986). The third line of phenomenographic research is how people view
aspects of their reality in areas outside education, such as politics, inflation, social
Chapter 4: Research Methodology 121
security or taxes (Marton, 1986, 1988; Dall’Alba, 2000). The third approach is
described by Marton (1986, p. 38) as centred on “pure” phenomenographic interest
as it is concerned with describing people’s conceptions of a particular reality.
Although phenomenography originated in studies of learning, the method can be
applied for a range of purposes, both inside and outside education (Bowden, 2000).
This study falls within the second line of phenomenographic research (identified
above) although the emphasis is on educators’ conceptions of knowledge rather than
on students’ learning.
The process of identifying variation in the different ways of experiencing a
phenomenon or conception is important in phenomenography because different parts
of the whole may not be simultaneously an object of awareness (Marton & Booth,
1997). Identifying participants’ conceptions is key to elucidating the relationship
between the inner and outer worlds. Svensson (1997) argues that the aim of
phenomenographic research, and its most significant characteristic, is to describe
conceptions with a view to developing categories of description.
Principles of phenomenographic analysis
The way that a phenomenon is experienced as a whole can be described in
terms of a structure of awareness (Marton, 2000), depicted through the presentation
of the categories of description in the outcome space. The following section
examines the principles of phenomenographic analysis in order to discern the
categories of description.
First and second order perspective
In phenomenography, the researcher adopts a second order perspective for the
purpose of analysis. First-order perspectives are statements or beliefs about the world
or the phenomenon as experienced by the interviewer. Phenomenography focuses on
second-order perspectives, where the researcher has to step back and see the
phenomenon through the eyes of the participant, rather through his or her own eyes
(Marton & Booth, 1997).
A second-order perspective is essential for developing the different categories
of description. Marton (1995) explains that the difference between first- and second-
order perspectives is that tacit assumptions of the world comprise first-order
122 Middle school social sciences: Exploring teachers’ conceptions of essential knowledge
perspectives: “We are usually not aware of them. In phenomenography, from the
second-order perspective, these underlying ways of experiencing the world,
phenomena, situations are made the object of research” (Marton, 1995, p. 178). By
taking a second-order perspective, the researcher has to focus on the participant’s
experience, and therefore the researcher’s own experience is “bracketed”.
Bracketing is a concept from phenomenology, whereby the researcher’s
preconceived ideas about the phenomenon are set aside and the categories of
description emerge from the data (Irvin, 2005/6). Marton (1995) asserts the
importance of the researcher bracketing his or her own preconceived ideas or
presuppositions of the phenomenon to focus on the similarities and differences in the
ways in which the participants perceive the phenomenon. The challenge of setting
aside one’s own presuppositions as far as possible to register the participants’ views
has been noted (Ashworth & Lucas, 2000). The researcher adopts a second-order
perspective in relation to other people’s experiences, acknowledging that a first-order
perspective is embedded in his or her own experience of the phenomenon (Marton &
Booth, 1997; Irvin (2005/6).
Descriptions based on the second-order perspective in phenomenography are
characterised as relational, experiential, content-oriented and qualitative (Marton,
1986, p. 181). What does this mean for this study? The phenomenographic approach
is based on the principle of intentionality; that is to say that the experience of
understanding or perceiving is directed towards understanding or perceiving
something. Thus, the experience cannot be separated from what is understood or
perceived (Dall’Alba, 2000). In the current study, the categories of description are
based on what the participants said in relation to how each of them, as individuals,
understands essential knowledge in middle school social education. The study is
experiential in that the research draws on middle school teachers’ own experiences,
which in turn inform their views of essential knowledge in social education.
Descriptions of how individual middle school teachers “see” essential knowledge in
social education means that the categories of description are based on the content
they describe. Finally, the qualitative features of phenomenography arise by
discerning the relational aspects of features of the phenomenon.
Chapter 4: Research Methodology 123
Conceptions lie at the core of phenomenography, and the following section
defines and describes their role in the categories of description.
Conceptions and categories of description
A conception is the basic unit of description in phenomenography (Marton &
Pong, 2005). Phenomenographers usually access participants’ awareness of a
phenomenon through the use of open-ended questions in an interview. Following the
interviews, the researcher’s aim is to identify conceptions of the phenomenon. A
widely-held understanding of conceptions is that they represent the totality of
possible ways of seeing and experiencing a phenomenon.
The nature of conceptions is important in phenomenography. Svensson (1997)
describes the fundamental relationship between knowledge and conceptions, where
assumptions about the nature of knowledge are closely linked to assumptions about
the nature of conceptions. Knowledge and conceptions are said to be relational.
“Thus the view of knowledge is that it is relational, not only empirical or rational,
but created through thinking about external reality” (Svensson, 1997, p. 165). This
relational understanding of knowledge is significant, for one of the underlying
assumptions of the study is that it is possible to uncover teachers’ knowledge by
discussing their teaching experience, that is, the relational understanding of how they
experience knowledge. Conceptions may be expressed through action but are usually
accessed through language (Svensson, 1997), which is why detailed attention to the
meaning conveyed in interview transcripts is so critical to phenomenographic
analysis.
In his description of “pure” phenomenography, which is concerned with
identifying conceptions of a particular reality, Marton (1986) asserts, “we focus on
the conceptions themselves as categories of description” (Marton, 1986, p. 39),
indicating that conceptions and categories of description are not different, but are in
fact one and the same. Similarly, in Sandberg’s (1997) view, conceptions refer “to
people’s ways of experiencing a specific aspect of reality” (Sandberg, 1997, p. 203)
and are “typically presented in the form of categories of description” (Sandberg,
1997, p. 204). Svensson (1997) elaborates that “conceptions are a central form of
knowledge” (Svensson, 1997, p. 171). It is critical to note here that the language and
terminology used by these prominent phenomenographers to define participants’
124 Middle school social sciences: Exploring teachers’ conceptions of essential knowledge
“conceptions”, and “categories of description” (determined by the researcher based
on participants’ conceptions), is framed in terms of the relationship with the
phenomenon under investigation.
Following the identification of conceptions from the interviews, the different
ways in which a phenomenon is experienced are collated into a draft set of pools of
meaning before being coalesced into categories of description. The categories of
description are derived by comparing and grouping the data represented by the
conceptions in each pool of meaning. Each category of description is a distinctly
different way of seeing or experiencing the phenomenon (Marton & Pang, 2008). So,
is there an identifiable difference between a conception and a category of
description?
According to Marton (1981), a conception only exists in the real world as a
mental act because it is exhibited through someone’s action. A category of
description describes when the activity is bracketed and the categories are considered
“almost as if they were ‘frozen’ forms of thought” (Marton, 1981, p. 186). In an oft-
quoted analogy, Marton (1981) describes the relationship between conception and
category of description as resembling “the relationship between Lewis Carroll’s
smiling cat and the smile that is left when the cat is separated from the smiling”
(Marton, 1981, p. 196). This is a striking visual depiction of a conception as a
category of description. It speaks to the phenomenographer’s understanding of
conceptions as the basic unit of description and the “collective intellect” denoted by
the categories of description (Marton, 1981, p. 177).
Phenomenography emphasises the importance of reaching summary
descriptions of the data that are as close as possible to the original data (Svensson,
1997). The categories of description should be faithful to individuals’ conceptions of
reality (Sandberg, 1997). However, it is noted that categories of description do not
comprise general characterisations of conceptions. They are an abstracted and
condensed summary of the data relating to conceptions of the phenomenon
(Svensson, 1997). In phenomenographic data analysis, the categories of description,
or different ways of experiencing that emerge from the data, are constituted in
relation to each other (Åkerlind, 2008). These descriptions will be relatively
Chapter 4: Research Methodology 125
economical, focusing on parts of the data that are abstracted from the whole, with a
clear focus on conceptions of the phenomenon.
The conceptualisation and mapping of the categories of description in the
outcome space represent the participants’ diverse ways of experiencing and
perceiving the phenomenon in the context of the world. Åkerlind (2002) asserts that
in the constitution of the categories the researcher looks for “key qualitative
similarities within and differences between the categories” (Åkerlind, 2002, p. 3).
However, as Marton and Booth (1997) note, not all relevant aspects of the
phenomenon in a particular situation can be discerned and presented simultaneously
in the focus of awareness. The identification and “discovery” of the categories of
description constitute the original findings of the study (Marton, 1986; Sjöström &
Dahlgren, 2002). As such, how a category is determined and mapped in relation to
all other categories is important.
Marton and Booth (1997, p. 125) present three important criteria for
determining the categories of description: (1) the individual categories should be
directly related to the phenomenon, so that each indicates a specific aspect of the
phenomenon; (2) the categories are ordered in a logical relationship which is
sometimes hierarchical; and (3) the categories should be “parsimonious”, meaning a
phenomenon comprises a relatively small number of ways of being seen or
experienced.
These criteria address aspects of the validity and reliability of the research
results in phenomenography (see pages 153-156). As Marton (1981) explains,
because categories of description apply to the group and not to individual
conceptions, the categories of description that emerge should be stable:
Conceptions and ways of understanding are not seen as individual qualities.
Conceptions of reality are considered rather as categories of description to
be used in facilitating the grasp of concrete cases of human functioning.
Since the same categories of description appear in different situations,
the set of categories is thus stable and generalisable between the
situations [emphasis added] even if individuals move from one category to
another on different occasions. (Marton, 1981, p.177)
126 Middle school social sciences: Exploring teachers’ conceptions of essential knowledge
This early statement on the phenomenographic approach indicates that the limited
number of categories of description that arise from a phenomenographic
investigation into a group of Queensland SOSE teachers’ knowledge may be
considered stable across other groups of teachers in the same situation. However, the
recent focus on identifying variation in phenomenography has both refined and
updated this understanding. In Learning and Awareness, Marton and Booth (1997)
consider the question of whether the categories of description apply to individuals,
groups or the wider population. They argue that, because the object of
phenomenography is to identify variation in ways of experiencing the phenomenon,
the categories are transferable:
In other words, a description of a way of experience might apply in some
sense across a group, or, there again, might apply to some aspect of an
individual. To the extent that the group represents the variation of
individuals in a wider population (or is a theoretical sample of that
population), the categories of description can also be said to apply to that
wider population. (Marton & Booth, 1997, p. 124)
Thus, the findings are considered transferable because they represent the variation
found in the wider population. Building on Marton and Booth (1997), Åkerlind
(2002, p. 12) maintains, “that the range of ways of experiencing should be
representative” across other groups of participants who have similar characteristics
and ways of experiencing the phenomenon. While the findings in phenomenography
cannot be generalised to other groups, they can be considered stable for that group of
participants at the time of data collection and representative for others similar to it.
Structure of awareness
Phenomenographic research is based on awareness of the structure of the
phenomenon. Åkerlind (2005a, p. 71) asserts that, “[t]he researcher aims to
constitute not just a set of meanings, but a logical structure relating to different
meanings.” A structural understanding is the basis of phenomenography which
simultaneously focuses on both collective understanding and variation in the ways of
experiencing the phenomenon.
Chapter 4: Research Methodology 127
Structural and referential features
Awareness of a phenomenon has two aspects: a structural aspect and a
referential aspect (Marton & Booth, 1997, Irvin, 2005/6). The structural aspect of an
experience discerns the whole as separate from its context and from its internal
components which make up the whole (Marton & Booth, 1997). Closely connected
with understanding the structural aspect is the referential aspect, which describes the
meaning associated with the individual parts that make up the whole, or the “global
meaning the person gives to the phenomenon” (Irvin, 2005/6, p. 287).
The structural aspect of the structure of awareness is further elaborated by
Marton and Booth (1997) in terms of an internal horizon and an external horizon. In
order to describe these differences in awareness, they cite the example of the
experience of seeing a deer emerging from a dark forest. The internal horizon refers
to a structural understanding, comprising the parts of the deer itself, and an
understanding of how the parts relate to the whole. The external horizon refers to all
the aspects of awareness of the experience, from the time the deer is discerned as
emerging from the forest to the broader context relating to our understanding and
experience of deer (for example through stories, seeing deer in a zoo or reports of
hunting). “The structural aspect of a way of experiencing something is thus twofold:
the discernment of the whole from the context on the one hand and discernment of
the parts and their relationships within the whole on the other” (Marton & Booth,
1997, p. 87). Though the structural and referential aspects are different, they are very
closely linked (Marton & Pong, 2005; Irvin, 2005/6). The structural aspect of the
parts of the phenomenon and their relationships, and the context from which it
derives, is different from the referential aspect, or the wider meaning given to the
phenomenon. Each aspect is intrinsic to the structure of awareness.
The internal and external horizon can also be described in terms of three
overlapping areas: the margin, the thematic field and the theme (Cope, 2004, based
on Gurwitsch, 1964). The “margin” of the level of awareness exists “outside of a
person’s consciousness” (Irvin, 2005/6, pp. 286-7). The theme is the object or focus
of the person’s awareness (Marton, 2000), while the thematic field refers to the
awareness of the theme within the context or background in which it exists (Marton,
2000). The external horizon broadly incorporates the margin and the thematic field,
while the theme refers to the internal horizon. Each of these aspects is related to the
128 Middle school social sciences: Exploring teachers’ conceptions of essential knowledge
others, making up the “theme of awareness” (Cope, 2004, p. 11). The focus of
awareness will depend on the context in which the phenomenon is being considered
by the individual.
In this study, the structural aspect of each category comprises (a) the internal
horizon, which indicates how Queensland middle school SOSE teachers
conceptualise essential knowledge, and (b) the external horizon or perceptual
boundaries of all other aspects of awareness of the phenomenon. The referential
aspect refers to a broader level of meaning and includes what is experienced in terms
of the culture of the school, pedagogical and curriculum considerations, or the
teachers’ professional expertise. Marton and Booth (1997) discuss the structural and
referential dimensions of experiencing the phenomenon as being the “part-whole
relationship between the different ways identified and the phenomenon itself”
(Marton & Booth, 1997, pp. 115-116). In other words, a conception is composed of
both a referential aspect (the particular meaning of an individual object) and a
structural aspect (the combination of features that are discerned) and, though
different, these are “intertwined in nature” (Marton & Pong, 2005, p. 336). In the
structure of awareness, Irvin (2005/6) affirms that, “while the structural aspect of
awareness is separated from the referential layer, they are still tightly connected”
(Irvin, 2005/6, p. 287).
In her review of the phenomenographic framework, Harris (2011b)
differentiates between two frameworks that are used to study conceptions. She
describes the first of these as the what/how framework (Pramling, 1983), which
enables researchers to examine the processes associated with a particular
understanding of a phenomenon such as “price”. In contrast, the
referential/structural framework (Marton & Booth, 1997; Cope, 2004) enables
researchers “to examine the parts that make up conceptions and their contexts”
(Harris, 2011b, p. 117). While phenomenography has traditionally been used to
examine topics of study in teaching and learning, phenomenographic studies of
teachers’ knowledge in relation to curriculum are relatively rare. In examining the
complexity of middle school SOSE teachers’ conceptions of essential knowledge for
social education, it is critical to contextualise their conceptions because the context is
intrinsic to the wider picture. Given the complex environment in which teaching
middle school social education occurs, the referential/structural framework was
Chapter 4: Research Methodology 129
employed in this study as it yields a rich understanding of the phenomenon to capture
variation in teachers’ experience of the phenomenon of essential knowledge.
The external horizon delimits the categories and helps to establish the
qualitative differences between them. The external horizon for each category of
description refers to the way that the phenomenon is discerned from its context, as
well as how it relates to its own context and even to other contexts (Marton & Booth,
1997; Cope, 2004). Irvin notes that, “the external horizon creates a context for the
phenomenon, establishing the parameters in which the phenomenon exists” (Irvin,
2005/2006, p. 291). This view of the external horizon implies that there may be more
than one context for the phenomenon under investigation. Thus, the external horizon
is seen to extend from the bounds of that experience to all other contexts of that and
similar experiences (Pang, 2003).
Harris (2011b) notes that phenomenographers disagree on a definition of the
external horizon. She asserts that some (for example, Cope, 2000; Marton & Booth,
1997) refer to it as the context of the phenomenon, while others (for example, Bruce
et al., 2004; Edwards, 2005; Harding, 2008) describe the external horizon as parts of
the conception that are poorly understood by the participant, or “fuzzy or blurred”
(Harris, 2011b, p. 116). In this study, the external horizon is defined as the context or
background of the conception that is peripheral to awareness. While participants are
aware of the context, its purpose is to help discern the structural aspects of the
category and differentiate the categories. A detailed discussion of the role of the
external horizon in logically ordering the categories of description in the outcome
space is presented in Chapter 6 (pp. 261-263).
Dimensions of variation
In the structure of awareness, different ways of seeing or experiencing are
determined by the context, and such discernment leads to an understanding of
variation. Marton and Booth (1997) explain that the categories of description are
differentiated by common themes or dimensions of variation, usually identified in
some or all of the categories of description. The dimensions of variation indicate the
distinctive features of the internal and external horizons within each category. The
categories are connected logically and inclusively by the dimensions of variation:
“The idea is that the qualitatively different meanings of a certain phenomenon can be
130 Middle school social sciences: Exploring teachers’ conceptions of essential knowledge
characterised by the same set of dimensions of variation” (Marton & Pang, 2008,
p. 536). The dimensions of variation represent the themes of variation in how the
participants experience common themes in a phenomenon. Åkerlind (2005b)
describes the dimensions of variation as expanding themes of awareness that are
consistently found in the categories of description. She maintains that the dimensions
of variation may become more apparent during the later stages of analysis as the
structural features of categories of description become more stable.
Pang (2003) considers the identification of categories of description as the
“first face of variation” (Pang, 2003, p. 145), where the researcher aims to describe
and report the different ways in which a phenomenon is experienced by the
participants. This understanding underpins the identification of the structural features
of each category. Marton and Pong (2005) maintain that attention to the structural
features enables the researcher to discern variation within the conception. Identifying
meaning (the referential aspect) presupposes that discernment of the structural
features has occurred: “Meaning always presupposes discernment and discernment
always presupposes variation” (Marton & Pong, 2005, p. 336). Discernment of the
structural aspects of each category elucidates the dimensions of variation in that
category, enabling a better understanding of the internal horizon of the category.
The main purpose of identifying variation is to delineate the differences and
structural links between the categories to build a structure of awareness of the
phenomenon. To this end, identifying variation within the categories, according to
Pang (2003), is the “second face of variation”, which elucidates the dimensions of
variation as experienced by the participants in the study. In this way, critical aspects
of the nature of the phenomena are discerned. Identifying variation within the
categories shifts the focus from a methodological endeavour to describe and report
ways of experiencing the phenomenon in the “first face of variation” to a theoretical
quest in the “second face of variation” to discern the nature of the phenomenon
(Pang, 2003). This understanding of the way in which a phenomenon is experienced
is rooted in phenomenography, which has a non-dualistic view of human-world
relations. That is, phenomenography holds that human actions are inseparable from
the world in which they occur and that all human experience is intentional (Marton
& Pang, 2008). Accordingly, the internal and external horizons of each category
Chapter 4: Research Methodology 131
define the structural elements of that category, where the internal horizon denotes the
intention of the experience, which in turn is discerned from its broader context.
Additional attention to the structural aspect of a conception has led to a recent
development in phenomenographic research called “variation theory”. Variation
theory is particularly concerned with explaining how learning occurs by using a
relational framework. It proposes that learning occurs when “variation in ways of
understanding or experiencing are discerned” (Bruce, Edwards & Lupton, 2006, p.
6). Variation theory is concerned with the variation within the structure of a
conception or the internal structure of a variation, not the variation between the
conceptions, which characterises the outcome space of traditional phenomenography
(Marton & Pong, 2005).
This study is concerned with questions of knowledge rather than learning and
draws on the traditional role of the dimensions of variation to differentiate the
categories of description. Åkerlind (2005a) cautions that phenomenographers should
represent only those aspects of variation that are essential to distinguish the
qualitatively different ways of experiencing phenomena. She maintains that focusing
on the critical aspects of the variation of experience of a phenomenon provides
“insight into what would be required for individuals to move from less powerful to
more powerful ways of understanding a phenomenon” (Åkerlind, 2005a, p. 72).
Identifying dimensions of variation or structural links between categories is a key
feature of creating the structure of awareness in phenomenography.
The outcome space
The outcome space presents the results of phenomenographic research as
relationships between the categories of description (Marton & Pang, 2008). The
character and quality of the outcome space will depend upon the ordering of the
categories of description and the criteria by which the categories are defined. Marton
and Booth (1997) assert that, “the outcome space is the complex of categories of
description comprising distinct groupings of aspects of the phenomenon and the
relationship between them” (Marton & Booth, 1997, p. 125). In creating the outcome
space, the qualitatively different ways of experiencing a phenomenon are logically
ordered, sometimes in the form of a hierarchy. Moreover, the dimensions of variation
are also depicted in the outcome space as it “describes the variation in the possible
132 Middle school social sciences: Exploring teachers’ conceptions of essential knowledge
ways in which a phenomenon is experienced” (Marton & Pang, 2008, p. 536).
However, Bruce (2006) notes that the relevance and theoretical importance of the
outcome space to phenomenographic research has been questioned. As
phenomenography gains ground in research outside its traditional field of learning,
questions about the theoretical value and depiction of the outcome space will
continue to be explored and debated. While this study is in the field of education, it
is not concerned with how people learn; rather it explores questions of teacher
knowledge. The study falls into the ongoing methodological conversation about the
value of phenomenography and its application in areas outside learning. As such, the
outcome space in this study (see Chapter 6) will map the variation in teachers’ ways
of experiencing the phenomenon of essential knowledge for social education.
The outcome space also indicates the wider relevance and value of the study.
As noted earlier in this chapter (pp. 122), Bowden (2000) summarises Hasselgren’s
(1997) five-fold classification of phenomenography into “pure” and “developmental”
phenomenography (Bowden, 2000; Bowden & Green, 2005). The current study
shares characteristics with both traditions. For the most part, it aligns with “pure”
phenomenography because the study results in complex understandings of the
phenomenon of essential knowledge held by middle school social education teachers
in Queensland. Dall’Alba (2000) identifies two benefits that flow from
phenomenographic research in terms of teaching and learning. First, such research
raises awareness of qualitatively different ways of seeing and understanding among
students, subject teachers and education developers. The second benefit relates to the
first, in that such knowledge provides a basis for developing teaching and
educational programs (Dall’Alba, 2000). The understandings of middle years social
education teachers’ conceptions of essential knowledge that emerge have the
potential to inform pre-service teacher-education and in-service professional
development. Thus the research accords with elements of developmental
phenomenography. Moreover, the outcome space may illustrate a practice-based
theorisation of the SOSE learning area based on the variation in teachers’ experience
as curriculum makers described in Chapter 1.
The following section describes how participants were selected for the study.
Chapter 4: Research Methodology 133
Participants
Phenomenography focuses on identifying and mapping the conceptions of a
collective group rather than individuals (Harris, 2011a). As the focus is on variation,
it is necessary to recruit a broad range of participants. The aim of this study was to
gather evidence from a wide range of participants representing the views of
Queensland middle school SOSE teachers. The study is situated in the metropolitan
areas of south-east Queensland, as this setting yielded the diversity of research
participants needed to provide maximum variation in the research sample. Ethical
clearance for the study was obtained prior to selecting teachers for the study.
Ethical clearance
Before conducting the study, consideration was given to the ethical risks that
the research posed to potential participants. Ethical clearance approval was necessary
to interview a range of teachers in the Queensland State, Catholic and Independent
education jurisdictions. It was considered there was no more than a negligible risk
because teachers would be interviewed about their conceptions of essential
knowledge in the social education curriculum area; that is, an area of knowledge that
referred to their professional work and thinking as teachers. Further, the study
intended to identify teachers’ conceptions of knowledge through their personal
descriptions of teaching, rather than through observations of teacher-student
interactions or of classroom practice.
The study qualified for the Level 2 (Expedited) ethical review process in
accordance with Queensland University of Technology guidelines for human
research (Queensland University of Technology, 2008, section 6.2.1; Australian
Government, 2007). An application for Level 2 (expedited) ethical review was made
to the Human Research Ethics Committee (UHREC) via the Committee Application
process and was granted for the period 27 May 2008 to 27 May 2011. Human Ethics
Approval Number 0800000336 was granted for the project entitled Conceptions of
essential knowledge in social education held by middle years social education
teachers in Queensland. Progress reports on the study were submitted to the
Committee via emails annually on 27 May 2009 and 27 May 2010. As part of the
ethical clearance approval procedures, the following documentation was prepared to
be sent to schools and prospective participants: (1) a recruitment flyer advising
134 Middle school social sciences: Exploring teachers’ conceptions of essential knowledge
schools of the research study; (2) a letter/email to follow up the initial phone call to
the school advising them of the study; and (3) a letter of consent for potential
participants in the study. All data collection for the study occurred between
September and December 2008. The nature of the research was considered low risk
as there was no need to enter classrooms, observe teaching practice or interview
students.
The way in which teachers were selected for this study is described after the
following section, which details the phenomenographic approach to creating a
representative sample.
Sample – approaches in phenomenography
In qualitative research, purposive sampling enables the researcher to choose
research participants on the basis of their illustrating essential features of the
phenomenon being investigated. Silverman (2005) asserts that, in purposive
sampling, it is essential to think about the parameters of the population being studied
and choose research participants carefully. Stake (2000) suggests that typology is
used to ensure that the selection of participants has been properly thought out and
based on what can be learnt about the phenomenon from them. Adopting this
approach ensures that the range of meanings in the sample represents the range of
meanings of the phenomenon within the population (Åkerlind, 2005b). It is
important to make every effort to maximise variation in phenomenography (Bowden,
2005) and the use of purposive sampling makes it possible to achieve this variation.
Åkerlind (2002; 2005b) believes that, in order to investigate the variation in
experience of a phenomenon, it is important to recruit a heterogeneous group of
research participants, rather than a representative group based on demographic or
other lines, as this will increase the chance of investigating variation in experience of
the phenomenon. In this study, the selection of participants was modelled on the
process of sampling used by Åkerlind (2005b) in her study of university academics’
understanding of their growth and development. She aimed to achieve demographic
variation within her sample by recruiting participants from a variety of disciplines,
cultural backgrounds, genders, varying levels of experience, and conditions of
appointment.
Chapter 4: Research Methodology 135
A typology of Queensland middle school social education teachers was drawn
up prior to contacting the participants to ensure demographic variation in the sample.
It was anticipated that the range of participants in this study would include male and
female middle school teachers, working in State, Independent, Catholic, single-sex
and co-educational settings. Some would be working in an identified middle years
program; others would be drawn from upper primary in traditional Year 1-7 primary
schools and lower secondary classrooms in Year 8-12 high schools. The group would
comprise recently-qualified teachers, experienced humanities or SOSE teachers, and
Heads of Department, all with current or recent experience of teaching the
Queensland SOSE curriculum in the middle phase of schooling. It was hoped that the
group would include a variety of cultural backgrounds, and that the range of
experience would include teachers who also had experience of teaching SOSE in
rural schools and in other States/Territories of Australia. A metropolitan setting was
selected, as the aim was to create a heterogeneous group of participants to maximise
variation (Åkerlind, 2005b).
In order to ensure that there would be sufficient variation and to keep the data
manageable (Trigwell, 2000; Bowden, 2005), it was anticipated that between 20 and
25 teachers would be interviewed. Sandberg (2000) asserts that maximum variation
can be achieved with a sample size of 20.
Selection procedure
In July 2008, schools were selected based on geographical location in the
Brisbane metropolitan area and whether they had an identified middle school
program. First, a phone call was made to the Deputy Head of each school to explain
the nature of the study. Following this initial contact, a protocol was followed,
whereby a letter was mailed to the Principal of the selected State, Independent and
Catholic schools, asking for their permission to make contact with the Head of
Department of Humanities/SOSE and recruit volunteers to participate in the study. A
recruitment flyer and a letter of consent to participate in the study were also sent to
schools to be distributed to potential participants. 31 teachers, including 5 Heads of
Department, from 15 Queensland upper primary, middle and secondary schools were
identified as willing to participate in the study. Due process was followed prior to
making contact with participants.
136 Middle school social sciences: Exploring teachers’ conceptions of essential knowledge
Sample for this study
Table 4.1 describes the participant demographic information in relation to the
types of schools that volunteered to take part in the study.
Table 4.1
Summary of Schools and Participants
Sector Jurisdiction Type of school No. of Teachers No. of
Heads of Dept
Primary State Co-ed 1
Middle State Co-ed 3 1
Middle Independent Girls 2
Middle Independent Girls 1
Middle Independent Girls 1
Middle Independent Girls 1
Middle/Sec State Co-ed 2
Middle/Sec State Co-ed 1
Middle/Sec Catholic Co-ed 5 1
Middle/Sec Independent Girls 2 1
Middle/Sec Independent Girls 2
Middle/Sec Independent Girls 1 1
Middle/Sec State Co-ed 2
Secondary State Co-ed 1 1
Secondary State Co-ed 1
Totals Totals Totals Totals Totals
Primary: 1
Middle: 5
Middle/Sec: 7
Secondary: 2
Independent: 7
Catholic: 1
State: 7
Girls: 7
Boys: 0
Co-ed: 8
Total: 15 schools
Beginning: 4
Experienced: 21
Retired: 1
Total : 26
HoD: 5
As middle school approaches can be used in upper primary, middle or secondary
school settings, an effort was made to represent all three sectors of schooling in the
sample. However, a number of teachers in the study worked in middle schools that
were established in secondary school settings.
Further, to maximise variation in the sample, attempts were made to recruit
teachers across the three educational jurisdictions. Independent schools are funded
through private school fees, State schools are funded by the Commonwealth/
Chapter 4: Research Methodology 137
Queensland governments, while Catholic schools are funded through the Catholic
archdiocese, Commonwealth funding and school fees. It was important to include all
three jurisdictions because the way in which the curriculum is enacted in a school
tends to reflect its funding arrangements, its milieu, and the expectations of the
school community. The integrated Queensland SOSE curriculum was taught in State
and Catholic schools; however, one of the Independent schools taught the SOSE
curriculum in Years 8 and 9 as one semester of history units and another of
geography units. In the sample, the diversity of schools and SOSE programs reflects
the diverse SOSE programs in the target population of Queensland schools from
which it was drawn (Kennedy, 2008a; Queensland School Curriculum Council,
2001). The way that the Queensland curriculum is interpreted and enacted differs
from school to school, as each one is responsible for interpreting the curriculum and
developing its own SOSE units of work in relation to the perceived needs of students
at that school.
Although it was originally envisaged that the study would include a maximum
of 25 SOSE teachers, this number unexpectedly increased to 31 at the end of the data
gathering phase of the research project. Five teachers and one Head of Department in
a single school volunteered for the study. Participation in the research project was
promoted by the Head as a professional development activity that would give the
teachers a chance to voice their views about teaching SOSE. In this subset, 1 male
participant had experience in rural schools, 3 teachers had taught SOSE in other
states and territories besides Queensland, and 1 of these 3 teachers had previously
been employed in an all-boys’ school for over 10 years. Based on the original
typology for the study, these interviews were included in the study because it
maximised the variation across the sample.
Of the 15 participant schools, 8 were co-educational institutions and the others
were girls’ schools. Table 4.2 sets out the demographic details of individual research
participants.
Table 4.2
Summary of Participant Demographic Information
Acronym Sex Position Sector Jurisdiction Type of school
AN F Experienced Middle Catholic Co-educational
138 Middle school social sciences: Exploring teachers’ conceptions of essential knowledge
BL F Experienced Secondary Independent Girls
CS F Experienced Middle/Sec Independent Girls
CT F Experienced Middle Catholic Co-educational
CW F Beginning Middle State Co-educational
DB F Experienced Middle Independent Girls
DL F Experienced Middle Catholic Co-educational
EK F Beginning Middle/Sec State Co-educational
IG F Experienced Middle/Sec State Co-educational
IN M Head of Dept Secondary Independent Girls
JA F Head of Dept Secondary State Co-educational
JE M Head of Dept Secondary Catholic Co-educational
JL F Experienced Primary State Co-educational
JS M Experienced Middle Catholic Co-educational
JI F Experienced Middle Independent Girls
KF F Experienced Middle/Sec State Co-educational
KM F Experienced Secondary Catholic Co-educational
KR F Experienced Middle/Sec Independent Girls
KT F Experienced Middle Independent Girls
MC M Experienced Middle Independent Girls
ML M Retired Secondary State Co-educational
MN M Head of Dept Middle State Co-educational
MR F Experienced Secondary Independent Girls
NC F Experienced Middle/Sec Independent Girls
PU F Beginning Secondary State Co-educational
PH F Beginning Middle/Sec State Co-educational
RN M Experienced Middle State Co-educational
SL F Head of Dept Secondary Independent Girls
TA F Experienced Secondary State Co-educational
VN F Experienced Primary/Mid State Co-educational
YE F Experienced Middle Independent Girls
The sample of 31 middle school teachers selected from the Brisbane
metropolitan area of south-east Queensland comprised 75% females and 25% males.
To preserve maximum anonymity and de-emphasise the role of individual
characteristics, teachers are identified in the study by an acronym based on letters
taken from their first name. Teachers with varying levels of experience and
responsibility were interviewed. 4 were beginning teachers (with less than one years’
experience), 1 was a primary teacher who had just commenced teaching in a middle
Chapter 4: Research Methodology 139
school, 1 teacher had less than five years experience, and 1 had retired from
teaching. The other 23 teachers were well-experienced, having between 5 and 20
years’ experience, and included 5 Heads of Department. With the exception of one
participant who was an Indian-born migrant from South Africa, all of the other
participants were Caucasian. Each Head of Department had over 10 years’
experience as a teacher; two had been instrumental in trialling an early version of the
Queensland curriculum prior to 2000, when the curriculum was formally introduced.
The sample clearly reflects the demographic variation advocated by Åkerlind
(2005b). However, two limitations were noted in the sample. First, while there were
several girls’ schools, there were no boys’ schools. However, as boys were catered
for in the co-educational schools, and one participant had worked previously in an
all-boys’ school, it was considered that the sample was representative of schools in
Queensland. Second, of the 31 teachers, only 7 were male, 3 of whom were Heads of
Department. This sample, however, broadly reflects the gendered profile of the
Australian teaching workforce (Mayer, 2006). Despite these limitations, the sample
was considered a fair representation of the target group.
Data collection
Individual interviews are the main method of data collection in
phenomenography, although group interviews, observations and drawings can also
be used (Richardson, 1999). The researcher’s role in phenomenography is to
encourage the interviewee to think about and expand on their own ways of seeing
and experiencing the phenomenon. In this study, two interviews were recorded with
a pair of interviewees. All of the others were individual interviews conducted with
the researcher. The interviews were audio-recorded and later transcribed verbatim by
a commercial transcription company.
Interview questions
The data collection in this study took the form of semi-structured, open-ended
interviews, using a set of eight questions to initiate investigation of the phenomenon
of middle school SOSE teachers’ conceptions of essential knowledge. With the help
of the supervisory team, the interview questions were drafted twice in the period
before the interviews commenced in September 2008. In the period before formal
140 Middle school social sciences: Exploring teachers’ conceptions of essential knowledge
data collection, a pilot interview was conducted with one pre-service SOSE teacher
and a university tutor who had previously taught SOSE in schools. The pilot
interviews revealed that the interview questions had to be edited and that the
researcher needed to encourage the interviewees to expand on their views. A set of
questions (Set A, see Appendix A) was used in five interviews in the month of
October. However, it became apparent that busy teachers needed to be encouraged to
trawl through their memories to recall SOSE teaching experiences that they could
describe during the interview. Further, in order to get teachers to reflect on their
knowledge base, it was necessary to ask teachers what, in their view, comprised their
knowledge base for teaching SOSE.
A subsequent list of questions (Set B, see Appendix B) was developed, which
included the original questions from Set A. The Set B questions were used in the
twenty-six interviews conducted in November and December 2008. The core Set B
questions were preceded by a context statement that oriented interviewees to the
study, and an introduction question, “Let’s start by you reflecting on the SOSE units
you have taught, and which year levels you have taught”. Following this short
reflection, it was found that teachers were able to give a well-considered response to
the first question, “Tell me about a time when you felt really knowledgeable about
teaching a SOSE unit”. This question aimed to encourage the interviewee to talk
about their knowledge of social education by describing their experience of teaching
the curriculum. It was anticipated that, through teachers’ descriptions of their
experience of teaching SOSE, insights into the relationships between the inner
subjective world of the interviewee and their external reality would emerge. Follow-
up probes and subsequent open-ended questions were used to clarify what the
interviewee had said, to explain what they meant and to encourage them to reflect
further on their understanding of the phenomenon (Bowden, 2000).
It was found that the last question, “Finally, can you tell me what you think is
essential for a teacher to know to be a good SOSE teacher?”, was the most
productive, perhaps because the interviewees invariably opened up with examples
and reflections that conveyed core elements of their knowledge base for teaching.
This question was constructed around the discourse of the “good” teacher rather than
the “knowledgeable” teacher, which seemed to make it easier for interviewees to
convey their thoughts based on recollections of their experiences.
Chapter 4: Research Methodology 141
The development and revision of the interview questions, and the format for
the interviews in this study, is based on Åkerlind’s (2005b) description of the process
of semi-structured interviews using structured questions. In her research, the
structured questions were contextual questions designed to set the scene and
encourage the participant to reflect on the phenomena, followed by two types of
primary questions – open questions about the meaning of the phenomena, and
questions asking for concrete examples to further the discussion and investigate the
external parameters of the conception. However, in contrast to Åkerlind (2005b), for
Marton (1986), interviews in phenomenography are open-ended so that the
participants can choose the dimension of the question that they wish to answer.
Bowden (2000) affirms that this approach enables the participants to reveal their
ways of understanding the phenomenon and their relationship with it. While the
interview procedure used in this study avoided the use of closed questions, the use of
prompts such as “Can you give me another example?” were an attempt to get the
interviewee to clarify and convey their thoughts.
In his discussion of data collection, Marton (1986) states that, despite the use
of a common “set of questions” at the start of the interview, subsequent questions
may follow a different course (Marton,1986, p. 42). This is not unusual in an
interview process. However, Bowden (2000, 2005) insists that the researcher’s own
relationship with the phenomenon and to the participants is controlled to avoid
unduly influencing the outcomes of the research. For this reason, he does not
advocate more extensive dialogue between the interviewer and interviewee because
it may introduce the researcher’s own ideas of the phenomenon or new information
about the phenomenon (Bowden, 2000, 2005). The focus needs to be on exploring
fully the participants’ experiences of the phenomenon. In this study, there were
instances where it was necessary to reassure the interviewees that there was no
“right” or “wrong” answer to the questions and that they did not need to defend their
personal views. As such, in some interviews, the researcher gave the interviewees
more encouragement to convey their views.
Interview procedures and timelines
Before interviews commenced, the teachers were advised about the nature and
scope of the study. Involvement in the research project was completely voluntary and
142 Middle school social sciences: Exploring teachers’ conceptions of essential knowledge
participants could withdraw at any time. Permission was sought to audio-record the
interview, and interviewees were asked to sign a consent form. Participants were
assured of the confidentiality of the study. Anonymity was guaranteed through the
use of acronyms and by removing all references that would identify them or the
school in which they worked. Interviewees were advised that the data would be used
initially for this research, but selected quotations from the interviews and
conclusions from the study might be used in professional development and teacher-
education in the future.
Interviews took place between September and December, 2008. With the
exception of one recently retired male teacher, all of the interviews were scheduled
at the schools where the teachers were employed and at a time convenient to the
teacher. In the case of the retired teacher, the interview took place at a coffee shop of
his choice. Questions were asked in the same sequence, and participants were gently
prompted to expand on their initial responses to the questions by describing
examples from their teaching.
Controls in the interview process included (1) the use of a planned process
using a set of open-ended questions (Bowden, 2000) and (2) bracketing researcher
subjectivity by the researcher not teaching SOSE during the data collection phase
(Harris, 2008). It is suggested by Bowden (2000) that the interviewer should plan to
introduce certain issues at particular stages of the interview, avoid unplanned input
into the interview, and avoid making positive or negative judgmental comments. As
far as possible, this format was maintained to ensure that the data gathered was
consistent across all the interviews. Further, by not teaching SOSE to pre-service
teachers herself during the interview period, the researcher tried to reduce the chance
of comparing her own views on the knowledge base for SOSE with the interviewees’
responses (Harris, 2008).
Following the interviews, in December 2008, thank-you letters and coffee shop
vouchers were sent to all participants. Transcription and analysis of the interview
data took place over an 18-month period in 2009 and 2010. The following section
examines the process of phenomenographic analysis that was undertaken during this
period.
Chapter 4: Research Methodology 143
Analysis
The interview transcripts are the sole source of data for this study, as this is an
important way of avoiding distortion of the evidence in phenomenography (Bowden,
2005). As a result, generating accurate transcripts is a significant feature of data
analysis in phenomenography. The interviews were transcribed verbatim by a
commercial organisation. The researcher then listened to each recorded interview
and checked the transcription to ensure its accuracy. During this process, it was often
necessary to listen to sections of the interview more than once to ensure faithful
transcription of the data and that the punctuation of the transcript matched the
original intent of the speaker. The process of obtaining a full record of all the
interviews occurred over a period of months in early 2009. There are two key stages
of data analysis in an iterative data analysis process: first, coding the interviews and
creating pools of meaning, and second, creating the categories of description. Each is
now outlined below.
Interview analysis
In the first stage of data analysis, the researcher familiarised herself thoroughly
with the interviews, keeping in mind the questions that were asked and the context in
which the information was given. Marton (1986) favours this approach, maintaining
that, while the meaning of a statement sometimes lies in the statement itself, more
often, its interpretation relates to the context in which it was made (Marton, 1986;
Irvin, 2005/2006). Each interview transcript was read at least twice, and significant
statements or utterances selected and colour-coded on the original transcript (Marton,
1986). The selected statements were then copied into a draft set of pools of meaning
that emerged from the data. A pool of meaning is a grouping of individual utterances
from the interviews that have similar meaning. This method ensured that the
researcher retained an understanding of the initial context in which statement was
made.
In this study, the three criteria used to judge the importance of a teacher’s ideas
and perceptions of the phenomenon of essential knowledge for SOSE were
frequency, position and pregnancy (Sjöström & Dahlgren, 2002; Harris, 2008).
Utterances of each idea were selected firstly on how frequently they were expressed
in the interview, secondly, on where the statement was positioned in the
144 Middle school social sciences: Exploring teachers’ conceptions of essential knowledge
interviewee’s response to the question and the context in which it was said, and
thirdly, on the level of emphasis or pregnancy (Sjöström & Dahlgren, 2002) the
interviewee ascribed to the idea within the interview. Preliminary analysis of the
transcript focused first on identifying and colour-coding the frequency of the ideas.
In the second and third readings of the individual transcripts, the position of the
utterance in relation to the question was considered. In some cases, the interviewees
responded to the question in the first few words of the response, indicating that these
ideas were significant to them. In others, the interviewees talked their way into a
response, meaning that they articulated their own thinking while responding to the
question. Finally, the researcher found that pregnancy, or the level of emphasis that
the interviewee gave to the idea within the interview, was an important determinant
in discerning and eliciting key utterances in each interview. This meant that the
interviews yielded a range of conceptions, with some interviews yielding a greater
number of ideas than others.
For example, in this colour-coded excerpt from the interview with KR, her
response to the last question shows the significance of three ideas that she considered
really important knowledge for teaching SOSE:
Facilitator: Yeah, well, yeah, can you tell me what you think – and this is
my final question – is essential for a teacher to know to be a good SOSE
teacher?
Interviewee: Essential…one thing or lots of things?
Facilitator: Lots of things. Usually I get quite a list.
Interviewee: [Pause] I think it’s essential that they’ve either studied history
or geography or civics, whatever that is, or that they’re…if they haven’t, that
they’re prepared and that they’re given the time to do that preparation. I
shudder at the thought, with the English teacher teaching Year 10 history
next year – and I’m going to be getting them in grade 11 – and the thought
of trying to unteach them English essays in history gives me the heebie-
jeebies. You need to either have the skills or be given the opportunity to get
the skills.
I think with middle school, there needs to be serious thought in
a school about how the needs of students change depending on their age and
Chapter 4: Research Methodology 145
maturity. There really needs to be a real sense… It’s one thing I like about
this middle school, which is why I still teach in the senior school and the
middle school, I’m only one of a couple of teachers that does that… I like
the fact that they see middle schooling as being different from senior
schooling with a different focus.
I think I told you that there’s a lot with it being more holistic
and more about the development of the person and less about the
development of the mathematician or a historian etc. That holistic
development. We quite often do have discussions about what level these kids
are at, how their brain is working when they’re 12 years old or 13 years old.
Facilitator: You think there is a distinctive difference then?
Interviewee: Absolutely.
Facilitator: OK, why is that so important to you?
Interviewee: I don’t like to see middle schoolers treated like miniature Year
11s and 12s. Their brains work in completely different ways and they have
completely different needs. (KR, pp. 21-22)
In this excerpt KR explains three separate ideas about knowledge for SOSE.
The idea was a pool of meaning which was given the title of a type of Essential
Knowledge (EK). For example, (1) EK 7: Knowledge of disciplinary process: “You
need to either have the skills or be given the opportunity to get the skills”, (2) EK 12:
Philosophy of middle school: “I think with middle school, there needs to be serious
thought in a school about how the needs of students change depending on their age
and maturity” and (3) EK 8: Pedagogy suitable for middle school: “I think I told you
that there’s a lot with it being more holistic and more about the development of the
person and less about the development of the mathematician or a historian etc”. After
probing, KR returned to EK 12 to emphasise that she considered having a philosophy
of middle school as essential knowledge for teaching SOSE.
In reference to the criteria of frequency, position and pregnancy (Sjöström &
Dahlgren, 2002; Harris, 2008), in this short excerpt we see that ideas about middle
school students and pedagogy (EK 12 and EK 8) were frequently expressed, with one
reference to addressing their developmental needs in terms of “age and maturity” and
two references to “how their brain is working”. In relation to the interview question,
146 Middle school social sciences: Exploring teachers’ conceptions of essential knowledge
this idea was positioned after the interviewee explained the importance of the teacher
having good knowledge of the processes of the disciplines (EK 7). However, the
significance of having a philosophy of middle school (EK 12) can be judged by the
level of emphasis or pregnancy ascribed to the idea. Clearly, the conception that
middle school students have different educational needs compared to senior students
was significant because key facets of having a middle school philosophy were
explained and elaborated in some detail. By colour-coding utterances on the
transcript, the researcher recorded the context in which the utterance was made.
Moreover, using the above criteria enabled the researcher to ascribe meaning (for
example, EK 12: Philosophy of middle school) to the utterance.
Pools of meaning
A key feature of phenomenography is that the researcher does not impose a
predetermined set of meanings on the data (Harris, 2011a); rather, through a second-
order perspective on data analysis, core meaning or aspects of the phenomenon
emerge from the data (Marton, 1981). As the process of preliminary data analysis
continued, the researcher became more adept at discerning the different ways in
which aspects of the phenomenon were being described by the different
interviewees. Initially, a draft set of about 15 pools of meaning emerged from the
data. However, particularly rich interviews yielded additional perceptions of the
phenomenon. As part of the iterative data analysis process, the researcher then
revisited interviews that had been previously examined to ensure that these
perceptions had not been overlooked. Finally, 29 pools of meaning were discerned,
named, and numbered, as distinct but related kinds of Essential Knowledge (EK) for
SOSE. For example, Knowledge of facts or discipline-based factual knowledge
(EK5), Knowledge of disciplinary process (EK7), and Integrated learning with
identifiable discipline-based components (EK3). The pools were coalesced to form
rough categories of description and were the basis for referential analysis of the data.
According to Marton (1986), analysis of the structural aspects of the categories
of description will be achieved by always considering the context of the quotations.
Categories are arranged and defined in terms of “core meanings, on the one hand,
and borderline cases on the other” (Marton, 1986, p.43). A variation on the data
analysis process described by Marton (1986) is Bowden’s (2000) preference not to
Chapter 4: Research Methodology 147
extract quotations but always deal with the whole transcript in an effort to avoid de-
contextualising the utterances. In this study, the colour-coded utterances were
retained in the interview transcripts but were also copied from the transcripts and
identified by acronym and page reference in separate pools of meaning. In this way,
the researcher was constantly reminded of the original context in which the utterance
was made and frequently returned to the whole transcript to check the intention of
the utterance in its original context.
Discerning the structural and referential aspects of a category
The structural aspects of each category comprise the internal and external
horizons to denote “the relationship between the different aspects of a phenomenon,
which constitute its overall meaning” (Pang, 2003, p. 148; Marton & Booth, 1997).
The internal horizon of each category describes its core features that are focal to
awareness, discerned from their context which comprises the external horizon. As
Pang (2003) describes it, “the internal horizon refers to the parts and their
relationship, together with the part-whole structure discerned therein” (Pang, 2003,
p. 148). Marton and Booth explain, “that which surrounds the phenomenon
experienced, including its contours, we call the external horizon. The parts and their
relationships, together with the contours of the phenomenon, we call its internal
horizon” (Marton & Booth, 1997, p. 87). The internal horizon refers to what is in
focus and its relationship to the component parts.
For example, in “Category 4: Middle years learner”, three aspects of the
internal horizon were found to be 1) knowledge of middle years philosophy, 2)
middle years students, and 3) pedagogy. These three conceptions form the structural
aspects of Category 4 because they were focal to participants’ awareness of the
middle years learner. Following discernment of the structural aspects, the referential
aspect, or the wider meaning of the category as “Knowledge of middle years students
and learning” was established. The structural features described above were
discerned in relation to 1) the internal horizon, which was dominated by a student
focus, and 2) the external horizon, comprised of knowledge of educational contexts
and knowledge of the learning area.
The internal horizon of each category of description of essential knowledge is
broadly characterised as a teacher focus and/or as a student focus. This “focus” helps
148 Middle school social sciences: Exploring teachers’ conceptions of essential knowledge
to determine the character of the structure of awareness of each category and to
elucidate the overall structure of awareness presented in the outcome space. The
shifting focus between teacher and student indicates the underlying tensions in
conceptions of knowledge for SOSE, where teachers have to decide between
conveying canonical knowledge of the disciplines through traditional pedagogy or
integrated, interdisciplinary understanding through student-centred, inquiry-based
pedagogy. The teacher and/or student focus of each category helps to clarify the
distinctive features of each category and manifest the complexity of the overall
structure of awareness. In Chapter 5, a detailed analysis of each category is preceded
by a table that lists the structural aspects manifested in the internal horizon for that
category. The external horizon, defined in this study as the background of the
conception that is peripheral to awareness, is the method by which the categories of
description are logically ordered in the outcome space (see Chapter 6).
Discerning categories of description
In the second stage of analysis, the researcher focused on quotations to identify
the meaning embedded in them. Marton (1986) advocates that the phenomenon is
interpreted in terms of selected quotations from the interviews, which make up a pool
of data. In this stage the differences between the individuals are held to be less
important than the pooled meaning to be found within the quotations themselves.
The meaning embodied in the utterances within each pool of meaning was carefully
compared and contrasted. There was some movement of utterances between pools of
meaning, if it was discerned that they had been incorrectly classified.
From these two stages of analysis, the pools of meaning were grouped in terms
of their similarities and differences into categories of description. This was a lengthy
process of continual sorting of data, with definitions of categories being tested and
adjusted until a stable and credible set of categories emerged. For example,
Knowledge of facts or discipline-based factual knowledge (EK5) shared some
similarities with Knowledge of disciplinary process (EK7) and Integrated learning
with identifiable discipline-based components (EK3). However, EK 5 and EK 7 and
were grouped into “Category 1: Discipline-based knowledge”, while EK3 was found
to emphasise integration rather than knowledge of the disciplines. As a result, EK 3
was coalesced with EK10: Focus on concepts and EK13: Focus on SOSE general
Chapter 4: Research Methodology 149
knowledge to form “Category 5: Integration of learning”. While at first the
boundaries of the categories were relatively porous, the groupings became more
stable when evidence of the similarities and differences in individual pools of
meaning were identified. In this way, seven categories of description were formed
and differentiated in terms of three dimensions of variation, with quotations from the
data illustrating each category (Marton, 1986).
The internal horizon of each category emerged when the structural features of
each category were revealed through the process of coalescing the pools of meaning
into categories. It was at this stage that detailed work on the structural features of
each category occurred. It was important to establish that the structural aspects were
closely related to each other. As part of this fine-grained sorting process, the external
horizon was revealed as the wider context of the category. The internal and external
horizons of each category were elucidated through the dimensions of variation which
helped to highlight what was in the foreground (internal horizon) and peripheral
(external horizon) in each category.
Discerning variation
In order to discern variation between the categories, it was important to
identify what varied and what was invariant, primarily by comparing and contrasting
experience of aspects of the phenomenon (Marton, Runesson & Tsui, 2004).
Grouping of pools of meaning into a parsimonious set of categories of description is
an important step in identifying and differentiating the layers of meaning in the
phenomenon. The variation in each category of description indicates distinctive
features of the internal and external horizons of each category of description. In this
way, identifying variation provides an insight into the structural elements of each
category and the relationship between each category. Further, the dimensions of
variation in each category build on the previous category and become more inclusive
in subsequent categories. As such, the dimensions of variation are themes of
expanding awareness that describe the relationship between the categories of
descriptions (Åkerlind, 2005b).The dimensions of variation are discussed in relation
to each category of description in Chapter 5.
The phenomenographic research process is said to be concluded once the
categories of description are established and depicted in the outcome space (Bowden,
150 Middle school social sciences: Exploring teachers’ conceptions of essential knowledge
2000). The findings comprise a phenomenographic analysis of Queensland middle
school social education teachers’ conceptions of essential knowledge for social
education. As such, the identification and “discovery” of the categories of
description constitute the original findings of the study (Sjöström & Dahlgren, 2002).
Chapter 5 presents a detailed discussion of the categories of description and the
dimensions of variation in each category. In the next section the validity of the
findings in this study are considered.
Research rigour
All research approaches must deal with issues of credibility and the need for
rigour in the research process. In comparison with quantitative approaches, Denzin
and Lincoln (2005), consider that qualitative research is “endlessly creative and
interpretive” with no one truth (Denzin & Lincoln, 2005, p. 26). Thus, there is a
strong imperative in qualitative research to establish, through the process of
conducting and documenting the study, that findings are evidence-based and
trustworthy. Denzin and Lincoln (2005) maintain that the criteria for findings in
interpretive paradigms (including the constructivist paradigm) are different from the
traditional positivist criteria of internal and external validity, reliability and
objectivity. As the constructivist paradigm assumes a relativist ontology (multiple
realities), they propose that criteria of trustworthiness, credibility, transferability and
confirmability replace positivist critieria. Despite the effort to differentiate between
research traditions, in effect, there does not appear to be much difference in the ways
in which the terms are used to discuss research rigour in the phenomenographic
literature. For example, in her comments on research validity in phenomenography,
Åkerlind (2002) states that qualitative researchers are expected to address validity,
reliability and generalisability, even though these criteria derive from a positivist
approach to research.
Credibility and trustworthiness
The question of reliability and rigour in qualitative research is contentious and
the issue remains unresolved in the phenomenographic literature (Cope, 2004).
Richardson (1999) argues for a constructionist revision of phenomenographic
research, identifying tension between searching for authentic understanding and
Chapter 4: Research Methodology 151
scientific rigour. Despite the trend towards a decline in the use of the scientific
concepts of reliability and validity, these criteria can be adapted to ensure rigour in
phenomenographic research through the development of a structure of awareness
(Cope, 2004). Thus, careful attention to developing the structure of awareness of a
phenomenon is both an objective of the research and the means by which the
reliability and rigour of the research is measured.
In order to maintain some distance from the data and enhance the credibility
and trustworthiness of the entire research process, it is important that there are
controls for the researcher’s own relationship with the phenomenon. Bowden (2005)
advocates four controls in the analysis stage, some of which have been discussed in
the preceding section. The controls are: using only interview transcripts for evidence;
bracketing the researcher’s own relationship with the phenomenon; group analysis of
the transcripts; and postponing analysis of the structural links between the categories
of description until after the categories have been decided (Bowden, 2005). The
common factor in each of the four controls is the need to avoid the researcher’s own
relationship with the phenomenon affecting the way he or she sees the relationships
between the categories of description. As suggested by Sjöström and Dahlgren
(2002), to increase the credibility of phenomenographic research, this study
endeavours to describe clearly the research process, the interview questions and
protocols, the data analysis (see Chapter 5), and the conclusions (see Chapter 6), to
replicate the study, perhaps in relation to a different integrated curriculum, such as
middle school science. The next section considers questions of reliability in
phenomenography.
Reliability
One issue in phenomenography is whether the categories of description are
reliable: has the researcher accurately represented the experience of the participants?
The question of whether the categories of description determined by a
phenomenographer can be replicated is not considered reasonable because, according
to Marton (1986), the categories of description were discovered through the research.
However, phenomenographic analysis was not so much a process of “discovering”
the categories as a process of “discerning” the views represented in the data.
Following phenomenographic analysis and discerning the structure of awareness the
152 Middle school social sciences: Exploring teachers’ conceptions of essential knowledge
categories of description are stable. As discussed on pages 127-128, the findings are
stable in relation to the group of participants in the study at the time of the study and
may be considered broadly representative of similar groups of participants.
The traditional approach to questions of reliability has been addressed through
interjudge agreement (Sandberg, 1997). Interjudge reliability means that one or more
co-judges should be able to recognise the conceptions identified by the researcher
through the categories of description. The findings (categories) are said to be
communicable if another person can see the same differences based on the same
data. Interjudge reliability can be achieved by the co-judges reading the same data
with reference to the categories of description already determined by the researcher.
The higher the degree of agreement between the researcher and the co-judges, the
more reliable the categories of description are deemed to be. However, this method
of assessing reliability is considered somewhat problematic (Sandberg, 1997). Some
statements may reflect more than one conception and co-judges may not be as
familiar as the principal researcher is with the data and the context in which it was
gathered.
Rather than depend only on interjudge agreement, Sandberg (1997) advocates
that reliability in phenomenography should follow the epistemology of intentionality
that underlies the phenomenographic approach. To achieve this, the researcher needs
to demonstrate throughout the research process how he or she has checked for and
controlled his or her own interpretations. Such checks and balances have to be
demonstrated from the start: from the formulation of the research question, through
the selection of participants, to obtaining, analysing and reporting the data. Such a
process makes the research process transparent. It helps establish the reliability of the
data and the researcher’s own interpretation within the framework of intentionality.
In the current study, the researcher took measures to bracket her own views,
both while conducting the interviews and during the data analysis. The controls used
in the interview process were described on page 144. Similarly, in the data analysis
phase, on two occasions the researcher discussed excerpts of selected transcripts with
her supervisors on the research project to ascertain the objectivity of the way that the
transcripts were coded. Further, one transcript (YE) was discussed in detail by
experienced and novice phenomenographers at a meeting (27 April 2009) convened
Chapter 4: Research Methodology 153
to discuss the meaning ascribed to selected quotations from the transcript. These
control measures were undertaken to ensure that the researcher’s own relationship to
the phenomenon was bracketed (Bowden, 2005).
Moreover, in the second stage of data analysis, the categories of description
and structure of awareness were created with special attention to intentionality in the
referential and structural features of each category of description (see Chapter 5).
Meetings were scheduled with the supervisory team to seek agreement on the draft
categories. Rather than relying solely on interjudge agreement, the
phenomenographic principle of intentionality was the key means by which reliability
was established in this study. Such measures also assisted with establishing the
validity of the findings.
Validity
The question of validity in qualitative social research originates in the
positivists’ desire to verify knowledge and come up with an objective meaning and
one truth. Kvale (1996) argues that in qualitative research, issues of generalisability,
reliability and validity need to be reconceptualised for interview-based research.
According to Åkerlind (2002), validity in phenomenography is determined by
whether the findings accurately reflect the phenomenon being investigated. She
maintains that, to varying degrees, two types of validity checks, communicative and
pragmatic validity, are practised in phenomenography.
Communicative validity checks refer to testing the validity of knowledge and
conflicting claims through dialogue (Kvale, 1996). The researcher must be able to
argue persuasively for their interpretation in the context of a range of possible of
interpretations (Åkerlind, 2002). The aim is for a “defensible” interpretation rather
than the “right” interpretation (Åkerlind, 2002, p. 13). She emphasises that, in
phenomenography, interpretations should be based on interview transcripts
considered as a group, not on individual interviews. As in other forms of qualitative
research, research seminars and conference presentations can be used in
phenomenography to communicate the findings and receive feedback and acceptance
of the research findings (Åkerlind, 2002).
Pragmatic validity checks refer to the usefulness of the research findings.
Kvale (1996) believes that it represents a stronger claim to knowledge than
154 Middle school social sciences: Exploring teachers’ conceptions of essential knowledge
agreement through dialogue because pragmatic validation is based on the
commitment to act on the interpretations and instigate change. Åkerlind (2002)
maintains that pragmatic validity is a defining characteristic of phenomenography
because the desire to produce useful knowledge has resulted in “useful insights into
teaching and learning” (Åkerlind, 2002, p. 14).
To ensure the reliability and validity in the present study, the researcher noted
the need to carry out relevant controls in the interview and data analysis process. The
reliability of the findings was demonstrated through regular documenting and dating
of the researcher’s interpretive awareness of the phenomenon (Sandberg, 1997;
Kvale, 1996; Åkerlind, 2002), using the controls advocated by Bowden (2005) to
ensure the researcher’s own relationship with the phenomenon did not affect the way
in which the categories of description were constructed. To ensure validity, the
findings were subjected to communicative and pragmatic validity checks through
regular discussion and presentation of the findings to the researcher’s supervisors on
the research program.
Finally, following the recommendations of Åkerlind (2002), to establish the
reliability and validity of the findings, the researcher presented the categories of
description and dimensions of variation in a conference paper at the British
Educational Research Association Annual Conference in 2010 (Tambyah, 2010).
Discussion of the categories at the conference led to further refinement of “Category
7: Teacher identity” to reflect the emotional dimension pertinent to the knowledge
base for teaching. The paper was subsequently revised (Tambyah, in press), critically
reviewed and accepted for publication. The process of peer review and presentation
at an international conference support requirements for communicative and
pragmatic validation of the findings (Kvale, 1996; Åkerlind, 2002).
Chapter 4 summary
This chapter presents phenomenography as a qualitative approach to
investigate conceptions of essential knowledge held by middle school teachers in
Queensland. Situated in the interpretivist paradigm, phenomenography shares some
characteristics with constructivism because it is concerned with the unique
understanding and experience of participants in relation to the phenomenon.
However, phenomenographers uphold a constitutionalist view of knowledge based
Chapter 4: Research Methodology 155
on relational understandings of the inner world of the participant and external reality
(Marton & Neuman, 1989). The study adopts constitutionalism as its epistemological
basis within an interpretivist paradigm.
The phenomenographic position is a relational, non-dualistic view of the world
(Bowden, 2005; Marton & Booth, 1997). The qualitative differences in middle years
teachers’ conceptions derived from semi-structured interviews can be mapped and
presented as categories of description in the outcome space. A careful process of
iterative data analysis is undertaken, where conceptions identified in the data are
compared and contrasted (Bowden, 2000; Marton, 1986; Marton, Runesson & Tsui,
2004; Sjöström & Dahlgren, 2002) and coalesced into a limited number of categories
that reflect the phenomenon. The categories comprise the original findings of the
study. The dimensions of variation across the categories of description are critical to
creating the structure of awareness of the phenomenon. The researcher adopts a
second-order perspective (Bowden, 2005; Marton, 1995), so that the findings
accurately reflect the participants’ views. In creating the structure of awareness, the
credibility and validity of the findings is assured through the use of set criteria and
detailed documentation of the research process (Sjöström & Dahlgren, 2002; Cope,
2004).
Phenomenography offers a unique opportunity to privilege the voice of
teachers as curriculum makers. Chapter 5 will detail the findings of the research
delivered through the phenomenographic analysis.
Chapter 5: Categories of Description 157
Chapter 5: Categories of Description
The findings of this phenomenographic study of Queensland middle years
teachers’ conceptions of essential knowledge for social education are presented in
Chapter 5 as seven categories of description. The structure of awareness of the
phenomenon is revealed through the categories of description and the dimensions of
variation. As the object of phenomenographic analysis is to identify variation in
phenomena, the three dimensions of variation which elucidate the links and
differences between the categories of description are described in this chapter.
The structure of awareness
The object of phenomenography is to reveal the structure of awareness of the
phenomenon under investigation (Marton & Booth, 1997). It comprises the
categories of description that constitute the original findings of the study (Marton,
1986) and the dimensions of variation that describe the logical relationship between
the categories. The categories represent the qualitative differences between
conceptions.
The categories of description
Seven qualitatively different ways of experiencing essential knowledge for
SOSE were discerned through an iterative data analysis process. Each category of
description represents a unique understanding of essential knowledge for SOSE. The
categories were identified in terms of their referential and structural aspects (Marton
& Booth, 1997; Cope, 2004).
The referential aspect is the “overall meaning assigned to a phenomenon”
(Pang, 2003, p. 148) as experienced by the research participants. The referential
aspect is captured by the title of the category and supported by relevant excerpts
from the interview data (Marton & Pong, 2005). The following is an overview of
each category of description in this study.
• Category 1: Essential knowledge for teaching SOSE conceived as
discipline-based knowledge from the social sciences which comprise
SOSE.
158 Middle school social sciences: Exploring teachers’ conceptions of essential knowledge
• Category 2: Essential knowledge for teaching SOSE conceived as
curriculum knowledge and other frameworks for teaching and learning
which impact on the SOSE curriculum.
• Category 3: Essential knowledge for teaching SOSE conceived as teaching
and life experience as a foundation for SOSE.
• Category 4: Essential knowledge for teaching SOSE conceived as
knowledge of the middle years learner.
• Category 5: Essential knowledge for teaching SOSE conceived as
integration of learning through concepts and skills.
• Category 6: Essential knowledge for teaching SOSE conceived as currency
of knowledge of events and issues associated with social and
environmental topics.
• Category 7: Essential knowledge for SOSE conceived as teacher identity,
comprising personal and professional identities as a social education
teacher.
The structural aspects of each category comprise the internal and external horizons
to denote “the relationship between the different aspects of a phenomenon, which
constitute its overall meaning” (Marton & Booth, 1997; Pang, 2003, p. 148). The
structural aspects of a category of description reveal the distinct features of the
category which, in conjunction with the other categories in the structure of
awareness, represent an understanding of the phenomenon under investigation. The
internal horizon describes what is in the foreground of the category and the external
horizon encompasses the way in which the phenomenon is discerned from its context
(Pang, 2003). Marton and Pong (2005) argue that, although the referential and
structural aspects are different, they are “dialectically intertwined” (Marton & Pong,
2005, p. 345). This is evident in the way that a person may experience a phenomenon
in different ways if he or she focuses on different aspects of the phenomenon (Pang,
2003). Further, the dimensions of variation describe the variation in the phenomenon
manifested in the categories of description.
Chapter 5: Categories of Description 159
The dimensions of variation
The three dimensions of variation which emerge across the categories are (1)
the role of content, (2) inquiry learning and (3) teacher autonomy in middle school
teachers’ conceptions of essential knowledge for SOSE education. The dimensions
of variation in each category build on the previous category and become more
inclusive in subsequent categories. As such, the dimensions of variation are themes
of expanding awareness that describe the relationship between the categories of
descriptions (Åkerlind, 2005b).
Table 5.1 below summarises the key points of the outcome space. It lists the
categories of description and dimensions of variation which are themes of expanding
awareness in each category. The table indicates that, while the students represent a
powerful context for teachers’ work, the phenomenon of knowledge for SOSE is
dominated by the integrated nature of SOSE learning and what the teacher brings to
his or her role as a curriculum maker in the classroom.
The detail of each category of description follows Table 5.1. Each category of
description explores the referential and structural aspects of the category, supported
by excerpts from interview transcripts. To maintain anonymity, participants are
referred to by acronyms based on letters in their first names, followed by the page
reference to the interview transcript (e.g., CS, p.19).
Table 5.1 Phenomenon of Middle School Teachers’ Essential Knowledge for SOSE
Categories of
description
C1 Discipline-based
knowledge
C2 Curriculum Knowledge
C3 Experience
C4 Middle years learner
C5 Integration
C6 Currency of knowledge
C7 Teacher identity
Referential aspect
Knowledge of content, procedures and skills related to the disciplines
Knowledge of curriculum, policy documents and other teaching and learning frameworks
Teaching experience and broader life experience as a foundation for SOSE
Knowledge of middle years students and learning
Integration of concepts and skills
Knowledge of current affairs, events and issues associated with social and environmental topics
Teacher identity comprising personal and professional identities
Internal horizon
Tension between facts, disciplinary knowledge and skills Teacher focus
Implementing the curriculum Teacher focus
SOSE teaching experience and personal life experience Teacher focus
Middle years philosophy, students and pedagogy Student [& teacher] focus
Integration through themes, broad concepts and inquiry learning Student [& teacher] focus
Current events & issues promote active citizenship to engage students in SOSE Student [& teacher] focus
The “SOSE teacher”: cognitive and affective aspects of teaching SOSE Teacher [& student] focus
External horizon Knowledge of the learning area Knowledge of contexts Knowledge of self as
teacher
DoV 1 Content
Content as “facts” and content as disciplinary knowledge
Content as defined through curriculum and policy documents
Content as mediated through teaching and life experiences
Content for holistic knowledge
Content as integration of discipline-based concepts and personal development concepts
Content as contextualised within students’ interests
Content as co-construction
DoV 2 Inquiry learning
Inquiry learning as skills rather than content knowledge
Inquiry learning as mandated by curriculum facilitates deep learning
Inquiry learning as facilitated by knowledge of teaching resources
Inquiry learning as enhancing thinking skills and engagement with topic
Inquiry learning as facilitating integration through SOSE “processes”
Inquiry learning as contextualised within students’ interests
Inquiry learning as the foundation for teaching and learning
DoV 3 Teacher autonomy
Teacher autonomy as choosing to emphasise skills over content
Teacher autonomy as interpreting guidelines and core content
Teacher autonomy as drawing on teaching and life experiences
Teacher autonomy as developing SOSE pedagogical content knowledge
Teacher autonomy to promote integration through pedagogical content knowledge
Teacher autonomy to contextualise learning to students’ interests and make a difference
Teacher autonomy as self-efficacy
Chapter 5: Categories of Description 161
Category 1: Essential knowledge for teaching SOSE conceived as “discipline-based knowledge”
Category 1 describes SOSE teachers’ knowledge for teaching as discipline-
based knowledge. Table 5.2 summarises the structural and referential aspects of
Category 1.
Table 5.2
Knowledge for Teaching SOSE as “Discipline-based Knowledge”
Knowledge for teaching SOSE as “discipline-based knowledge” (Teacher focus)
Features of category Evidence
Referential aspect Essential knowledge for SOSE refers to knowledge related to the content, procedures and skills related to the disciplines
“I do believe that you do need to have a knowledge, of both history and geography, I do believe that, and economics, I think you need all three to be a good SOSE teacher” (KM, p. 15).
Structural elements Internal horizon: Tension between factual and disciplinary knowledge
Content as factual knowledge • Value of factual knowledge “Personally, and I’m pretty straight up and down,
I would like them to know dates, places, names.” (JS, pp. 3-4)
• Interpreting factual knowledge “It’s all the facts and figures and examples. That to me is knowledge. I don’t necessarily know if that’s useful by itself.” (CT, p. 7)
• Role of curriculum documents “I don’t think I can say what they need to know. What they do need is a recipe of what should be taught.” (ML, p. 20)
Content as disciplinary knowledge • Integrity of the disciplines “There are also times, I think, you’ve got to
spend time, take time out to look at the various aspects of the discipline.” (RN, p. 7)
• Teaching history in SOSE “I said, ok, so you’ve identified three possible interpretations. Which interpretation do you think is the most appropriate or the most accurate?” (TA, p. 11).
• Teaching geography in SOSE “So we do skills – so we teach them the latitude, longitude, scale – you know, the basics.” (NC, p. 2)
External horizon: Knowledge of the learning area
Dimensions of variation
DoV 1: Content as facts and content as disciplinary knowledge
DoV 2: Inquiry learning as skills rather than content knowledge
DoV 3: Teacher autonomy as choosing to emphasise skills over content
162 Middle school social sciences: Exploring teachers’ conceptions of essential knowledge
Category 1 describes SOSE teachers’ knowledge for teaching as discipline-
based knowledge, derived from the social science disciplines from which the school
subject called SOSE was developed. As indicated in Table 5.2, the referential
aspect describes essential knowledge for SOSE as knowledge related to the content
and process as derived from the traditional disciplines. Responding to the question,
“When a teacher is actually teaching a SOSE class, what sorts of knowledges should
they be drawing on?”, one participant said:
I think they should be drawing on the big disciplines, the big four probably,
history, geography, economics and sociology but around the ridges you’ve
got anthropology, social psychology and you know there’s a whole list. I
think there’s about nine of them in the syllabus described on page 1…. (IN,
p. 4).
Similarly, when asked, “What makes a good SOSE teacher?”, the participants
focused on having both depth and breadth of discipline-based knowledge and
processes: “you do have to have a fairly good knowledge across a few of the
disciplines that are part of SOSE. I think that’s just a given” (RN, p. 6). It was
described as “broad knowledge” of “the government, and the law and the geography
and the economics, and the people, and they need to have that broad spectrum” (CT,
p. 22). Core knowledge for teaching SOSE refers to content and process knowledge
derived from the traditional social science disciplines of history, geography,
economics, sociology, politics and government. The focus of awareness in Category
1 is on the teacher, who holds and teaches discipline-based knowledge.
The structural elements of Category 1 are perceived in relation to the internal
and external horizon of Category 1. The internal horizon of Category 1 is dominated
by the tensions between factual and disciplinary knowledge, while the external
horizon is delimited by knowledge of the learning area. The structural elements
emphasise skills-based learning rather than content, which, supported by factual
knowledge of key topics, develops deeper, discipline-based understandings of core
content in history, geography, sociology, politics, economics or environmental
studies. The internal horizon of Category 1 reveals three themes or dimensions of
variation of content, inquiry learning and teacher autonomy, also manifested in the
subsequent six categories of the outcome space. In Category 1, the dimensions of
variation are perceived in relation to “disciplinary knowledge” for SOSE.
Chapter 5: Categories of Description 163
The structural elements of Category 1 comprise two aspects of discipline-based
knowledge for SOSE: (1) content conceptualised as factual knowledge and (2)
content conceptualised as disciplinary knowledge. “Factual knowledge” is defined as
knowing the facts (for example, the features of a Marxist economy), while
“disciplinary knowledge” is defined as content knowledge of core topics and
practical skills pertinent to the discipline (for example, what longitude and latitude
are, and how they are calculated). SOSE teachers distinguish factual knowledge of
the topic from discipline-based knowledge but usually refer to each in the context of
the other:
I just feel that a really strong knowledge based in traditional subjects like
history and geography, that’s what I think would be number one (CS, p. 19).
A good SOSE teacher needs to have an understanding of how the economy
basically works. What’s the difference between a capitalist economy and a
Marxist economy. They need to know, how our political system at its basics
works. They need to know the key events. That’s always debatable of course
but some of the key events in Australian history (IN, p. 9).
They must have a command of the material. They must be informed. They
must be well informed. They have to have the practical skills of the
disciplines that they’re using in their SOSE material, SOSE teaching, even in
a basic way (DL, p. 12).
What does it mean, however, to have a really strong knowledge of “traditional
subjects” (CS, p. 19) and how is it different from “know key events” (IN, p. 9) and
“have the practical skills of the disciplines...even in a basic way” (DL, p. 12)? Such
statements imply that teachers differentiate conceptions of factual knowledge from
conceptions of knowledge of the disciplines. The way in which teachers differentiate
these conceptions is explored below.
To summarise, in Category 1, discipline-based skills dominate the internal
horizon, while the need to maintain the integrity of the disciplines of the learning
area dominates the external horizon. As revealed in the following discussion,
discipline-based knowledge is perceived to reside with the teacher.
164 Middle school social sciences: Exploring teachers’ conceptions of essential knowledge
Content as factual knowledge
The participants in this study identified the importance of the teacher having a
good knowledge of a variety of SOSE topics to ensure students learned the facts:
Look, we do a really good mapping unit; we do a good unit on where the
other continents are, where other countries in the world are and that sort of
thing. And this year we started the Australian geography in Year 8 and a bit
in Year 9. But I really think we need to push that. You stand up there as a
teacher – I think sometimes you get embarrassed because there are things
you expect the kids to know and they don’t. First Fleet? 17 what? They’ve
got no idea, and it’s a shame….Personally, and I’m pretty straight up and
down, I would like them to know dates, places, names. (JS, pp. 3-4)
Similarly, when teaching about how a Bill becomes a law, the teacher emphasised,
“But sometimes you have to just stop and go, “No!”, you actually need to understand
what we’re talking about before we can actually move on to something else” (EK, p.
14). When teaching about immigration, one teacher pointed to the benefits of her
own grasp of key facts:
Being able to know it myself thoroughly, I was able to break it down and
explain it to the kids and they went, “Oh, okay”.
…a lot of the kids didn’t know where countries were on the map. I just went,
“Okay. Let’s look at a map”. I knew, okay, this is Europe, this is Asia. The
kids were like, this is Britain over here. I’m thinking, no no, it’s in Europe.
It’s not in America….Where is Australia on the map? Look at the distance
between Asia and Europe.
Okay, so the First Fleet arrived in 1788. OK, look at the travel to it. In
comparison, look at Vietnam. Look at that travel to there. Who do you think
will take longest and so forth and just breaking it down. (PH, pp. 12-13)
The teacher’s detailed knowledge of facts was a way to build students’
understanding of the facts. Three aspects that underpin teachers’ view of factual
knowledge in SOSE are 1) the value of factual knowledge, 2) interpreting factual
knowledge, and 3) the role of curriculum documents. Each aspect is outlined below.
Chapter 5: Categories of Description 165
Value of factual knowledge
While a good grasp of facts was considered important, the usefulness of
teaching and assessing factual knowledge for its own sake was questioned by some
teachers. Those who were confident in their subject knowledge questioned an over-
emphasis on content, characterised as “black and white knowledge” (CT, p. 15):
So, they’re the things [theories of history] I think are much more important
to get across to the students than a lot of itty bitty facts, which I’ve got a
tonne of. (DB, p. 23)
And I think, and this is a bit of a hot potato, but teaching kids what the Usher
of the Black Rod does and what the Speaker does and how many people sit
there and what they do is important. For me, I get very annoyed at really
bitsy bits of knowledge that really aren’t that important. (KM, p. 13)
However, while critical of content-based teaching and learning for its own
sake, teachers acknowledged that such teaching was propelled by State and Federal
assessment régimes:
And I mean, our Year 8 and 9 work is all changing because of the Essential
Learnings, and the testing in Year 9. So we now have to meet – we’re going
to a national curriculum, so there’s going to be a lot more – it’s going to be a
lot more knowledge-driven. They’re going to say, your kids are going to
have to know this, this, this and this, in order to sit this test. (CT, p. 2-3)
While some teachers questioned the usefulness of factual knowledge for its own
sake, others valued its role in assessment:
IG: I like there to be terms, actual things. Like theories.
KF: That we can put in a test. Knowledge. (IG & KF, p. 5)
There was a certainty about fact-based assessment tasks that was valued by SOSE
teachers, even though they may have questioned the purpose of knowing facts for
their own sake.
Interpreting factual knowledge
Teachers distinguished between knowing facts and interpreting factual
knowledge. For some, interpretation of factual knowledge was less important than
166 Middle school social sciences: Exploring teachers’ conceptions of essential knowledge
knowing the facts about an issue and some teachers appeared to use professional
discretion to emphasise facts:
Some people might believe life in Australia began after Phillip arrived.
Others will say life in Australia is long before that. That’s all fine but I really
want them to know that World War Two ended here, the first Iraq War was
here. “Why are we fighting Iraq? Why would we be over there?” Oil, son,
oil. (ML, p. 20)
In contrast, other participants respected factual knowledge for its own sake as an
important precursor for deeper understanding of the issue:
Facilitator: So when you say “know the knowledge”, how would you
characterise that knowledge? I know you said about times, places and
people….Is it just knowing times and places and people?
Interviewee: Well for me it is, because I believe if you know a date, you
know where, you know who was involved, then you start to understand why.
But without knowing the ethnic background of someone or their religion or
where they came from in the beginning or why they are who they are, I think
it’s hard for kids to understand why people make the decisions that they do.
....So I think you’ve got to have the basis, and I believe that’s the basis.
When, where, who, and then you get a bit of a why, the what comes into that
as well (JS, p. 6).
More importantly, such factual knowledge laid the important groundwork for a more
thorough investigation: “So, we don’t start with vocab lists, but we will start with
basic, you know, dates, information, names, places and then we will build skills
(MR, p. 5).
While SOSE teachers concurred that factual knowledge facilitated deeper
understanding of the topic, they were aware that knowing and teaching the detail did
not necessarily lead to deep understanding:
You know, if they’d said what factual information and what will you be
doing in class, I would have been able to say, oh, I can reel it off the top of
my head. I go in, I would engage the kids in lots of interesting discussions
and activities, but by and large, it was just covering factual content…. (DB,
pp. 7-8).
Chapter 5: Categories of Description 167
Some teachers held disciplinary knowledge, rather than factual knowledge, to be
more significant. The following excerpt illustrates the tension experienced by some
teachers between knowing facts and having a deeper understanding of how facts
underpinned discipline-based knowledge:
For me the discipline is important. The general knowledge is nice to have,
and you do absorb, create that general knowledge just through your own
experience and reading….Some people are more general knowledge and not
very interested in the discipline. Which [is where] they become unstuck I
guess eventually (IG & KF, p. 18).
One teacher identified the complex relationship between factual knowledge and
higher order thinking as a component of disciplinary knowledge. She emphasised
that content expertise developed critical thinking skills and theoretical
understandings of the discipline which was more important than focusing on facts:
I would rather they went away understanding how powerful paradigms
are….shaping and understanding our world, and how those paradigm views,
[w]hen they’re held strongly enough by groups of people, can lead to social
patterns, economic patterns, political patterns….
To me, in the end, if they forget all the, you know, facts that come with
feudalism, I don’t care, as long as they’ve grasped that idea that, you know,
in periods of history, …we’ve had these world views, these paradigms. (DB,
p. 22)
We see here the teacher exercising her professional discretion to emphasise thinking
skills rather than facts. In summary, factual knowledge for its own sake had limited
value but played a significant role in teaching for deep understanding.
Role of curriculum documents
Some teachers expected the curriculum to be a detailed guide to the teaching of
SOSE content. Referring to the outcomes-based Queensland SOSE syllabus
(Queensland School Curriculum Council, 2000), one of the participants insisted that
the curriculum should define the required “body of knowledge” (ML, p. 8). More
detailed curriculum documents meant less choice for teachers, but greater
consistency across SOSE teaching, and eventually a greater depth of understanding:
168 Middle school social sciences: Exploring teachers’ conceptions of essential knowledge
I’m taking away a hell of a lot of the choice because the more choice you
give, the more diluted the body of knowledge becomes....and you end up
with different teachers teaching quite radically different things. (ML, p. 12)
He was adamant that a “recipe” for what teachers needed to teach would deliver
certainty and consistency:
I don’t think I can say what they need to know. What they do need is a
recipe of what should be taught. So you’re in a class, you’re in a class, and
I’m in a class, and we’re all going to be able to say, “Our kids will go out
knowing sequences”. (ML, p. 20)
Foreshadowing arguments pushing for a national curriculum, it was held that all
students would benefit from a prescriptive curriculum (ML, p. 13). Conversely,
others anticipated that a prescriptive national curriculum would demand more
detailed teaching of the facts at the expense of skills:
So I can see that we’ll be forced back into more tick-the-box: I’ve taught
this, and I’ve taught this, and I’ve taught this, and I’ve taught that, which
will be more challenging to bring out the skills, I think. (CT, p. 3)
The extent and nature of factual knowledge to be taught in SOSE was informed
and guided by curriculum policies. Some teachers preferred a prescriptive, content-
based curriculum, while others considered that this type of curriculum would
compromise the teaching of skills. In summary, the conception of content as factual
knowledge was influenced by teachers’ views on the value of facts, interpreting
factual knowledge for higher order thinking and the role of curriculum in prescribing
content.
Content as disciplinary knowledge
SOSE is a KLA that aims to integrate a number of social science disciplines
and related areas of study into a single generalist school subject. In the middle
school, the extent of integration varies, depending on whether SOSE is being taught
in the early years of middle school or the upper middle school, the training and
interests of the teachers, and whether the school implements a middle school
philosophy of education. In addition to content as factual information (discussed
above) teachers perceived content as disciplinary knowledge, focusing on teaching
discipline-based skills within an inquiry framework.
Chapter 5: Categories of Description 169
The following sections explore three features of content as disciplinary
knowledge. These are 1) SOSE teachers’ perceptions of the integrity of the
disciplines, 2) teaching history in SOSE, and 3) teaching geography in SOSE. The
full scope of curriculum content in SOSE and the role of inquiry learning in teaching
content as disciplinary knowledge are explored below.
Integrity of the disciplines
Some SOSE teachers emphasised the importance of teaching the content and
skills of the disciplines explicitly. They were aware that interdisciplinary teaching
and learning in SOSE risked maintaining the integrity of the disciplines:
I guess I just had this perception that when you do SOSE – and this is why
this perception is shared with others in this school – that you actually lose
something of the integrity of that academic field….
And that’s not necessarily a bad thing. I think that’s a good thing, but it
does, in my mind, take away from history. Okay? And I think the geography
teacher would probably agree that he likes to teach what he calls pure
geography, which he sees, he argues that geography’s a science really. And
so keeping the fields separate keeps an integrity that we value, I think. (CS,
pp. 5-6)
Even in schools that operated according to a middle school philosophy with all
subjects integrated, teachers held to the importance of teaching the essential skills of
the disciplines.
Inquiry learning, rather than direct instruction, was the broad teaching and
learning framework that teachers used to teach the skills of the disciplines. Inquiry
learning is a student-centred teaching and learning framework that facilitates the
development of students’ own skills to investigate their own questions, develop deep
understanding through research into multiple sources and collaborative learning. It
encourages students to be active learners, engage in the processes of inquiry learning
and draw their own conclusions (Marsh, 2008a). For example, the following excerpts
show the teachers exercising their discretion to promote geography skills, the use of
primary sources in history and skills of analysis in economics. Disciplinary skills
were taught “explicitly”, that is, emphasising key technical aspects to enable to
students to inquire into the subject knowledge:
170 Middle school social sciences: Exploring teachers’ conceptions of essential knowledge
With geography, world geography, you know, a good sense of place and
mapping and stuff is one aspect of geography, um, which probably needs to
be taught explicitly. They need to have a practice at it. It all needs to be
relevant and so on. (RN, pp. 6-7)
The same with history, perhaps, where it might just be happening in a survey
type thing. Give them a secondary document or a text book thing or show
them a documentary. Uh, it would be much better to go through the process
of them investigating and looking at it from different sources and so on.
Now, there are times for surveys,….There are also times, I think, you’ve
got to spend time, take time out to look at the various aspects of the
discipline [emphasis added]. I said mapping and geography but that’s only
one of them. You know, you could look at regional analysis, industry
analysis. There’s all sorts of different ways in which you could [do]
population aspects of geography. All of them have certain ways of working
and can lead you to fairly deep understandings of society [emphasis
added]. Um, the same with economics. There are certain principles of
economics (RN, p. 7).
Inquiry learning through discipline-based skills helped students to develop a deeper
understanding of society, rather than disciplinary knowledge for its own sake. By
adopting an inquiry framework and choosing to focus on the skills of the discipline
rather than the facts, SOSE teachers addressed a general educational objective, that
is, “deeper understanding of society” (RN, p. 7). Efforts to maintain discipline-based
integrity were significant, given the expectation of integration in the SOSE learning
area.
The purpose of SOSE to “understand the world” (RN, p. 7) derived from long-
held views of the purpose of humanities education. Clear links were made between
discipline-based study and a deeper understanding of the world:
One of the great beauties I think about all SOSE, Study of Society,
humanities is that it helps us, it helps students understand the world more
deeply and that they understand that things don’t just happen for no good
reason, that we are the result of things that have happened previously.... (JA,
p. 12)
Chapter 5: Categories of Description 171
Other teachers held that the purpose of SOSE was to educate students to be “globally
aware of what is going on” (AN, p. 2) and to take action on social issues: “You don’t
teach economics just for the sake of it. You teach economics because you want the
girls to go out there and actually do things, do things in the world that actually can
make a difference” (MC, p. 8). Teachers valued deeper understanding and personal
reflection about the world and compelling personal activism. Emphasising the skills
of the discipline through inquiry learning afforded students the opportunity to
address these broader educational objectives. In this context, teaching facts provided
the foundation for discipline-based study.
In the next section, teachers’ conceptions of the discipline areas of history and
geography are examined to illustrate the way in which the SOSE teachers developed
deep understanding of the disciplines by focusing on the skills. The role of inquiry-
based learning and student-centred pedagogy in each area will be examined.
Teaching history in SOSE
History education comprised a significant proportion of teaching SOSE.
History education was centred on developing a hypothesis, the use of different types
of evidence and critical use of sources. A very wide range of history topics was
taught, including pre-history and the origins of man, the ancient civilizations of
Egypt, Greece and Rome, ancient cities, Medieval history, the Renaissance, colonial
Australian history, Australian Indigenous history, the World Wars and German
nationalism, Apartheid, the Korean war, the Vietnam war, the Cold War and the war
in Afghanistan. History units in SOSE acknowledged the context of and facts about
history but prioritised history skills.
Teaching the disciplinary processes of history included activities ranging from
developing notions of time, using primary sources, using and interpreting evidence,
historical analysis and drawing conclusions. By teaching students these skills, SOSE
teachers facilitated inquiry learning in history and laid the foundation for skills in
history in the middle years:
I like the sequencing at the beginning with that early process of
understanding history and understanding the basic concepts they need to go
forward and then building on that with the content. As long as that skill base
is there to start with.... (JI, p. 6)
172 Middle school social sciences: Exploring teachers’ conceptions of essential knowledge
Developing skills of classifying evidence, and using different forms of evidence such
as texts and cartoons to interpret information, was a priority:
So, they had primary sources, and they were things like, you know, a quote
from Robespierre about something; and they had to basically look at all the
primary sources they were given, and classify them in a way that made
meaning. (CS, p. 13)
We do a unit on Australian history where we look at a lot of sources. We
look at a lot of political cartoons and I suppose it’s very gratifying when
they start to look at those pictures in a critical way, that they start to realise
that there’s a whole amount of information that’s behind the obvious
interpretations…essentially history skills…aren’t they? The skill of inquiry
and critical analysis. (KR, p. 10)
History skills were taught to investigate a historical research question by
interpreting different types of evidence, developing complex reasoning and reaching
plausible conclusions:
I think both were quality units but perhaps the Medieval London compared
to the Pompeii unit was even better, because I was very clear about the skills
that I wanted to see the students evidence at the end. They were going to
create a corroborated essay written under test conditions based on some
evidence provided. Here is a double sided A3 page full of primary sources.
Let’s interpret them together as a class and in groups. Having done that, let’s
extract the evidence and apply it to the question which is…Which city was
more liveable, Pompeii or London? (IN, p. 8)
Disciplinary skills of history were taught using inquiry-based learning to
understand and interpret history, rather than just knowing facts. Historical concepts,
such as causation and interpreting the past, were taught using strategies such as
document analysis, graphic organisers and group work:
Interviewee: So, we did a lot of activities based on documents and, and all
sorts of sources, where the students would, you know, analyse them and
discuss amongst themselves....It was, you know, a different kind of task,
engaging with different kinds of sources, and then interacting with each
other. I mean, I do a lot of think, pair, share group work, that kind of thing.
Facilitator: Right.
Chapter 5: Categories of Description 173
Interviewee: Then for the first time, we decided to assess using a graphic
organiser like a cause and effect chart, and I was really pleased….we really
wanted them to understand the, you know, the chaos that was generated by
the fall of the Roman Empire. (DB, p. 16)
Similarly, a student-centred approach encouraged pupils to interpret facts and draw
justifiable conclusions: “I said, ok, so you’ve identified three possible
interpretations. Which interpretation do you think is the most appropriate or the most
accurate?” (TA, p. 11). SOSE teachers perceived history to be a dynamic subject and
wanted students to develop their own “take” on history. Moreover, attention to
history skills in the middle years was considered to be critical to further study of
history, for “if they don’t pick up the skills there, it’s too late in Grade 11 to try and
teach them everything they need to know to [be] competent in that subject area.…”
(TA, p. 2).
The higher order thinking skills of wrestling with several possible
interpretations and using different forms of evidence to prove a hypothesis were
noted features of history education. In a unit on Ancient Egypt, the teacher described
how the students’ ability to use evidence about a familiar topic was tested: “They get
a primary source and then they have to describe it, interpret it and kind of relate it to
their hypothesis and they take those sheets in [to the exam]” (MC, pp. 2-3). By using
evidence, students also learnt how to construct a historical narrative and use evidence
to develop a compelling historical explanation. The following excerpts show that
SOSE teachers acknowledged that the aim in middle school was to privilege process
over facts, even while students learned about the distinctive features of the
discipline, such as historical narrative and chronology, significant events, periods
and people:
We’re trying to get the girls in Grade 8 to kind of start using primary
sources....if you’re just telling a story about the past, a good story has
evidence. It’s about using the evidence. Your story should reflect the
evidence. So it’s very much evidence- based type of approach. We’re not
really interested in teaching a lot of content to them at that age. Really you
can go onto the internet and they can find out whatever they want to know
about Ancient Egypt really quickly. (MC, p. 3)
174 Middle school social sciences: Exploring teachers’ conceptions of essential knowledge
In summary, while teachers valued historical context, history education in
SOSE occurred within an inquiry learning framework where teachers chose to
prioritise skills rather than content. It was assumed that students would form their
own picture of the event, person or period by developing their skills in history.
Teaching geography in SOSE
As with history education, geography education in SOSE was a significant
aspect of teaching discipline-related content and process in this category. The
geography units in SOSE were a feature of upper middle school SOSE education,
whereas units integrating geography seamlessly with other subject areas, such as
science or English, were more prevalent in lower middle school SOSE. One example
is a travel task from an inquiry-based SOSE/English unit, whereby students created
an itinerary that explicitly integrated geographical research and mapping skills with
literacy skills. In contrast, upper middle school geography topics, such as
urbanisation and liveable cities, poverty in African countries, the impact of urban
development and local environment studies, were traditional geography-based units.
In contrast to history education in SOSE, teachers thought that knowing
geography facts was important because they addressed perceived gaps in the
students’ knowledge. In foundational geography units, teachers taught basic map
reading skills, facts about Australian geography and developed spatial
understanding:
I know one of the first things I used to do when I started teaching SOSE was
to give my Year 8 students a map of Australia and get them to map the states
and the capital cities and the things that I would get on that map were
astounding. (BL, p. 4)
Geography specialist teachers teaching middle school SOSE integrated factual
knowledge and activities on physical geography into SOSE units:
Well I always do trivia with my kids and it will always be geography-based
questions.…I’ll try and always put in some population questions or place
and space questions or you know who has got the longest river or what’s the
biggest – you know, those kind of fast facts about the world? (NC, p. 4)
How you measure the weather, just stuff around the world, the temperate,
polar and equator zones. They don’t know anything like that. I like talking
Chapter 5: Categories of Description 175
about air current things. You know, I like all the physical stuff, the
geography stuff, the basic stuff, but I don’t they’ve ever been exposed to.
(KF, p. 12)
The significance of teaching these types of facts was primarily to generate
interest in geography and widen students’ understanding of geography as a separate
discipline compared to history or cultural studies. Not directed specifically at higher
order thinking, teachers perceived that basic geography facts (KF, p. 13) laid the
foundation for further study. It empowered students because it was “new” knowledge
that enlivened history-based SOSE units:
I try and work it into – like with the Ancient History unit with Greece and
Rome, I still do the geography of Greece and the geography of
Rome…Because otherwise the history component can get a bit tedious I
think. (NC, p. 4)
While geography featured in many SOSE units, some were dedicated geography
units which explicitly developed discipline-based skills and core content.
Teachers taught geography skills, such as calculating latitude and longitude,
conducting surveys and field studies, mapping and map-reading skills, graphing and
use of Geographical Information Systems (GIS). Such skills were regarded as
“basic” by SOSE teachers, yet discipline-specific, geographical knowledge is needed
to teach them. For example, “I mean [in] the Grade 8 SOSE course we do some basic
geography. A lot of it is skill focused in Grade 8. Reading maps, latitude, longitude,
doing cross sections and things like that…” (MC, p. 2). These skills were taught in
context-based geography units rather than being taught in isolation. For example, in
a unit on a wilderness trek to be showcased at a travel expo, students learned how to
calculate latitude and longitude, draw cross-sections and contour maps, research
climate and landforms, and further develop spatial skills. Presented as a student
project, the unit’s intention was to teach and apply geography skills explicitly:
They basically draw out of a hat a line of latitude. So it’s based on that line
of latitude so they have to do research on what would the climate be like,
what kind of landforms would be there. So it’s really kind of applying
those skills they were taught in the class [added emphasis]. It’s sort of
done in a staggered way so we might do just some basic mapping in
longitude and latitude and then they would do a little bit of the project and
176 Middle school social sciences: Exploring teachers’ conceptions of essential knowledge
then go onto doing something like contour mapping and then they’ll make a
contour map of their island. (MC, p. 2)
By teaching students these skills in geography, SOSE teachers facilitated inquiry
learning in geography.
As described earlier, geography facts were the foundation for further study.
Specialist geography skills, such as developing climographs and choropleth maps,
were taught in order to develop higher order thinking and draw conclusions based on
geographical data. For example, one teacher enthused about teaching world climates
through climographs:
Interviewee: I’ve got a good one. My class mastered climographs.…I’ve got
Grade 7s, so I’m meant to make things easier for them. But because I’m a
geography teacher, I’m like no, you’re going to do climographs properly and
get the average temperature etc. We’ve done about 12 of them, and they’ve
got it, so it’s very exciting, that’s my whole life. So in the end I could do it,
it was very exciting.
Facilitator: So would you say that these students were really learning
something in that teaching experience?
Interviewee: Yes, because they didn’t know how to do the graph. They
didn’t know how to do averages. They’d never seen that kind of graph
before. And they were also learning about the climate I guess in the world,
because I use real bars off the internet. (IG, p. 11)
Field studies provided a different context to develop substantive subject-based
knowledge and develop higher order thinking skills. Students gathered field-based
data and analysed it in terms of human-environment interactions:
Probably my favourite one was a local one that I just worked out, where I
take them to the forest at…which is where they walk across the oval down to
the forest. I get them pictures of weeds off the DPI website and I’ve
laminated these things, and they go through the forest and try and identify
and count weeds. Then we look at the impact of weeds and changing
vegetation and the impact of the ovals and runoff and just, you know, that
sort of stuff. (KM, pp. 11-12)
Chapter 5: Categories of Description 177
In sum, the choice made by teachers to develop students’ critical thinking skills
and technical skills was instrumental in furthering students’ disciplinary knowledge
of the processes in geography. Discipline-specific content and skills were taught
within a broader inquiry framework.
Category 1: Dimensions of variation
The structure of awareness in Category 1 comprises teachers’ conceptions of
essential knowledge for SOSE as “discipline-based knowledge”. Like Categories 2
and 3, Category 1 focuses on knowledge held by the teacher. The internal horizon of
Category 1 is marked by the tension between facts, disciplinary knowledge and
skills, and reveals content, inquiry learning and teacher autonomy as dimensions of
variation. These themes of awareness are manifested through each of the six
subsequent categories of description.
The first dimension of variation, related to content, revealed that teachers
differentiated between factual information and disciplinary knowledge. Content as
facts, and content as discipline-based knowledge pertaining to concepts and skills,
comprise the internal horizon of the category. In SOSE-based history and geography
education, the disciplines provided content and a context for teaching disciplinary
skills. However, perceptions of the importance of disciplinary process and skills in
relation to content differed amongst teachers. One teacher valued “both the content
and the process equally” (TA, p. 20), while another privileged discipline-based skills
over content:
You can’t do without the content. The content is always going to be
important, but I think, over the top of the content are the skills that you’re
trying to get across, whether they be the technical skills of writing or of
graphing or whatever it is that you’re doing, whether it be the thinking skills
that are, I think, work so well with SOSE. (SL, p. 2)
Category 1 establishes that, while disciplinary knowledge is central to conceptions of
knowledge for SOSE, disciplinary skills (rather than discipline-based content) were
perceived by some to be more important. Moreover, the curriculum was perceived to
be key to establishing the scope of discipline-based content.
The second dimension of variation, related to inquiry learning, reveals an
emphasis on skills rather than on content knowledge. Inquiry learning provided the
178 Middle school social sciences: Exploring teachers’ conceptions of essential knowledge
framework for teaching discipline-based skills in SOSE. Referring to the Queensland
SOSE curriculum “processes” of investigate, create, communicate, participate and
reflect (Queensland School Curriculum Council, 2000), one teacher concluded that
teaching content was embedded in the five “processes”, such as investigate and
communicate, derived from discipline-based models of inquiry learning:
I had five processes….we [the curriculum committee] actually argued that
the content was coming through in each of the five.…in the example I gave
before, you created with a bus way in mind. How to improve the bus way.
You communicated but with some content in mind. You had to communicate
a report on how you’d analyse the numerical results, to reach conclusions
about how…can be improved. If you got the facts wrong, you were
penalised. There’s a knowledge component. So there’s a knowledge
component to each of those five [added emphasis]. At the end of the day, I
would say, we were then and are now, about 50/50 process and content. (IN,
p. 7)
This excerpt points to the dynamic between content and SOSE “processes”, and
teachers should be knowledgeable in both areas: “So having the depth of the
knowledge and the depth of skills in the specialist subject area there’s a huge
advantage” (KR, p. 6). Some teachers appeared to privilege skills over content
because, compared with content knowledge, inquiry skills were perceived to be more
useful to students in the future:
I still think the content is important most definitely because [we
are]…teaching them about really important times in history…but, I
also think… It’s the skills that they’re going to take with them
forever, even if they don’t remember when the Renaissance starts. (JI,
p. 7)
Inquiry learning as a dimension of variation in Category 1 revealed that skills, rather
than content knowledge, were privileged.
The third dimension of variation related to teacher autonomy, where some
teachers chose to emphasise skills over content. The ascendancy of skills over
content was sometimes perceived as a professional issue for teachers whose views
differed from that of their schools or colleagues: “… I’ve always been, [sic] the
Chapter 5: Categories of Description 179
process is more important than the content, but here [at this school] the content has
always been the issue” (DB, p. 8). The choice to promote inquiry skills rather than
focus on content, or to privilege knowledge of facts like names, dates and places as
the foundation for deep learning in SOSE, was a professional issue that affected
conceptions of knowledge for SOSE.
In summary, the structure of awareness of “discipline-based knowledge” for
SOSE in Category 1 is concerned with the discipline-based subject knowledge that
resides with the teacher. Teachers engage in inquiry learning to facilitate SOSE,
revealing a pedagogy that prioritises the skills of the social sciences. The structural
elements of content as factual knowledge and content as disciplinary knowledge
focus on the knowledge held by the teacher rather than the students. The three
dimensions of variation relate to the internal horizon, which captures the tension
between the need to teach facts and discipline-based concepts and skills. As such,
Category 1 describes SOSE teachers’ intention to develop deeper, disciplinary
understandings of core content through the skills. The external horizon of teachers’
awareness is influenced by their knowledge of the learning area, demonstrated by the
emphasis on disciplinary knowledge within a multidisciplinary and/or integrated
context. The integrity of the disciplines established at the internal horizon is
discerned against the context of the integrated learning area. In the next section, I
look at Category 2, which focuses on curriculum knowledge, building on the
dimensions of variation as themes of expanding awareness established in Category 1.
180 Middle school social sciences: Exploring teachers’ conceptions of essential knowledge
Category 2: Essential knowledge for teaching SOSE conceived as “curriculum knowledge”
Category 2 describes teachers’ knowledge of the SOSE curriculum as essential
knowledge. Table 5.3 summarises the structural and referential aspects of Category
2.
Table 5.3
Knowledge for Teaching SOSE as “Curriculum Knowledge”
Knowledge for teaching SOSE as “curriculum knowledge” (Teacher focus)
Features of category Evidence
Referential aspect Knowledge for teaching SOSE is centred on curriculum documents, policy documents and other teaching and learning frameworks
“…the key document that helps us determine what we’re going to teach is the Essential Learnings.” (MN, p. 1-2)
Structural elements Internal horizon: Implementing the curriculum Knowledge of curriculum frameworks
• Outcomes-based curriculum
• Essential Learnings
Curriculum change and a national curriculum
“And so, you know, if we cover the Essential Learnings in this way, you’ve got to make some judgement about how far, say with the Year 7s, how far you’re going to take them into the Year 8, the Year 9 materials according to the sequencing.” (RN, p. 4)
Knowledge of learning frameworks and policies
• New Basics
• Scope and Sequence
• Dimensions of Learning
“Well we can generate our own units now, as well, when we were…a trial school for the New Basics program we couldn’t, we kinda had to do their Rich Tasks. Which incorporated SOSE into them, but there were a lot of areas that weren’t covered that should have been.” (JL, p. 3)
Knowledge of curriculum implementation
• Planning and assessment
• Previous learning
“So, once you’ve identified them [key concepts], I think you then, you have to ask yourself, if that’s what you want them to know or to be able to demonstrate at the end, then how am I going to overtly teach that? I think then you plan quite carefully the sorts of lesson activities that’s going to build, step by step.” (DB, p. 19)
External horizon: Knowledge of the learning area
Dimensions of variation
DoV 1: Content as defined through curriculum and policy documents
DoV 2: Inquiry learning as mandated by curriculum facilitates deep learning
DoV 3: Teacher autonomy as interpreting guidelines and core content
Chapter 5: Categories of Description 181
Category 2 describes SOSE teachers’ knowledge of the SOSE curriculum and
of other frameworks for teaching and learning that impact upon the implementation
of the SOSE curriculum. As indicated in Table 5.3, the referential aspect describes
essential knowledge for teaching SOSE as “curriculum knowledge”, that is,
knowledge of what teachers are required to teach as stated in curriculum and policy
documents:
…the key document that helps us determine what we’re going to teach is the
Essential Learnings. We found that drives our planning of SOSE. However,
because the Essential Learning document tells us, at the end of Year 7, this
is what a student should know and by the end of Year 9, this is what every
student should know, it does create a problem in the Year 8 section. (MN, p.
1-2)
At the time of data collection in 2008, SOSE had been implemented as a KLA
in Queensland for almost ten years. During this time, the curriculum had changed
from an integrated, outcomes-based curriculum (Queensland School Curriculum
Council, 2000) to a more prescriptive, discipline-oriented curriculum based on the
Queensland Essential Learnings (Queensland Studies Authority, 2007c).
Concurrently, a national curriculum for history was being developed. In Category 2,
“curriculum knowledge” reflects teachers’ uncertainty and response to curriculum
reform and change. As with Category 1, the focus in Category 2 is on the teacher
who enacts the curriculum. Middle school teachers’ knowledge of different versions
of the SOSE curriculum and how it was implemented is explored below.
The structural elements of Category 2 comprise knowledge of curriculum
frameworks, knowledge of learning frameworks, and knowledge of implementing the
mandated curriculum. The internal horizon is underpinned by related aspects, such as
the impact of changing curriculum, awareness of curriculum innovations such as
New Basics, and knowledge of planning and assessment to implement the
curriculum. The internal horizon of Category 2 focuses on implementing the
curriculum and manifests the dimensions of variation of content, inquiry learning and
teacher autonomy. First, content for SOSE was defined through curriculum and
policy documents. Second, inquiry learning was mandated by the curriculum and
facilitated learning. However, while inquiry learning was important for depth,
teachers were acutely aware there would be less opportunity for skills education
182 Middle school social sciences: Exploring teachers’ conceptions of essential knowledge
within an inquiry framework in a prescriptive, content-based national curriculum.
Third, teacher autonomy in interpreting guidelines and core content was revealed.
The dimensions of variation illustrate aspects of curriculum knowledge for SOSE,
which is different from discipline-based knowledge described in Category 1.
The dimensions of variation were elucidated within the context of the external
horizon of the SOSE learning area in two ways. First, a perceptible shift was
discerned, away from the integrated content and student-centred pedagogy of the
previous outcomes-based SOSE syllabus (Queensland School Curriculum Council,
2000). Second, the probable impact of the national history curriculum (due 2011) in
terms of core content and a discipline-based approach was keenly anticipated. The
focus is on the teacher in Category 2 because curriculum knowledge and knowledge
of how to manage and implement curriculum change were perceived to be the
domain of the teacher.
Knowledge of curriculum frameworks
The two curriculum frameworks that have impacted on the teaching of SOSE
in the last decade are the outcomes-based Queensland SOSE syllabus (Queensland
School Curriculum Council, 2000) and the SOSE Essential Learnings (Queensland
Studies Authority, 2007b, 2007c) which were part of the Queensland Curriculum
and Reporting Framework (QCARF) (Queensland Studies Authority, 2007a).
Teachers were aware that curriculum changes were planned with the national
curriculum. At the time of data collection, most teachers were still implementing
units that had been written to meet the earlier outcomes-based curriculum. However,
some SOSE units were also being modified to meet the requirements of the Essential
Learnings. The impact of the national history curriculum was anticipated, but as
introductory guidelines had only just been published in mid-2008, its potential
impact on SOSE was still not known. Teachers’ perceptions of each of these
curriculum frameworks, including early perceptions of the emerging national
curriculum, are explored below.
Outcomes-based curriculum
The first Queensland SOSE curriculum that teachers had to know and
implement was the Year 1-10 Queensland Study of Society and Environment
(Queensland School Curriculum Council, 2000) syllabus. Organised into four
Chapter 5: Categories of Description 183
discipline-based strands and six learning levels, it was based on the principles of
outcomes-based education. A defining feature of the syllabus was multiple learning
outcomes for each level. This syllabus was implemented in the majority of
Queensland schools from 2000, until it was officially replaced by the Queensland
SOSE Essential Learnings (Queensland Studies Authority, 2007b, 2007c) in 2008.
At the time of data collection, the Essential Learnings were being phased into most
school teaching plans.
Teachers held diverse perceptions of the outcomes-based curriculum, revealing
knowledge of curriculum to be a significant aspect of their knowledge for SOSE.
One teacher was a trenchant critic of the “mishmash of outcomes” (ML, p. 3),
referring to the integration of outcomes from several discipline-based strands when
planning SOSE units. Teachers could not teach the outcomes in any depth, and as a
result, students did not “know anything”:
And in fact, I believe that many teachers falsified the outcomes because they
just couldn’t quite achieve it. And I certainly did, absolutely. I’m an
experienced teacher. I really can do it if I put my mind to it but eventually
you get to the stage where…you falsify the outcome, or you do it in such a
light hearted or you just brush over it – you say, oh yes, the kids could do
that. And kids don’t know anything. (ML, p. 3)
As a history teacher who taught SOSE, this teacher found that “…the SOSE
program was a complete let down” (ML, p. 4) and that students were “…ill prepared
because of the watering down of the history program to try to match the outcomes of
the units” (ML, p. 5). He especially lamented the lack of a prescriptive curriculum:
“Unless you provide both structure and sequence, the SOSE program is lost” (ML, p.
6). His views indicate the tension between a discipline-based social science
curriculum and integrated SOSE, which compromised his professionalism:
Occasionally I ended up doing economics units and I said, well this is the
body of knowledge I’m going to teach. I was able to do it with no worries at
all. But then trying to achieve the outcomes you go, how am I going to do
this? I’ve got to mark stuff with these outcomes. Trying to do it honestly is
hard and it’s so easy to get through dishonestly, mark it off, and go, it’s
done. You don’t feel good about doing it dishonestly. (ML, p. 23)
184 Middle school social sciences: Exploring teachers’ conceptions of essential knowledge
In contrast, other teachers were more positive in their view that the outcomes-
based curriculum was structured to reduce repetition and provided choice: “…the
idea of the SOSE syllabus was to ensure that some of that repetition didn’t happen
and the learning outcomes and now the Essential Learning[s]…there’s still a fair bit
of choice for people to make” (JA, p. 4). While the curriculum was criticised by
some for promoting integration, others perceived that it gave teachers choice and
supported teacher autonomy to interpret the guidelines appropriately.
Queensland SOSE Essential Learnings
The interviews for this study were conducted between September and
December 2008, a significant time in terms of the adoption and implementation of
the Queensland SOSE Essential Learnings (Queensland Studies Authority, 2007b,
2007c) in schools. The new curriculum was published in 2007 and all state schools
were expected to implement it from 2008. Teachers from all school sectors
commented that the Essential Learnings had altered their curriculum knowledge for
teaching SOSE. It entailed moving from numerous specific learning outcomes across
six levels of learning to short statements based on four discipline-based strands for
Years 3, 5, 7 and 9. In effect, the expectations for two years of work, for example,
Years 6 and 7, were incorporated into a short set of learning statements for each
discipline-based strand of SOSE.
Implementing the Essential Learnings entailed a more rigorous approach to
SOSE: “Whatever we do we make sure it’s in the Essential Learnings. If it’s not
there, we think twice before doing it” (MN, p. 2). Incorporating the disciplinary
focus in core content meant new SOSE topics or renovating existing units of work:
So, that’s where we were headed last year at the end of the year, discussions
about how we would take our existing history-geography units and kind of
make them fit better the Essential Learnings. (DB, p. 4)
Because I know with the Essentials, one of the Essential Learnings is on the
economic system, so I really felt we had to include a unit on that in eight and
nine, and we hadn’t. (JE, p. 4)
The substantive content knowledge requirement of the Essential Learnings was a big
change for one teacher, who had previously emphasised skills rather than content:
Chapter 5: Categories of Description 185
I don’t really have core content. I mean, now with the Essential Learnings
and obviously with the testing in Year 9, we have to cover certain
knowledge….because we have to meet that requirement. (CT, p. 1)
In complying with a new prescriptive curriculum, changes to planning and practice
were needed.
While acknowledging the importance of the Essential Learnings, teachers were
critical of the structure of the two-year learning statements as a basis for planning.
Some teachers perceived that they were not explicit enough about curriculum content
in some year levels. The curriculum structure created difficulties for middle school
teachers of multi-age classes drawn from different year levels. Teachers in that
situation had to make a professional decision about how far to proceed with the topic
or theme required for a particular year level:
And so, you know, if we cover the Essential Learnings in this way, you’ve
got to make some judgement about how far, say with the Year 7s, how far
you’re going to take them into the Year 8, the Year 9 materials according to
the sequencing. (RN, p. 4)
For some teachers, the lack of prescription in the new curriculum made
planning difficult: “…Essential Learnings are so broad. I could teach anything
really” (CW, p. 3). Moreover, it was perceived that the Essential Learnings failed to
provide important direction on core aspects of learning, such as writing skills: “…the
Essentials are just so broad that I could, as a teacher, if I’m working under the
Essentials, not mark any of the grammar and I’m still meeting the Essentials” (JL, p.
16).
Teachers’ perceptions of the scope for professional discretion or autonomy
under the Essential Leanings were varied. While lamenting the constraints on
professional practice in relation to assessment under the Essential Learnings (“So
we’re sort of tied in that way” (CT, p. 1-2) it was also perceived that the Essential
Learnings provided opportunities to exercise some choice: “But I do find up here in
Queensland we have a fair amount of time to be able to explore outside of that [the
Essential Learnings]. So I then tend to pick whatever’s topical” CT, p. 2). This
shows that some teachers taught topics outside the curriculum guidelines, based on
what they perceived students needed to know: “You have to pick what you think is
186 Middle school social sciences: Exploring teachers’ conceptions of essential knowledge
the most important thing for them to know, and that’s a cultural thing based on what
your school thinks is the most important thing or even you think might be the most
important thing” (CW, p. 9-10).
The reference to selecting content that was topical and expanding the scope of
SOSE to current affairs and contemporary social issues was supported by the
curriculum which promoted active citizenship. The Rationale to the SOSE
curriculum states, “Studies of Society and Environment involves investigation of
controversial and challenging issues and promotes critical thinking in the
development of optimistic future visions. This key learning area encourages young
people to be active participants in their world” (QSCC, 2000, p. 1). While some
teachers believed that the curriculum limited their choice of what to teach, others
perceived that it provided opportunities to exercise professional discretion and widen
the scope by drawing on current issues and promoting active citizenship (see
Category 6) or topics arising from the middle school context of teaching (see
Category 4).
Curriculum change and a national curriculum
Teachers noted that the SOSE curriculum had been in flux for some time and
that curriculum changes were impacting on teachers’ curriculum knowledge: “You
just don’t really know where it’s going, and I think that’s why there’s been this
hotchpotch. There’s not been clear direction on where we’re going….” (KM, p.1).
There was a perception that curriculum change was constant: “And I mean, our Year
8 and 9 work is all changing because of the Essential Learnings, and the testing in
Year 9” (CT, p. 2-3). The national curriculum would be “knowledge-driven” and
would focus on content rather than skills: “Because they’re really looking for a core
knowledge base, that our kids have a core knowledge of Australian history, they
have a core knowledge of whatever it happens to be (CT, p. 3). This teacher
perceived that inquiry skills were the way to access depth and anticipated that a
national history curriculum would be preoccupied with content rather than
discipline-based skills. Other teachers welcomed change and considered it necessary
to modernise the curriculum:
I do have this feeling that curriculum probably has to change and evolve –
even the content – to be relevant. That’s what I was saying with that
Chapter 5: Categories of Description 187
business unit…because [I] really I felt as though I was just teaching what I
was taught 16 years ago when I was in Year 9 (JE, pp. 2-3).
Curriculum knowledge was key for SOSE teachers. Furthermore, acknowledging and
managing curriculum change was a critical aspect of SOSE teachers’ knowledge.
Knowledge of learning frameworks and policies
In addition to curriculum frameworks, middle school SOSE teachers drew on
other learning frameworks and curriculum-related policies in their teaching. These
learning and policy frameworks included (1) the Queensland New Basics Project
(Queensland Government [DETA], 2004), (2) Scope and Sequence Years 1-9
(Queensland, Government [DETA], 2008) and (3) Dimensions of Learning
framework (Marzano & Pickering, 2006). These frameworks emphasised a student-
centred teaching approach:
I mean, and when you read Productive Pedagogies [from New Basics] and
the Essential Learnings and all the new senior syllabus, they’re to me …; it’s
no longer that transmission model of education, you know? (DB, p.10)
The significance of these teaching and learning frameworks for this study is that
teachers referred to each as part of implementing curriculum knowledge. Teachers’
conceptions of each framework are explored below.
New Basics
The Queensland-based New Basics project was undertaken as a curriculum
project by some Education Queensland schools from 1999 to 2004. It aimed to
prepare students for the future by dealing with “new economies, new workplaces,
new technologies, new student identities, diverse communities, and complex
cultures” (Queensland Government [DETA], 2004, np). A feature of the New Basics
project were integrated curriculum tasks called Rich Tasks, which aimed to increase
intellectual rigour connected to real world situations by means of teaching strategies
called Productive Pedagogies. Rich Tasks were implemented across a range of trial
schools and selected schools from 1999 to 2003. While the trial ended in 2003, some
schools continued to teach Rich Tasks through the Essential Learnings.
188 Middle school social sciences: Exploring teachers’ conceptions of essential knowledge
In the shift from New Basics to Essential Learnings, teachers in New Basics
schools could prioritise SOSE disciplinary knowledge because it was not subsumed
into the Rich Tasks:
For the past year, we’ve shifted to a KLA focus and I would say we really
started teaching SOSE in Semester 1 Term 2 [2008]. So prior to that, our
SOSE was basically fitted into units that were given to us, as I said, if the
Rich Task was “Well being in the community”, we had some SOSE in it. So,
the Rich Task dictated whether we taught SOSE. (MN, p. 1)
Well we can generate our own units now, as well, when we were…a trial
school for the New Basics program we couldn’t, we kinda had to do their
Rich Tasks. Which incorporated SOSE into them, but there were a lot of
areas that weren’t covered that should have been. (JL, p. 3)
Although SOSE integrated the core disciplines in the humanities, the New
Basics were transdisciplinary, requiring teachers to integrate even more widely
across diverse curriculum areas. The shift to Essential Learnings was key to more in-
depth learning in SOSE through inquiry learning:
Interviewee: We had trained them to integrate and now we said to them, hey
guys, we want more depth. And it was something new to them.
Facilitator: So why did you want more depth?
Interviewee: We found that, with the word integration, we were doing things
broadly, and covering a wider area. For this task, we were definitely /?/
[doing, for example] science, maths, English, SOSE, technology, all at the
one time. And the SOSE was superficial. It was not very much in depth.
Now when we moved to a KLA focus, we found, with the inquiry process,
for this unit, we were getting into much [more] depth. (MN, p. 2)
Inquiry learning, a core tenet of the recommended pedagogy in the outcomes-
based SOSE syllabus (Queensland School Curriculum Council, 2000), was perceived
to be pivotal to providing more depth of knowledge under the Essential Learnings.
Scope and Sequence
Interpreting curriculum intent in the Essential Learnings was a challenge for
teachers. As a result, teachers referred to an Education Queensland policy document
Chapter 5: Categories of Description 189
entitled Scope and Sequence Years 1-9 (Queensland, Government [DETA], 2008) to
clarify the intention of the SOSE Essential Learnings and assist implementation.
Used as a planning tool, it guided interpretation and implementation of the Essential
Learnings when developing or modifying their existing SOSE units.
Scope and Sequence is more detailed by I feel like you can get the topics for
your unit a lot easier by looking through the Scope and Sequence and finding
out where you have to be for each of the year levels. I think you can tailor
your units better whereas Essential Learnings are so broad. I could teach
anything really. They’re so broad. I like Scope and Sequence. (CW, p. 3)
While the Essential Learnings stated curriculum knowledge, Scope and
Sequence was also invested with some authority because it was seen as a Queensland
government-based policy document to facilitate implementation: “All SOSE teachers
need to be familiar with policy documents….For example, Essential Learnings,
Scope and Sequence” (MN, p.10). The policy guided interpretation of content and
implementation of the curriculum.
Dimensions of Learning
While New Basics and Scope of Sequence impacted on interpretation of content
and curriculum implementation, the Dimensions of Learning (DoL) model (Marzano
& Pickering, 2006) was a learning framework used by teachers to develop students’
higher order thinking and inquiry skills. Based on research about learning, the five
dimensions of learning are (1) attitudes and perceptions, (2) acquire and integrate
knowledge, (3) extend and refine knowledge, (4) use knowledge meaningfully and
(5) habits of mind. DoL was perceived as an overarching learning model or “meta-
language” that could be used across several curriculum areas to focus on students’
learning. It enacted processes such as investigation and deriving justifiable
conclusions, which are tenets of inquiry learning:
So you’re actually sort of getting each subject to identify how they’re
teaching, and using a shared metalanguage. So that with things like – for
example, one of them is Investigating. So, okay, let’s have a task: what
strategies do we use when we investigate? And we can investigate in
science, we can investigate in history, investigate in SOSE…and so on. (CS,
p. 2)
190 Middle school social sciences: Exploring teachers’ conceptions of essential knowledge
The DoL framework in one teacher’s unit had a twin focus on the complex
reasoning task and the SOSE Essential Learnings:
[D] and I were on the writing team, so we decided what’s a unit we can
create as a model for the other humanities teachers which embeds DoL in it
and has as its focus the complex reasoning task, and still covers the
Essentials for SOSE.... (CS, p. 2)
Here, SOSE “as curriculum knowledge” is a point of reference or justification for
significant learning goals.
In their work, teachers exercised professional discretion in how much
importance they attached to the intended curriculum. Some teachers felt that
achieving learning objectives, such as developing the capacity for complex reasoning
or investigation, was at least as important as delivering the specifics of the Essential
Learnings. Furthermore, enacting the curriculum was perceived in the light of
broader issues that impact on teaching and learning, particularly behaviour
management: “…unless the curriculum is engaging, interesting, relevant, you’re
always going to have lots of behaviour management problems. So I guess, even on
the curriculum side, I think the challenge for the teacher is for it to be engaging, to
switch on kids” (JE, p. 8). These views indicate that underlying curriculum
knowledge for SOSE was teachers’ pedagogical content knowledge of how to
enthuse students and encourage learning. In sum, knowledge of learning frameworks
and other policies influenced teachers’ interpretation of curriculum knowledge for
SOSE and impacted on the delivery of SOSE.
Knowledge of curriculum implementation
The implementation of SOSE was influenced by the perception of ongoing
change (discussed above), planning, assessment practice, and students’ previous
learning in SOSE. Elucidating these aspects of Category 2 contributes to the
structure of awareness of “curriculum knowledge” as essential knowledge for SOSE.
Given teachers’ perceptions that the SOSE curriculum was in flux, good
planning and assessment were seen to be important in providing certainty and
direction for teachers:
Chapter 5: Categories of Description 191
I think what has made them [SOSE units] successful is planning the whole,
having the end in mind before we started. Having activities to do each week
and then modifying them as we went along….So it didn’t matter that we
weren’t in Week 2, we’re not following the plan but we did everything that
we wanted to do to reach the outcome at the end. (VN, p. 7)
Planning increased SOSE teachers’ confidence and control over their teaching:
“I don’t think knowledgeable in terms of content is the word but it certainly made me
feel more in control of the learning experiences ‘cause I knew exactly where we were
going and there was so much enthusiasm from the kids” (EK, p. 6). Similarly, well
constructed, comparable assessment tasks (CT, p. 16) were especially valued because
it was perceived that there was more room for debate in SOSE compared with other
subjects:
And having that knowledge of what’s coming next so that we can start it,
like knowing the whole system of government, so when a question comes
up, I would then have to say as often, I don’t know that. That is being able to
branch off because it doesn’t follow, like in maths, you learn this and this
and this and there’s not much deviation, but in SOSE there’s a lot more room
for discussion. (VN, p. 8)
The alignment of planning, teaching and assessment was valued because it increased
teachers’ self-confidence in their subject knowledge. At a time of curriculum change,
planning and assessment were significant references for certainty and illustrate
aspects of teachers’ curriculum knowledge for SOSE.
A related aspect of knowledge for implementing SOSE curriculum was
teachers being aware of the students’ prior knowledge gathered from learning in
other SOSE units. Teachers reported that SOSE units were often repeated across
school sectors, sometimes from year to year. Knowing what was taught in each
sector would make for more effective SOSE teaching:
There needs to be some sort of – I don’t know. The primary schools and the
high schools need to communicate more. There really needs to be more of
that, because there’s so many things that we do in Year 8 that they’ve
already done in primary school. If they do it in Year 6, then how complex
would it be? I mean how much depth? It wouldn’t have been in much depth.
(KF, p. 14)
192 Middle school social sciences: Exploring teachers’ conceptions of essential knowledge
Essential knowledge for SOSE “as curriculum” was, to some extent, dependent on
teachers “knowing” what students had already been taught to prevent unnecessary
repetition and increase their depth of knowledge.
Category 2: Dimensions of variation
The structure of awareness of Category 2 comprises referential and structural
elements referring to teachers’ conceptions of “curriculum knowledge”. The internal
horizon of Category 2 is concerned with implementing the curriculum, elucidating
dimensions of variation in content, inquiry learning and teacher autonomy as
discussed below. They manifest aspects of curriculum knowledge for SOSE, which is
different from the discipline-based knowledge described in Category 1. As with
Category 1, the focus in Category 2 is on the teacher who implements the
curriculum. The dimensions of variation illustrate the push for disciplinary learning,
discerned in the context of the external horizon of the learning area premised on
integration.
In the first dimension of variation related to content, teachers perceived the
curriculum of SOSE as the reference point for content. In Category 1, the role of
curriculum documents in defining content knowledge was examined. Category 2
builds on this and explores the intent of various curriculum documents to promote
integrated or discipline-based content. Content as a dimension of variation in
Category 2 is heavily influenced by the impact of change, evident in the recent
adoption of the SOSE Essential Learnings and anticipation of the future national
history curriculum. Conceptions of content in Category 2 in the internal horizon
privilege discipline-based content knowledge; while this was in line with the
Essential Learnings, it illustrated tension with the then current emphasis on skills in
the learning area, evident at the external horizon.
In the second dimension of variation, inquiry learning was perceived to
provide the depth required under the Essential Learnings. The requirement in
curriculum policy and learning frameworks to teach inquiry as a way of promoting
deep understanding shows that inquiry in Category 2 builds on Category 1, where
inquiry learning privileged skills over content. However, there was also a perception
that the content demands of the national curriculum would put pressure on
developing the skills of inquiry.
Chapter 5: Categories of Description 193
The third dimension of variation revealed teacher autonomy to interpret
curriculum guidelines and policies in implementing the curriculum. Teachers had
discretion over how to interpret curriculum guidelines and core content. In Category
2, we see teachers extending the scope of professional discretion from choosing what
to teach in the classroom (seen as emphasising skills over content in Category 1) to
choosing what to teach from the curriculum.
To conclude, the structure of awareness of “curriculum knowledge” for SOSE
is focused on the teacher, who enacts the curriculum. The impact of curriculum
innovation and change was a constant feature of teachers’ curriculum knowledge.
While the internal horizon focused on curriculum implementation of the new
discipline-based curriculum, the structural elements of Category 2 were discerned in
relation to the external horizon. With the anticipated impact of the national history
curriculum, teachers were aware their professional freedom would be constrained by
a prescriptive, “knowledge-driven” (CT, p.2) curriculum, with less emphasis on or
opportunity for integration and skills development. In the next section, Category 3
focuses on teaching and life experience and builds on the dimensions of variation as
themes of expanding awareness established in Category 1 and 2.
194 Middle school social sciences: Exploring teachers’ conceptions of essential knowledge
Category 3: Essential knowledge for teaching SOSE conceived as “teaching and life experience”
Category 3 describes essential knowledge for SOSE as teachers’ experience in
the classroom and life experience. Table 5.4 summarises the structural and referential
aspects of Category 3.
Table 5.4
Knowledge for Teaching SOSE as “Teaching and Life Experience”
Knowledge for teaching SOSE as “teaching and life experience” (Teacher focus)
Features of category Evidence
Referential aspect Essential knowledge for SOSE refers to teaching experience of SOSE and teachers’ broader life experience.
“My knowledge comes in the form of experience I suppose.” (SL, p. 4)
Structural elements Internal horizon: SOSE teaching experience and personal life experience
Teaching experience – the classroom • Knowledge of resources • Knowledge of how to find information • Knowledge of ICT
“I’ve been teaching in the area for my entire career....You kind of just build on that knowledge all the way through.” (SL, p. 4)
Teaching experience – role of other educators
“It’s been a team environment planning and team teaching. I definitely haven’t done it all by myself.” (VN, p. 8) “I think that’s the problem too with SOSE is that it can often be coloured by the head of department’s experiences....” (KM, p. 5)
Life experience – personal
“It is not easy for me. When I speak about apartheid it is not easy….” (MN, p. 11)
External horizon: Knowledge of the learning area
Dimensions of variation:
DoV 1: Content as mediated through teaching and life experiences
DoV 2: Inquiry learning as facilitated by knowledge of teaching resources
DoV 3: Teacher autonomy as drawing on teaching and life experiences
Category 3 describes essential knowledge for SOSE as teachers’ experience in
the classroom and life experience. As indicated in Table 5.4, the referential aspect
of Category 3 explores teachers’ individual and collaborative experiences of teaching
Chapter 5: Categories of Description 195
SOSE and life experience as knowledge for SOSE. A variety of professional and
personal experiences that form the knowledge base of teaching are explored.
The structural elements of Category 3 refer to three different elements of
teaching. First, experience of teaching SOSE and other subjects in the classroom was
considered essential knowledge for teaching SOSE. This involved experience of
teaching SOSE, knowing how to align the planning, teaching and assessment of
SOSE content areas, knowledge of how to find and use information and resources,
and collegial experiences of planning and team teaching. Second, the role of other
educators and SOSE leadership directly affected the nature and direction of SOSE in
the school. This, in turn, influenced the teachers’ experiences and delivery of the
KLA. Third, the teachers’ personal life experiences informed their teaching, often
contributing practical teaching resources, such as photographs. In the structure of
awareness, the focus of Category 3, like Categories 1 and 2, is on the role of the
teacher in teaching the KLA.
The three dimensions of variation of content, inquiry learning and teacher
autonomy are manifested in Category 3. SOSE teaching experience and life
experience supported content as mediated through teaching and life experiences.
Teachers’ knowledge and use of a wide range of visual, print-based, human and ICT-
based resources facilitated inquiry learning. Furthermore, teacher autonomy in
drawing on pertinent teaching and life experiences to support SOSE teaching was
revealed. The dimensions of variation illustrate that aspects of teaching experience
and life experience are essential knowledge for SOSE, which distinguishes it from
the previous two categories. Like Categories 1 and 2, the structural elements of
Category 3 are discerned from an external horizon delineated by the nature of the
SOSE learning area, which emphasises integration.
Teaching experience – the classroom
The experience of teaching SOSE and other subjects was considered a source
of essential knowledge for SOSE teachers. Experiential knowledge developed in the
classroom built up a bank of “teaching knowledge” that coalesced with the teachers’
own education in the disciplines, ongoing professional development and knowledge
of the SOSE curriculum:
196 Middle school social sciences: Exploring teachers’ conceptions of essential knowledge
My knowledge comes in the form of experience I suppose. I’ve been
teaching in the area for my entire career and I studied as an undergraduate
in the area so, as well, you know, as I did it at school. You kind of just
build on that knowledge all the way through and I think, it’s experience in
that, what have you done in the different schools you’ve been in, what
knowledge and experience have you gained from the different people that
you’ve worked with and the more experienced people that you’ve worked
with over your career. You know, the professional development that you’ve
been involved in, making sure that you’re always involved in what’s
happening and generally, your own reading and my personal study.
Eventually you do have, I think, a fair bit of knowledge and experience and
you apply that in the best way that you can with regards to what’s actually
required through syllabus documents etc. (SL, p. 4)
The bold text in the excerpt above indicates how one participant referred to a
plethora of overlapping contexts, situations and sources of knowledge for developing
the experiential knowledge base for teaching. Core knowledge developed in
secondary school and tertiary education prior to teaching was the basis of subject
knowledge. In this case, the teacher’s own study and wide reading built on this prior
knowledge, supported by experiences of working in different schools, working with
a variety of colleagues and referring to curriculum materials (see Category 2).
Teachers perceived the cumulative benefit of SOSE teaching experience as essential
knowledge for SOSE. Knowledge of content for SOSE was mediated through this
type of teaching experience.
The experience of teaching is broadly concerned with planning, teaching and
assessment. While these considerations were briefly explored in Category 2 in
relation to implementing curriculum, in Category 3 they are explored as knowledge
for SOSE. For example, teaching experience across a range of other learning areas
gave teachers confidence to teach SOSE:
I taught in other areas, which, you know, is strange for some people. So I
actually started off as a HPE teacher, but I was a Japanese teacher, so I taught
LOTE and I was the head of LOTE. So I have quite a varied – and as I said, a
senior English teacher. So I think just working in other departments,
understanding, other syllabuses and planning and teaching tougher areas than
Chapter 5: Categories of Description 197
SOSE and there are a lot of harder areas to teach than SOSE. Probably that’s
why I felt when I taught SOSE, wow, to me it’s quite easy. (MR, p. 8-9)
The experience gained from working in diverse areas created a bank of teaching
experiences that contributed to a broad experiential knowledge for SOSE. More
specifically, experience in teaching SOSE developed pedagogical content knowledge
of expository teaching, questioning and inquiry learning:
I look at the other teachers around me who are teaching SOSE. They know
how to explain things. They know where to find the information so that’s
important. They really know how to encourage the kids to think for
themselves as well and ask the right questions to get answers. They spend a
lot of time. Or they know how to get the answers from the kids. They’ll
spend a lot of time prodding the kids and helping kids to come up with the
answers themselves, even during a discussion. They’ve got that knack and I
guess that’s just experience and practice. (CW, p.8)
This type of experiential knowledge for SOSE was unique – it built on personal
capabilities and was developed and refined through time spent in the classroom.
The following sections explore aspects of teachers’ classroom experience as
knowledge for teaching SOSE. These include knowledge of SOSE teaching
resources, knowing how to find information and the role of interaction and computer
technology (ICT) based resources as essential knowledge for teaching SOSE. While
this discussion is related to planning, teaching and assessment considerations as
explored in Category 2, Category 3 explores knowledge for SOSE derived from
teachers’ knowledge of practical resources for teaching based on their classroom
experience.
Knowledge of resources
SOSE teachers identified the importance of knowing and using a whole range
of print, audiovisual, human and ICT resources as part of their teaching experience.
The two excerpts below describe the variety and scope of teaching resources used:
And then, drawing in all the resources you can think of that will help them in
a number of ways, to be able to get something out of it, the human resources,
the family backgrounds and so on, the TV shows that they’re watching
anyway, to draw on that. And then, you know, the vast array of different
198 Middle school social sciences: Exploring teachers’ conceptions of essential knowledge
sources that are available on the internet, the oral histories, and that kind of
stuff that’s available for you to tap into. (CS, p. 15)
I think a good set of textbooks, up to date text books, even if they’ve got
their own set of textbooks that the school doesn’t have. If you’ve got that
little library yourself, that’s always good. Because the textbooks are written
for the teacher, and they have got good ideas in them and they’ve got little
activities in them and you can adapt them to what you want to do from those.
You’ve got to have those ideas. (KF & IG, p. 24)
Teachers used a variety of published SOSE teaching materials, such as textbooks and
activity sheets, as well as collected materials, such as brochures and news articles.
The creative use of such materials, and knowing how to use and adapt the available
resources, was practical knowledge rooted in classroom teaching experience.
Knowledge of how to find information
Knowing first, where to get content information to augment the knowledge
base for teaching, and second, how to find and access suitable teaching resources,
was considered essential knowledge for SOSE. Teachers linked this aspect of
professional teacher knowledge to their awareness that their prior knowledge of
many topics was limited to their own education and experience of teaching SOSE.
Participants at all levels of experience mentioned the importance of knowing where
and how to find information on unfamiliar content. For example, a beginning teacher
candidly admitted her lack of content knowledge for SOSE but had confidence she
knew how to find information:
I mean, I’m going to be pretty honest and say there’s a lot of content stuff in
SOSE I’m still yet to really know. So what’s important, I think, for me to
know is how to get information when I need it. It’s not just the straight
content. I couldn’t tell you, I couldn’t do a seminar on government in
Australia, but I could tell you of some places I go to get that information and
how I make that make sense to me. (EK, p. 18)
Experienced teachers conceded that, “one textbook isn’t going to cut it” (KT, p. 13).
Thus, knowing where to find information to teach a new topic was important, given
the diversity of SOSE topics and the fact that teachers may have to teach outside
their area of expertise. One teacher said that it was important to know how to “access
Chapter 5: Categories of Description 199
resources, because you can end up with a subject that you know nothing about” (KF,
p. 22); teachers had to “know where to look. Have a good pool of resources
basically, because there’s so many topics” (KF, p. 17). The need to know where and
how to find topic information and suitable classroom resources emerged from
experience in the classroom.
A further justification for the need for SOSE resources was that, without
current resources and practical activities, SOSE lacked appeal and relevance to the
students:
Most of the SOSE units I do, I try to have a variety of resources, but I think
what really made that one [on Otzi the Iceman] an interesting one was the
resources. We had access to a lot of videos, a lot of visual material. There
were news reports. That particular time, again, I think this was 2004-2005.
There were things on TV about it at the time, so we had that as well, in
language that they could understand. So the resources I think can sometimes
make a unit. If you lack the resources, the really big visuals or the practical
activities, I think you can get lost in the content. But that’s how I teach. (YE,
p. 13)
Further probing revealed that getting “lost in the content” (YE, p. 13) meant being
mired in the content and detail. Practical learning experiences using visual resources
and kinaesthetic practical activities gave students a much greater chance of deeper
learning: “They were retaining the content or the concepts that were around those
experiences” (YE, p. 14).
Knowledge of ICT
SOSE teachers rated ICT-based resources highly in their teaching. Technology
offered students new ways of investigating a topic and teachers considered it an
integral part of teaching and learning: “New technology helps, you know getting
onto a website and looking at things and seeing things, touching things, watching
things, going home and asking things, real things” (AN, p. 11). Technology was
perceived to foster experiential-based learning in the classroom. Furthermore, the
rationale for using ICT-based resources and understanding the role and potential of
technology for learning was both to engage better with students and to connect them
to the wider community:
200 Middle school social sciences: Exploring teachers’ conceptions of essential knowledge
…there’s connecting with the global community in so many ways that we
can do with SOSE now and I think we have a responsibility to do so. I think
it’s crucial that whatever this new manifestation of SOSE is, that it provides
students with ways of using the information revolution to the benefit of their
learning. (IN, p. 11)
Technology played a special role in SOSE because of the broad definition of society
in SOSE as a “global community”. Understanding how to use technology, and how
technology shapes the world of students, also contributed towards knowledge for
SOSE:
I don’t think you can be a good SOSE teacher if you can’t put together a
basic PowerPoint, if you can’t communicate through some of the ways that
the students communicate, if you’ve never been on Facebook, you’re not a
very good SOSE teacher. You have to know what the kids are involved in.
You have to appreciate what a mobile phone can do now. You don’t have to
go and do all these things but you have to appreciate what the students, what
younger people are doing with them right now. (IN, pp. 11-12)
SOSE teachers used their knowledge of teaching resources and technology gained in
practical classroom contexts to teach about globalisation and link the KLA with the
“real” world of their students.
In summary, SOSE teachers referred to the term “experience” in a generic way
to describe several ways of approaching SOSE education. In the first instance,
cumulative classroom experience and use of resources built knowledge for SOSE. In
addition, knowledge “in the form of experience” (SL, p, 4) gave teachers the freedom
to exercise their own discretion in the way a topic was taught and assessed. With
experience came the view that assessment was part of the learning process and that
teachers could seek different ways to teach a topic, depending on the assessment
task. Thus, with experience, opportunities to initiate small scale professional renewal
emerged:
If your assessment piece is the end point that you’re leading them towards
and it’s part of the learning experience, then there’s so many ways through
to that end point and I think you can keep yourself passionate, excited and
alive by making sure that you are that sort of person. But I think to know to
do that is important. To understand that you know the assessment piece is
Chapter 5: Categories of Description 201
part of the learning experience and the path the students are on is guided by
you but not, you know, set in concrete is really important too. I think it’s just
experience. (SL, p. 9)
The bold phrase above provides an insight into practice and opportunities to exercise
professional knowledge, generated by teaching experience in SOSE. Reflection on
teaching practice created awareness of the choices available, a hallmark of teacher
autonomy. The focus on “experience” here alludes to professional insight from time
in the classroom. In addition, teaching experience also referred to working with
Heads of Department and colleagues, as shown in the following sections.
Teaching experience – role of other educators
The experience of working with Heads of Department, and collaborative
planning and team teaching, were two influences on teaching experience as essential
knowledge for SOSE. While “influences” on teaching experience do not comprise a
conception of knowledge in a phenomenographic sense, they are included in this
analysis because they impact on teachers’ knowledge and are intrinsic to it. Other
educators do play a role in shaping teachers’ knowledge for SOSE.
For some teachers, the leadership of SOSE was key to developing essential
knowledge for SOSE and impacted on its implementation. Issues that teachers
experienced with the leadership of SOSE centred on how the SOSE syllabus
outcomes should be implemented (ML, p. 3) and the conceptualisation of the
learning area as an uneasy balance between disciplinary and integrated units (KM,
p. 5):
...and this is the problem I think here with SOSE, I guess J’s a history
person, so he tends to do a very hotchpotch – he does history pure, and then
he does integrated units. I think that’s the problem too with SOSE is that it
can often be coloured by the Head of Department’s experiences....
If it was a geography, a pure geography person, who had very little history –
and I know from P, who isn’t here, he’s the ex-Head of Department here, he
would have made it more geography with a bit of SOSE. (KM, pp. 5-6)
Work program choices in SOSE reflected the capacity and interest of the Head of
Department, with significant consequences: “It [SOSE] does have this just, not lack
of guidance from QSA [Queensland Studies Authority], teachers are just doing
202 Middle school social sciences: Exploring teachers’ conceptions of essential knowledge
whatever the person that is the controller gets them to do” (KM, p. 7). However, a
more flexible approach to curriculum leadership gave the opportunity to engage
students and supported teachers in developing expertise:
It’s pretty good, I suppose, if you have a HOD that’s very flexible and if you
can put the time in to really get your kids engaged that they’ll let you take
that on -- on the tangent... if you’ve got kids that’re really interested in an
area, it’s great to have the flexibility to take it in that area, not have to worry
too much that you’re not following a rigid plan of how to do it. (EK, p. 6)
And where I’m [I] have to try and pick myself up. Learn on my own, and the
bonus is that, in a good school, like here, with B. above me, he’s very good
at giving me the resources I need to do that and sending me out to do
professional development in that area. (JI, p. 10)
The leadership of the Head of Department was perceived to be critical to SOSE
teachers’ knowledge developed through classroom experience.
As with SOSE leadership, collaborative planning and team teaching experiences
were influences on knowledge for SOSE. In the following account, team teaching
increased the teacher’s knowledge of Government, illustrating the influence of
collaboration on knowledge for SOSE:
I think we’re able to cover a lot more of the Government [unit] because there
was two of us planning it in this pod and we conferred with what we had
with other teachers in the other pod, and we put everything on the system on
G drive, so we could all say this is a good website I found and we shared a
lot of information....I haven’t done Government since I was in Year 7 in such
depth. (VN, p. 8)
Teachers considered that professional planning and sharing amongst colleagues was
driven by the need to create a common, reciprocal knowledge base:
.... So, you know, in the last unit, one of the teachers, she’s the history
teacher, she put some of the articles together, some of the knowledge
together. But then another teacher’s developed a number of PowerPoints.
Then you know, I’ll write model responses that I’ll put them onto an R drive.
So all of that we’ll be constantly accessing and looking at and commenting
on. (MR, p. 16)
Chapter 5: Categories of Description 203
These examples illustrate that collaborative planning, sharing of resources and team
teaching influenced conceptions of SOSE knowledge. At the same time, teachers
valued the flexibility to implement the planning in their own way in their classes:
And we share as a team. Even though it is like a high school we’re not,
we’re not isolated. It’s not just me in this room and I do my lesson and then
someone does their lesson. We all plan at staff meetings. It’s not prescribed
though, that in Week 2 we all do this and Week 3 we all do that. As long as
by Week 5, we’ve all covered those things because that’s when the exam is.
(VN, p. 10)
Evidently, collegial teaching experiences were valued because they offered powerful
opportunities to build content knowledge, facilitated inquiry learning through shared
resources, and offered the opportunity to enhance pedagogy and skills within the
scope of daily teaching. Collaborative planning and team teaching provided
opportunities for collegiality and ongoing professional renewal.
Life experience – personal
The life experience of teachers was as much essential knowledge for SOSE
education as classroom or school-based experiences. Teachers reported that their life
experience of community involvement, personal travel, and parenthood impacted
upon their work in SOSE. By drawing on personal life experiences, teachers brought
real-world authenticity to their work: “I also think it’s important to have life
experiences, like having a family, so that when you interact with society, you know
how the institutions work, and you know how the community works. And I guess I
can bring that” (CS, p. 9). The link between life experiences and SOSE teaching was
understood better by mature-aged teachers. For example, a beginning SOSE teacher,
originally from Zimbabwe, mused that her role as a mother was more significant to
her teaching than her experiences as a migrant: “The fact that I bring that knowledge
with me and that might help in the study you know, but really, maybe my knowledge
as a mother, you know, maybe that’s the sort of knowledge I’m bringing into the
class, I don’t know” (PU, p. 7).
Other participants in the study were convinced that travel and having
experienced situations and places far removed from the lives of students made their
SOSE teaching authentic:
204 Middle school social sciences: Exploring teachers’ conceptions of essential knowledge
I think I bring some knowledge of what kids have found interesting in the
past and so I can cut through some other stuff. I also, I like to travel and so
I’ve often brought those things, my experiences as a traveller in, in a range
of ways and either directly or indirectly or just talking about travel, I think
that’s been really valuable for me. (JA, p. 6)
The congruence between personal experience and teaching ranged from casual
or minor references to travel to discussion of deeper personal experiences. For
example, one teacher reported that she used the photographs she had taken whilst
travelling in Bosnia to further her students’ hands-on understanding of primary
sources in a study of World War I:
I think you need to sometimes bring your own experience like for instance
when I teach World War II, when I was in Bosnia I made sure that I took
photographs – sorry, World War I, where Franz Ferdinand was killed and
there’s nothing there but I’ve got photographs to show, it’s a hands-on thing
between primary sources like that. (BL, p. 10-11)
For some teachers, life experience also contributed a deeply personal and
emotional dimension to knowledge for SOSE. For example, one teacher drew on her
experience of migration and assimilation to develop a rapport and connections with
overseas-born or refugee students:
A lot of the kids there were really shy or just didn’t know what to do. A lot
of them came from overseas too and a lot of them – especially, you know,
the Sudanese kids – they came from war-torn – a lot of civil unrest. But they
were just, you know, couldn’t express themselves and for me to be able to
put my own experience about having to leave my own country, going
through war and having to assimilate into Australia, they could – some kids
could relate to that. (PH, p. 3-4)
In another example, a teacher drew on deeply personal experiences of
apartheid and segregation in South Africa. The topic of apartheid arose as a point of
comparison when learning about Australian Government. Drawing on personal
experience for teaching was difficult for the teacher but he reported that, “my
students were mesmerised” (MN, p. 5) by his story:
Interviewee: I’m looking at a democratic system now where my kids can go
anywhere, anytime to any beach to any cinema, to any school. And when I
Chapter 5: Categories of Description 205
compared that to South Africa where I was only allowed to go to a beach
where they only had blacks, allowed to go to a cinema only for non-whites.
The kids couldn’t. It’s not that they couldn’t believe it but they were pretty
surprised that there was such a system of government, the apartheid
government.
Facilitator: It would have been very enlightening for them.
Interviewee: Yes. My knowledge. My prior experience really helps to
enhance student learning in the classroom. (MN, p. 5)
Teachers effectively used their own life experiences as teaching resources for
SOSE. They drew on their experiences of life in the community, their roles as
parents, and personal experiences that correlated with the topic being studied. It
seems that, at times, teachers drew on specific life experiences to connect with their
students or topics of study; at other times they perceived that travel and general life
experience provided a bank of personal resources to underpin their teaching: “So
through your own experience of life, you tend to channel your interest and bring that
to the classroom” (CT, p. 23). The life experiences mediated teaching SOSE content.
The benefits were perceived to be authenticity in teaching and students who were
more interested and engaged in the topic being studied.
Category 3: Dimensions of variation
The focus of Category 3 is on the teaching experience and life experience of
the teacher as a foundation of essential knowledge for SOSE. Although teaching
experience clearly involves students, unlike Categories 4, 5, 6 and 7, this category
does not focus on the role that students play in teachers’ conceptions of knowledge.
Rather, the focus is on the technical and practical aspects of teaching, such as access
to and use of resources and ICT, and teachers’ own life experiences, which informed
knowledge for SOSE. Like Categories 1 and 2, the focus in Category 3 is on the
teacher.
The bifurcation of the two types of experience by teachers alludes to the
separation of the professional and the personal in teachers’ minds in relation to
conceptions of essential knowledge for SOSE. The structure of awareness of
Category 3 reveals that the two areas are separate but interconnected areas of
experience that comprise essential knowledge for SOSE. SOSE teaching experience
206 Middle school social sciences: Exploring teachers’ conceptions of essential knowledge
and personal life experience are a focus of awareness (internal horizon). The
dimensions of variation related to content, inquiry learning and teacher autonomy are
now discussed.
In the first dimension of variation related to content, teachers reach for
pertinent teaching and life experiences to mediate teaching SOSE content. For
example, personal experience of apartheid enriched teaching a unit on different
systems of government, and collegial teaching experiences offered opportunities to
build content. Teaching and life experiences extended the teacher’s ability to convey
a deeper understanding of the content, defined or mandated through curriculum in
Category 2.
The second dimension of variation indicated that inquiry learning was
facilitated by teachers’ knowledge of resources gained from their teaching and life
experiences. Teachers’ choice of artefacts and memorabilia gathered from travel and
other life experiences supported, or further authenticated, the use of primary sources
in inquiry learning. Knowledge of teaching resources gained from teaching and life
experiences in Category 3 facilitated and increased the scope for inquiry learning and
depth of learning (see Category 2). By drawing on their own experience as
knowledge for teaching, we see teachers expand and extend their capacity for
inquiry-based teaching. Furthermore, teachers regarded individual teaching, team
teaching and collaborative planning as important experiences, which influenced their
subject knowledge, use of resources and inquiry-based pedagogy for SOSE.
The third dimension of variation related to teacher autonomy as drawing on
teaching and life experiences to support SOSE teaching. Teaching experiences
presented opportunities to develop professional knowledge through reflection and
renewal while working with colleagues. The Head of SOSE was perceived to shape
the SOSE program and the teachers’ autonomy. Category 3 illustrates that teachers
drew from selected teaching and life experiences to support their teaching, building
on their professional discretion to interpret the curriculum guidelines evident in
Category 2.
The internal horizon of Category 3, as indicated above, is concerned with
teaching experience and life experience as knowledge for SOSE. Like Categories 1
and 2, the structural elements of Category 3 are discerned in the context (external
Chapter 5: Categories of Description 207
horizon) of integration that is the basis of SOSE. In some instances, there was
tension between SOSE teachers and SOSE leaders, who interpreted curriculum intent
in different ways, but in the main, knowledge for SOSE was linked to teachers’
classroom and life experiences. The focus on experience in Category 3 is
qualitatively different from discipline-based knowledge (Category 1) and curriculum
knowledge (Category 2).
Summary of dimensions of variation in Categories 1, 2 and 3
The dimensions of variation in Categories 1, 2 and 3 are themes of awareness
that reveal different ways in which teachers experience the foundation of essential
knowledge for SOSE. The summary in Table 5.1 (p. 162) indicates that each
dimension of variation is discerned in the internal horizon in relation to the teacher.
The external horizon refers to knowledge of the learning area that comprises the
foundation of knowledge for middle years social education. A logical progression is
observed for content, from being defined as “facts” and disciplinary knowledge
(Category 1), to content mandated and defined in curriculum (Category 2), to content
mediated through the teaching and life experience of the teacher (Category 3).
Inquiry learning is privileged over content in Category 1, is required as part of
curriculum knowledge in Category 2, and is facilitated by teachers’ knowledge of
teaching resources in Category 3. Teacher autonomy, defined as professional
discretion, is logically related in the three categories: teachers choose to emphasise
skills over content in Category 1, interpret curriculum guidelines in Category 2, and
draw on selected teaching and life experience as essential knowledge for SOSE in
Category 3. Thus, the dimensions of variation in Category 2 extend Category 1, and
dimensions of variation in Category 3 extend the scope of dimensions of variation in
Category 2. Each dimension of variation is discerned in relation to the common
context (external horizon) of knowledge of the learning area to provide the
foundation for links to dimensions of variation in Categories 4, 5, 6 and 7.
Summary of Categories 1, 2 and 3
Categories 1, 2 and 3 comprise the first group of categories in the outcome
space characterised by a focus on the teacher and delimited by the external horizon
of the SOSE learning area. The second group of categories, comprising Categories 4,
208 Middle school social sciences: Exploring teachers’ conceptions of essential knowledge
5 and 6, share a student-teacher focus, illustrating the role played by students in
shaping middle school teachers' conceptions of knowledge for SOSE. Category 4,
which focuses on the middle years learner, builds on the dimensions of variation in
Categories 1, 2 and 3.
Chapter 5: Categories of Description 209
Category 4: Essential knowledge for teaching SOSE conceived as “knowledge of the middle years learner”
Category 4 describes SOSE teachers’ knowledge of middle years students,
content and pedagogy for SOSE. Table 5.5 summarises the structural and referential
aspects of Category 4.
Table 5.5
Knowledge for Teaching SOSE as “Knowledge of the Middle Years Learner”
Knowledge for teaching SOSE as “knowledge of the middle years learner” (Student & teacher focus)
Features of category Evidence
Referential aspect Essential knowledge for SOSE refers to knowledge of middle school learners and philosophy of schooling, age-appropriate SOSE content and pedagogy
“I like the fact that they [the school] see middle schooling as being different from senior schooling with a different focus.” (KR, p. 22)
Structural elements Internal horizon: Middle years philosophy, students and pedagogy
Middle years students and philosophy of schooling
“Because to me, real student-centred learning is you know your learners well, and you respond to their needs. I mean, I’m a bit of an advocate for middle school philosophy as well.” (DB, p. 24)
Distinctive middle school SOSE content “…sometimes some of the geography stuff. I just sort of think you know, I’m just banging my head against a brick wall here. Conceptually it’s often too difficult for them.” (MC, p. 9)
SOSE as life-long learning and skills “You don’t just use this one process for SOSE. It’s for anything else. This is about life.” (PH, p. 17)
Middle years SOSE pedagogy “Sort of really good teachers seem to make SOSE come alive for the kids so that the kids really see that it’s important.” (CW, p. 9)
External horizon: Knowledge of contexts
Dimensions of variation
DoV 1: Content for holistic education
DoV 2: Inquiry learning as enhancing thinking skills and engagement with the topic
DoV 3: Teacher autonomy as developing SOSE pedagogical content knowledge
Category 4 describes SOSE teachers’ knowledge of middle years students,
age-appropriate content and pedagogy suited to SOSE. As indicated in Table 5.5, the
referential aspect in this category distinguishes the middle years from secondary
210 Middle school social sciences: Exploring teachers’ conceptions of essential knowledge
schooling and emphasises the importance of getting to know students as middle
schoolers: “It’s one thing I like about this middle school, which is why I still teach in
the senior school and the middle school …. I like the fact that they see middle
schooling as being different from senior schooling with a different focus” (KR, p.
22). The middle years were perceived as a time to build the foundation of skills for
senior humanities study (TA, p. 3), and teachers ascribed as much importance to
knowing students as they did to having knowledge of the subject: “Probably, they
have to know their subject reasonably well but equally they have to know their
students or get to know their students” (RN, p. 7). Furthermore, teachers
acknowledged the changes experienced by young adolescents. Impressionable and
affected by hormonal changes, middle schoolers presented a challenge:
…I don’t know all the middle school theory but I know some stuff about
middle schooling… pedagogical practice can only go so far to adapting to
hormones, because hormones will be hormones and it will have the impact
on behaviour that will vary from kid to kid that makes those Year 9 classes.
(JA, p. 4)
…they’re very easy to be influenced at this stage…I think it’s just so
important that we, as teachers, tread very carefully with how we…bring
information to them and how we get them to think about things. (KT, p. 4)
Category 4 demonstrates essential knowledge for SOSE as referring to students’
developmental needs and the education of the whole person: “…it’s a lot more
holistic. It’s not so much about the individual subject matter” (KR, p. 9), illustrating
a clear shift from educating students about SOSE topics in previous categories to
educating the person.
The structural elements of Category 4 centre on middle years students,
philosophy of schooling, distinctive middle school SOSE content, the role of SOSE
in developing life-long learning and skills, and middle years SOSE pedagogy. Unlike
the previous three categories, which focused on the teacher, Category 4 focuses
primarily on the student and, to a lesser extent, the teacher. The focus of awareness
(internal horizon) of Category 4 illustrates that SOSE teachers identify how content
and pedagogy is distinctive to the middle years because of the learning and
developmental needs of students.
Chapter 5: Categories of Description 211
The internal horizon is revealed in the dimensions of variation of content,
inquiry learning and teacher autonomy. Here, we see teachers prioritising holistic
knowledge rather than content-based teaching on SOSE topics. Inquiry learning
focuses on enhancing the students’ thinking skills and level of engagement with
SOSE. This was largely achieved through student-centred pedagogy and interactive
teaching, rather than transmission or direct instruction, illustrating teacher autonomy
in developing pedagogical content knowledge. Teachers were aware that SOSE
pedagogy also supported teaching and learning in other subject areas.
The dimensions of variation reveal the teachers’ commitment to integrated
SOSE education and inquiry learning in supporting life-long learning. These views
were discerned within the broader context of the external horizon of Category 4. As
with Categories 1, 2 and 3, the external horizon of Category 4 is delineated by the
integrated nature of the SOSE learning area. In addition, the external horizon of
Category 4 refers to knowledge of context, that is, the societal context of middle
years students. It refers to the context of schooling and community of middle years
students. It is the impetus for life-long skills education and holistic learning that
emerges in Category 4. The delineation of the learning area and societal context as
the external horizon of Category 4 is also shared by Categories 5 and 6, indicating a
discernible shift in the external horizon from the previous three categories to include
a social perspective. The structural elements of Category 4 are now explored.
Middle years students and philosophy of schooling
A conception of middle years learners and the middle years philosophy of
education comprised essential knowledge for SOSE educators because it affected the
type of content and pedagogy considered appropriate for SOSE. The educational
philosophy that underpinned the curriculum was an important guide for teachers: “I
would like to see the new national curriculum reflect an understanding of middle
schooling” (KR, p. 23). It was acknowledged that, because middle years students
were developing physically, neurologically and emotionally, they had different
educational needs from senior students:
I think with middle school, there needs to be serious thought in a school
about how the needs of students change depending on their age and
maturity….
212 Middle school social sciences: Exploring teachers’ conceptions of essential knowledge
We quite often do have discussions about what level these kids are at, how
their brain is working when they’re 12 years old or 13 years old. ….
I don’t like to see middle schoolers treated like miniature Year 11s and 12s.
Their brains work in completely different ways and they have completely
different needs. (KR, p. 22)
Some teachers in the study expressed a developmental view of middle school
students, which impacted on their practice.
A middle school philosophy of education targeted holistic knowledge, where
teachers chose to focus less on learning specific content and more on developing
broad learning skills and educating the whole person. General learning skills aimed
at teaching for learning and “holistic development” (KR, p. 22) benefited all subject
areas:
I think integrated units work quite well in the middle school because the
skills aren’t yet as specific to the subject as they get in senior school. They
still need to learn how to set out their book, how to find the right book, how
to take that information from that book and put it into notes which they’re
then going to be able to use. All that really, really basic stuff is a really big
part of being a middle school teacher and sometimes those general skills are
more important in a sense than the specifics of the content that you’re doing.
(KR, p. 8)
In the context of middle years education, teachers did not accord huge importance to
having a “massive range of content” (SL, p. 5). For example, one teacher believed
that, with Year 8 students, “you don’t actually have to know much knowledge to be
knowledgeable” (MC, p. 5), and another stated:
In the middle school I think you can still be a good SOSE teacher without a
huge amount of background knowledge of history or geography as long as
you’re willing to track down that knowledge for those subjects and make
sure you understand the basics. I think it’s really more about the way in
which you teach the students and how you convey the knowledge that you
do it in a variety of ways and you do it interactive ways and you do it in
ways that the girls see as being purposeful. (KR, pp. 19-20)
Chapter 5: Categories of Description 213
This excerpt indicates that, in addition to basic subject knowledge, the pedagogical
content knowledge exemplified by “interactive” teaching would engage the students
and generalise the skills learned across other areas. This view was also supported by
subject specialists teaching SOSE:
Being a history teacher I love it when we do some solid history and some
really good history skills, when we talk about sources and analysing them.
But, the way that you do it tends to be something that relates to all their
subjects rather than specific to history. (KR, p. 9)
Moreover, middle school SOSE contributed to holistic education rather than
discipline-specialisation: “…there’s a lot with it being more holistic and more about
the development of the person and less about the development of the mathematician
or a historian etc” (KR, p. 8). Here, the emphasis on content for holistic knowledge is
quite different from Category 1, where teachers’ conceptions of “discipline-based
knowledge” were examined. Clearly, SOSE teaching and learning supports the
holistic aims of middle schooling (Pendergast, 2005).
More generally, SOSE teachers advocated having knowledge of their students
to target their needs. Participants referred to the socio-cultural, linguistic, emotional
and learning needs of middle schoolers, for example, students who were shy (PH, p.
3), “kids that have got hard core home situations” (EK, p. 13), refugees who could
not express themselves in English (PH, p. 3), students with behavioural problems
(CT, p. 11), diverse learning styles of “kinaesthetic sort of learners” (JI, p. 2) and
gender-based learning needs (JE, p. 12). Knowledge of the diversity of students, their
values and learning styles was essential:
I think you need a knowledge of the kids to begin with. I think you need to
know who they are and where they’ve come from and what their
assumptions and values are. Before you can launch into a topic on refugees
and if you want to make it role-play based and you’ve got kids who are quite
introverted and have never done role-plays because maybe they don’t do
drama, then that’s your whole unit out the window. (NC, p. 7)
Furthermore, SOSE topics should link in some way with the world in which
the students live: “I know if the task or the work is not connected to the real world, to
their world, they don’t find it interesting” (MN, p. 9). There was a pronounced
214 Middle school social sciences: Exploring teachers’ conceptions of essential knowledge
emphasis on connecting topics of study with students’ interests and feelings: “I don’t
think SOSE is ever effective without them feeling an emotional attachment to what
you’re trying to teach them” (EK, p. 3). Teachers wanted to invest SOSE education
with real meaning so that the content would matter to the students: “I felt that, if they
didn’t get this step right, the connectivity between this and the topic, then you can
teach the French Revolution till you’re blue in the face, it doesn’t mean anything to
the kids, you know what I mean, it’s just knowledge” (CS, p. 11). As such, while
knowledge for SOSE was determined by subject boundaries, a holistic approach to
education was equally important: “Because to me, real student-centred learning is
you know your learners well, and you respond to their needs. I mean, I’m a bit of an
advocate for middle school philosophy as well” (DB, p. 24). In sum, SOSE pedagogy
reflected the ideals of middle school education.
Distinctive middle school SOSE content
As indicated in Category 2, the choice of SOSE content was largely dictated by
the curriculum. However, teachers alluded to a developmental view of the content of
SOSE because certain topics were more suited to the age group’s intellectual
capacity and promoted further discipline-based study:
I mean obviously they’re [thinking skills] incredibly important but there’s
also some definite content that is very important where SOSE is concerned.
So you know you still have to head towards your senior subjects and that’s,
you know, I tend to map backwards. So what do they need to know as an
adult? What do they need to know in each of the senior Social Science
subjects and map backwards through to what do they come in with in
Year 7.…
For example, you know, we have sat down and thought, what do we believe
are some really important historical events or you know, what geographical
knowledge do we think they need to be able to do senior geography and
what, you know, what other content, generally do we think it’s important for
them to know when they leave in the end of Year 10. (SL, p. 3)
In addition to a backward mapping approach to the choice of content, teachers
also chose content because they believed that it assisted in educating the whole
person. Here we see teachers once again exercising their autonomy in the classroom.
Chapter 5: Categories of Description 215
For example, one teacher chose to introduce gender relations to middle schoolers,
“even though you wouldn’t teach it to the same level you do with the Year 12s you
want to start to introduce them to some of these issues and get them thinking about
them” (KR, pp. 17-18) and another cited a Year 8 project on Oceans, “where, I think,
not only do they learn content knowledge and thinking skills, but I also think they
learn how to become a more independent learner and I really think they grow as a
person (SL, p. 6). These examples show that the teachers were preoccupied with
teaching SOSE content in a way that assisted in the students’ broader education.
While teachers’ concerns for holistic education affected their choice of content,
a developmental view of SOSE content determined the scale and scope of
disciplinary knowledge that underpinned middle school SOSE (see Category 1). For
example, with regard to geography, one teacher suggested that contour mapping was
conceptually too difficult for Year 8 students:
They can’t close their eyes and imagine a hill and then look at four contour
maps and kind of work out which is the one….
I’ve explored this a fair bit because I pushed to get rid of contour mapping
out of the Grade 8 course…I mean the art teachers will tell you that they
can’t conceptualise things in 3D very well. If you give them a still life to
draw they can’t even get which is front and which is behind. They can’t
work that out. How far back is it or how close is it….They can’t do it and the
maths teachers say pretty much the same thing….The brain is just not
physically developed enough to be able to do that. That gets frustrating
sometimes when you have those sorts of things. Some girls can do it but a lot
of them struggle with that type of thing. (MC, p.9)
Similarly, units on democracy were linked to Nazism but not to a detailed study of
Hitler:
I’d rather look at…how democratic processes don’t always work in some
countries and why they don’t work, then linking maybe that back to Nazism.
Leave the study of Hitler and whether he caused World War II to a Year 11
or 12 class, but certainly not have it in a younger class (KM, 14).
A developmental view of what was appropriate content within a broad discipline-
based framework influenced content choices for SOSE teachers. As shown in the
216 Middle school social sciences: Exploring teachers’ conceptions of essential knowledge
following sections, teachers promoted general learning skills in SOSE as part of
middle school students’ holistic education.
SOSE as life-long learning and skills
In Category 1, the importance of skills education in an inquiry framework for
discipline-based study was identified, and Categories 2 and 3 emphasised inquiry
learning and skills development to achieve depth of knowledge. In each of these
categories, it was clear that essential knowledge of skills related to the academic
context of SOSE as a KLA. However, Category 4 illustrates that SOSE teachers also
drew on SOSE skills, particularly thinking skills, as a way to further holistic
education and life-long learning. One teacher asserted that, “the content knowledge
is one thing, but the thinking skills are really important” (SL, p. 2), for through the
thinking processes of evaluation and reflection, the student “also learnt to be a much
more independent learner” (SL, p. 7). Critical thinking included identifying bias, a
skill difficult to teach to primary school students: “Even a year younger, they might
not respond as well to that sort of thing, but they just seem to be at a really good age
[in Year 8 and 9] to get them to start really thinking critically about issues (KT, p. 8).
Teachers refrained from imparting their own views (JL, p. 13), so that students could
think for themselves (KT, pp. 12-13). Life-long learning skills were seen as relevant
for future study (JE, p. 6) and employment:
…they’re transferrable. It doesn’t matter what they do later in life. You
know, when they’re working the Public Service, you know, in Treasury or if
they’re working in a corporation you have to be able to write. You have to
be able to communicate effectively. You have to be able to find out
information. You have to be able to know how to interpret data and stuff like
that. To me, that’s kind of like more important than knowing that, you know,
the structure of Ancient Egyptian society or something like that. (MC, p. 6-
7)
These excerpts illustrate the broader relevance of SOSE to life-long learning
and independent thinking.
Promoting values education and fostering the capacity for empathy was also a
feature of promoting life-long education and skills in SOSE: “The Sioux talk about
walking in somebody else’s moccasins and I enjoy putting kids into that kind of
Chapter 5: Categories of Description 217
experience, getting them to walk in someone else’s shoes as it were (MC, p. 8). This
teacher perceived values education to be even more important than academic
achievement, especially since some students resisted values education (MC, p. 14,
9). Other priorities in life skills education that eclipsed content were skills such as
teamwork, problem-solving and learning skills:
Things like teamwork, problem solving, the ability to be disciplined enough
to – even things like I refuse to let my students just copy an OHT down as is.
I make them, you pull out the bits that you think it’s important in answering
this focus question. I’m constantly thinking of skills that are just bigger than
content, like how to, again what I said before, how do you take a whole lot
of information and make it your own. So I’m constantly trying to bring out
the skills which I know they’ll need in other subjects and in life generally,
you know. (EK, pp. 17-18)
Similarly, general life skills also focused on social etiquette:
IG: A lot of the way we teach is general life and a lot of how to say please
and thank you and not burp and carry on.
KF: Not walk around the room and treat each other properly. So there’s a lot
of that as well as conventional SOSE, is just the general teaching of life
skills basically. (IG & KF, pp. 9-10)
Knowledge for SOSE comprised life-long skills education, from thinking skills to
personal development. These skills focused on the holistic educational needs of
middle school students. For some, values education formed a significant feature of
life-long skills education. While this type of knowledge resonates with skills
education in Categories 1 and 3, Category 4 documents teaching skills for holistic
education, rather than furthering knowledge of SOSE topics.
The structural elements of middle years students and philosophy of schooling,
distinctive middle school SOSE content and SOSE as life-long skills presented above
illustrates the focus on students in Category 4. The following section on middle years
pedagogy shifts the focus to teachers, who implement the pedagogy. As a whole, the
four structural elements reveal the student-teacher focus of Category 4, which
distinguishes it from Categories 1, 2 and 3.
218 Middle school social sciences: Exploring teachers’ conceptions of essential knowledge
Middle years SOSE pedagogy
Teachers’ awareness of the physical, intellectual, social and emotional
characteristics of middle years students argued for a developmental, holistic
educational approach and pedagogy. Fundamentally, middle years SOSE pedagogy
was inquiry-based (centred on developing students’ learning skills), collaborative
and activity-based. Transmission-based teaching was reduced, and collaborative
learning, where the students worked for significant amounts of time in groups or
pairs, was encouraged:
They do seem to learn a lot when they do good work, when they help each
other out. Even though they’re off task for a portion of the time and you
have to keep reminding them, I have noticed – and this is why I persevere
even though I hate the chaos of it – I have noticed that particularly if you
structure their groups well that they really get a lot from talking to each
other. (KR, p. 12)
Probably because it’s a group work thing I think….The primary sources,
dealing with the primary sources, because they have a stack of them in the
middle as a group. They have discussions about those and those discussions
are often where most of the knowledge comes from. They will have, for
example, an image of a burial site in Roman Britain and they have to make
their own hypothesis about what sort of things that burial site might tell us.
They’re always very creative when there’s four of them working, because
they don’t feel that they have to get the right answer, which is always good.
(JI, p. 3)
Discussion and group-based activities developed students’ communication and
discipline-based skills, such as generating a hypothesis, working with evidence or
drawing conclusions. Teachers chose to implement these inquiry skills to increase
students’ engagement in SOSE.
Middle years pedagogy is focused on the teacher giving students a sense of
ownership of their learning in order to increase their engagement with and active
participation in their own learning. The priority given to student negotiation to
facilitate deep learning about a topic of study is a distinctive feature of middle years
pedagogy (Pendergast, 2005); however, the extent to which it was implemented
varied between schools, and even amongst teachers within subject departments. In
Chapter 5: Categories of Description 219
most schools, the topic of a SOSE unit was designated by the school work program.
In some instances, the data reveals that, in keeping with the principles of middle
schooling, SOSE teachers adopted a planning and teaching approach, whereby the
students were able to choose sub-topics and even decide how they should
demonstrate what they had learned through the assessment. This student-centred
approach also links to the principles of inquiry-based learning. The evidence
suggests teachers chose to implement pedagogies that they thought were suited to
middle years social education.
Although teachers preferred student-centred learning activities, they
acknowledged that there were practical difficulties in giving students room to
negotiate the curriculum:
I know there are a lot of teachers that really don’t like opening up
content…And sometimes because it’s the teacher’s space, they’re not used to
a student-centred curriculum. But I also think sometimes teachers are wary
of it for the problems they see developing in the classroom. Even just in
classroom management, it’s different to manage a class when we’re all doing
the one topic, than it is to manage the practicality of the class when
everyone’s doing 25 different things. (JE, p. 10)
Clearly, determining content was seen as the teacher’s domain. Even whilst they
were giving students some scope to choose, teachers were reluctant to relinquish this
authority, which they often justified on pragmatic grounds, such as behaviour
management. The principles of middle years education and inquiry learning
underpinned SOSE pedagogy and were adapted to suit the class.
The following sections present two examples of student-centred teaching to
illustrate teachers’ experience of middle years pedagogy as a conception of essential
knowledge for SOSE. In the first example of a unit on Urbanisation, the student-
centred principles of middle years pedagogy and inquiry learning strategies were
successfully used, in contrast to the second example on Human Rights. These
examples indicate that learning outcomes using student-centred strategies were
variable. The teachers were aware that genuine inquiry-based strategies did not
consistently deliver a precise understanding of key issues or concepts. While many
students benefited from student-centred, inquiry-based learning, others needed direct
teaching to consolidate their understanding.
220 Middle school social sciences: Exploring teachers’ conceptions of essential knowledge
The unit on Urbanisation investigated sustainable strategies for a “liveable”
city. In keeping with middle years philosophy, the topic was oriented to the real
world of the students, who lived in the Brisbane area and were familiar with the local
government slogan of “Brisbane, a liveable city”. To deepen their imaginative
engagement with the topic, students were given an “active” role as consultants to
Brisbane City Council and charged with presenting recommendations for sustainable
living. The focus was on a real-world issue, aligned with inquiry processes and
middle years pedagogy, where students negotiated their own projects, presented
findings and reflected on the learning process:
Facilitator: What was so good about the....
Interviewee: The process the students engaged in. They chose the unit, they
chose the topic. We set, organisations, spatial skills. They chose, each one
chose which in pairs, they chose, whichever they wanted. After identifying
whichever country or region or council, whichever area, they wanted to
investigate urbanisation in, they developed key questions. We guided them
on some of the key questions, you know. What does urbanisation mean?
What are the factors responsible for urbanisation? What is the impact on that
particular city? We wanted to see, use mapping techniques, spatial
techniques, to see how the city has changed over the years. In this particular
one, Dubai was an excellent example.
Facilitator: Yes indeed.
Interviewee: And the students, they recommended strategies for sustainable
cities.
Facilitator: So you really walked them through that inquiry process? And
that was the key to the success?
Interviewee: Yes. And for us I think also, the reflection part. Students
reflected on what they did, why they chose it….We had some tasks that were
not good enough but I think the majority of the students produced good
work. (MN, p. 3)
This example shows attention to developing knowledge of core geographical
content on Urbanisation, and geographical process skills, such as mapping. It
adopted a genuine inquiry approach, with the use of key questions, research,
Chapter 5: Categories of Description 221
presentation of findings/recommendations and metacognitive practice, such as
reflection on learning. In a student-negotiated approach to unit planning, the teacher
was the facilitator of inquiry-based learning, using a wide range of technology-based
resources, rather than being the discipline-expert. It generated huge professional
satisfaction amongst the SOSE teachers because of the extent of the students’
involvement:
The teachers said that they found this an interesting unit because students
were fully engaged. Giving them a task really, that’s connected to the real
world. Also the resources they used, like technology, are interesting. We
used aerial photographs. If it was local and we had it, we used topographical
maps, etc. The kids went to Google Earth. (MN, p. 3)
Moreover, teachers furthered their own knowledge of the topic by teaching this unit:
“I was so interested, the teachers found it so interesting. When we did our PMI, they
did say how much they had learnt in the process….” (MN, p. 3)
The Urbanisation unit exemplifies middle years pedagogy as one conception of
essential knowledge for SOSE. While teachers were mindful of the disciplinary
aspects of teaching geography-based content and process, inquiry learning promoted
students’ thinking skills and engagement with the topic. Teachers’ subject
knowledge and pedagogical content knowledge were also enhanced, illustrating
professional learning as part of teaching.
However, taking a student-centred, inquiry-based approach did not always
guarantee success. In contrast with the Urbanisation unit, one teacher described a
unit on Human Rights, which was taught through the case study of apartheid.
Students watched the film, “The Power of One”. To focus their minds on the concept
of apartheid, they were regularly asked to answer questions and debrief on what they
had learned from the film:
We finish the movie, so we go full swing then into an investigation into
apartheid, looking for additional sources to help us make sense of what
we’ve just viewed, and what is the historical or factual nature of what we’ve
just viewed, and the first question was, “What’s apartheid”? (TA, pp. 15-16)
Some students clearly did not understand the film or the aim of the focus questions
and inquiry-based activities based on it:
222 Middle school social sciences: Exploring teachers’ conceptions of essential knowledge
Interviewee: So, once I kind of gave them an answer to that question, they
were like, “Oh yeah.” I was like, “So what have we just seen in this film,
because this film was about apartheid?” “Oh, ok, oh, alright.” But I still had
a couple of students saying, “Well, I don’t know what apartheid is, so I can’t
answer this question.” I’m like, “Eeee….”
Facilitator: Yes, yes.
Interviewee: Somewhere along the line, they’ve not viewed this experience
of watching a film of an opportunity for learning. They’ve tuned out of the
learning and tuned in only to the drama of the story, and it’s difficult
sometimes to bring it all together. (TA, p. 16)
Despite the teacher’s best efforts to use middle years pedagogy and inquiry-based
strategies, the students did not learn the core factual information and content: “So,
it’s about, for me, the film was about giving them something tangible to latch onto,
but it wasn’t quite as concrete as I thought it would be (TA, p. 17). Even in the hands
of an experienced SOSE teacher, this type of rich learning experience based on
inquiry learning did not meet its objective and she resorted to a direct teaching
approach.
In accordance with middle years philosophy, the use of genuine inquiry
learning contrasts with inquiry learning as a broad framework in which to teach
disciplinary knowledge (see definition of “disciplinary knowledge” on p.152-153)
that emerged in Categories 1 and 2. These examples illustrate that, while inquiry
learning may interest and engage the students, it did not consistently result in their
learning factual information, core content or concepts. So, what are inquiry-based,
SOSE teaching strategies? I now conclude this section on middle years SOSE
pedagogy by detailing teachers’ conceptions of inquiry-based teaching strategies.
The importance of a varied, innovative pedagogy in SOSE was linked to
having a good knowledge of learners:
Knowledge of pedagogy. You need to know how to teach that content. Well,
that ties in, that’s connected with knowing your students. How do I get them
switched on in the classroom? (MN, p. 9)
Perceptions about “good” SOSE teachers centred on their capacity to engage
students by making “SOSE come alive for the kids so that the kids really see that it’s
Chapter 5: Categories of Description 223
important” (CW, p. 9), arguing an awareness of how to teach the content and the
skills: “A good SOSE teacher knows how to give them the information that they
need but not so much that they’re not willing to go and look up for some more” (CW,
p. 9). These excerpts show teacher autonomy in making informed choices about what
information to provide and what to leave to the students to find out; such knowledge
was tightly linked to their knowledge of the students.
SOSE pedagogy for middle school was inspired by knowledge of middle
school learners and characterised by practical, student-centred activities. Guided by
the teacher, students were expected to show what they had learned: “…the students
have to produce the final product with very little teacher intervention” (SL, p. 5). A
variety of strategies were used, with multiple examples evident in the data. Strategies
to show what had been learnt included: role plays and dress ups (JE, p. 2-3; VN, p. 5;
YE, p. 7; BL, p. 7; NC, p. 3); class discussion using student- and teacher-generated
questions (VN, p. 9; IN, p. 9); group work (YE, p. 10; PH, p. 7); simulations (CT, p.
8); arts-based activities (YE, p. 12); mind maps (PH, p. 4); group- and pair-based
research (SL, p. 6; EK, p. 8); and outdoor-based practical activities for kinaesthetic
learners (JS, p. 12). The impetus for varied pedagogy was to maintain middle school
students’ attention: “They’ve got to do, they’ve got to look, they’ve got to answer
questions, but only for five minutes. Longer than that and they’re struggling…” (IG
& KF, p. 19).
Acknowledging that middle school students “learn by doing” (KF, p. 20)
through structured classes and interactive pedagogy (MR, p. 12), teachers combined
student-centred learning activities to teach discipline-based concepts, such as
democratic representation through role-play:
The House of Representatives thing was a very practical thing, where people
got to get up and move and cross the floor and stand up and have their say
and it encourages that movement. And their attention was 100% for 100% of
the time. (YE, p. 10)
Similarly, a Round Robin activity involved students in learning about population: “It
was very busy–like there was a lot of talk but it was work talk and there were kids
engaged who hadn’t been engaged for a long time and the movement aspect of it was
224 Middle school social sciences: Exploring teachers’ conceptions of essential knowledge
important” (NC, pp. 9-10). Clearly SOSE teachers’ knowledge of how to cater for a
variety of learning styles underpinned their pedagogy of middle years SOSE.
In summary, essential knowledge for SOSE meant having a bank of student-
centred learning activities. Practical, hands-on activities that addressed different
learning styles were favoured because maintaining student involvement was
important (PU, pp. 11-12). Teacher autonomy was revealed as the ability to choose
from a variety of teaching or learning activities which comprised teachers’
pedagogical content knowledge for SOSE.
Category 4: Dimensions of variation
Category 4 centres on “knowledge of the middle years learner”, focusing on
the middle school student as well as the teacher. The focus on students is evident in
the emphasis on middle years philosophy, age appropriate content and life-long
learning. The focus on students, and to a lesser extent on the teacher, in Category 4 is
also seen in Categories 5 and 6, signalling a shift in the structure of awareness from
Categories 1, 2 and 3, which shared a single focus on the teacher. The internal
horizon of Category 4 is concerned with middle years philosophy and pedagogy
revealed in the dimensions of variation.
The first dimension of variation, related to content for holistic knowledge, is
shaped by the developmental needs of the learner. It was argued that certain SOSE
concepts or topics of study were more suited than others to the middle years. It
builds on Category 3, where authentic content for SOSE was mediated through the
teacher’s life experience. Content in relation to the learner in Category 4 adds a
different perspective to content in Categories 1 and 2, where discipline-based content
was defined by the curriculum.
The second dimension of variation related to inquiry learning as enhancing
thinking skills and values education in accordance with the needs of middle years
learners. Whilst in previous categories, inquiry learning was an overarching
framework for teaching discipline-based skills and promoting deep learning, in
Category 4 we see inquiry learning is integral to middle years SOSE pedagogy. Here,
inquiry learning facilitates the middle years philosophy of education and promotes
students’ engagement with SOSE topics.
Chapter 5: Categories of Description 225
The third dimension of variation related to teacher autonomy as choosing
teaching strategies, such as cooperative and collaborative learning from SOSE
pedagogical content knowledge, informed by middle school educational philosophy
and knowledge of the middle years learner. Building on Category 3, which revealed
teacher autonomy focused on selected teaching and life experiences as knowledge
for SOSE, in Category 4, teachers’ pedagogical content knowledge for SOSE
emerged as being able to exercise choice from a variety of teaching or learning
activities which comprised their pedagogical content knowledge for SOSE.
The dimensions of variation in Category 4 are discerned within the context of
the external horizon delineated by knowledge of the learning area and the social
context of middle years students. The social context broadly refers to the educational
setting and broader society in which the students live. Thus, content is age-
appropriate to the middle school learner and is focused on holistic knowledge.
Similarly, inquiry learning supports life-long learning, a tenet of middle years
philosophy and also an objective of the Queensland SOSE syllabus (Queensland
School Curriculum Council, 2000). Given the integrated nature of the learning area,
the teachers were aware that their pedagogy for SOSE needed to be varied and
directed towards the learning needs of middle years students.
In conclusion, the focus on the student as well as on the teacher in Category 4
demonstrates teachers’ practice-based experience of incorporating the middle years
context of schooling into conceptions of essential knowledge for SOSE education.
Next, Category 5 establishes the importance of integration as essential knowledge for
SOSE.
226 Middle school social sciences: Exploring teachers’ conceptions of essential knowledge
Category 5: Essential knowledge for teaching SOSE conceived as the “integration of concepts and skills”
Category 5 is concerned with teachers’ knowledge of the integration of
concepts and skills in SOSE. Table 5.6 summarises the structural and referential
aspects of Category 5.
Table 5.6
Knowledge for Teaching SOSE as the “Integration of Concepts and Skills”
Knowledge for teaching SOSE as the “integration of concepts and skills” (Student & teacher focus)
Features of category Evidence
Referential aspect The integration of concepts and skills in SOSE
“And I guess that’s my worry, if we were to drift down a path of just disciplines. Those little things that don’t neatly fit under the disciplines would be lost from the curriculum.” (JE, p. 13)
Structural elements Internal horizon: Integrates through themes, broad concepts and inquiry learning
Integrated units of work “We have some units that are very much history-based, some very much geography-based and some are combinations.” (SL, p. 1)
Knowledge of themes “We had units on trust.” (JE, p. 1)
Knowledge of general concepts “The focus of the unit is about how change occurs within democracy, so the advocacy letter was only a small part of the unit but it’s looking at how they can participate in democracy [emphasis added] and how they can bring about change in a peaceful democratic way.” (KR, p. 16)
Knowledge of discipline-specific concepts • Value of integration
“We talk about civilisation and we go, right at the beginning of the unit, we talk about, you know, what do we mean by civilisation.” (MC, p. 3)
Inquiry learning to teach concepts “I always felt that students needed to know how to process in a social scientific sort of way or to be more precise in a SOSE-y way.” (IN, p. 3)
External horizon: Knowledge of contexts
Dimensions of variation DoV 1: Content as integration of discipline-based concepts and personal development concepts
DoV 2: Inquiry learning as facilitating integration through SOSE “processes”
DoV 3: Teacher autonomy to promote integration through pedagogical content knowledge
Chapter 5: Categories of Description 227
Category 5 focuses on SOSE teachers’ knowledge for teaching the broad
themes, concepts and inquiry-based learning skills that facilitate integrated learning
in SOSE. As indicated in Table 5.6, the referential aspect describes essential
knowledge for SOSE as the integration of concepts and skills. Teachers integrate
learning from the disciplines through concepts such as “democracy” and
“citizenship”. SOSE also appears to centre on personal development concepts like
“trust”. These themes show how the cognitive and affective aspects of integrated
learning build on the holistic knowledge explored in Category 4. Furthermore,
inquiry learning skills, such as research and analysis, communication and reflection,
are perceived to be generic or common to the disciplines that comprise SOSE. These
general inquiry skills are taught as “processes” and used to integrate the social
science disciplines. As was evident in the previous categories, the emphasis on
concepts, themes and inquiry skills in Category 5 illustrates that essential knowledge
for teaching SOSE is underpinned by a discourse that privileges integration rather
than discipline-specific specialisation. Like Category 4, Category 5 focuses on
students and teachers; students’ learning is facilitated by the teachers’ ability to
integrate through concepts, themes and inquiry learning.
The internal horizon of the structure of awareness of Category 5 is focused on
integration through concepts, themes and inquiry learning. The structural elements
reveal that discipline boundaries in SOSE are dissolved by teaching broad themes
and concepts through inquiry processes. In contrast to Categories 1 and 2, which
identified the importance of discipline-based teaching, Category 5 describes
integration. This approach prioritises the conceptual and skill-based links between
the social science disciplines and diminishes the status of discipline-based core
content. Further, SOSE targets students’ affective and personal development. As
with Category 4, the external horizon of Category 5 is knowledge of the learning
area and the societal context from which the concepts and themes originate,
indicating the relevance of subject integration and inquiry skills for broader learning.
Integrated units of work
SOSE teaching generally occurred in units that integrated disciplinary
knowledge. While teachers distinguished the underlying disciplinary origins of the
unit, they focused on developing an understanding that was integrated rather than
228 Middle school social sciences: Exploring teachers’ conceptions of essential knowledge
discipline-based. In one example, the unit centred on the concept of “liveability”
through integrated history, geography and civics education. Students investigated the
liveability of Roman Pompeii and Medieval London and followed it with a local area
study that developed the concept of liveability in the local, contemporary context:
We do a history-based unit but, again, it’s got geography and civics in it, it’s
just probably the history is a bit stronger, comparing um, Roman Pompeii
and Medieval London which the kids love doing, basically arguing which
city was more liveable and why....this is essentially a geography unit
although there are some strong elements of history. And we look at how
liveable is this local area and every year we pick a different focus. (KR, p. 5)
The extent to which disciplinary knowledge was made explicit in integrated units
depended on how the unit was written and its purpose:
We have some units that are very much history-based, some very much
geography-based and some are combinations. Obviously the Learning
Essentials [sic] are impacting on what we’re teaching now so, we’re also
trying to incorporate a lot more civics and that sort of thing as well. So, um,
there’s, you know, each unit is integrated but it has a particular focus
especially now that they’re talking about us having to do so much more
history. (SL, p. 1)
In other examples, SOSE was often taught within the multidisciplinary New
Basics or Rich Task curriculum framework, where all school subjects were
integrated in one unit. For example, “the geography is kind of covered in the travel
task but not explicitly enough, I don’t think, and there is not a lot of history in there
as well, particularly Australian history” (JL, pp. 2-3). As these units made no
distinction between subject areas and KLAs, teachers were aware that SOSE was
sometimes marginalised and significant disciplinary knowledge was sacrificed:
I remember one of them was an inventions unit so within that inventions
unit, they had to create something on design making....We looked at the
history of different inventions. We looked at timelines. We looked at writing
advertisements. Which is very English. So it wasn’t clear what was SOSE,
what was maths, what was, it was, it was very enjoyable but there was also a
lot of content to cover because there was so much more we could have
looked at on the SOSE side but we also had to do the maths side and we had
Chapter 5: Categories of Description 229
to do the English. Um, so sometimes maths got left out. Sometimes science
was left out. We’d focus more on the English and SOSE and then some units
focused more on the maths and science and then SOSE got left out. (VN, p.
11)
In all of these examples, the purpose of study was to develop an integrated
understanding of the topic, based on themes and broad concepts.
Knowledge of themes
One approach to delivering middle school SOSE was through broad, thematic
units because some teachers perceived that SOSE was flexible enough to integrate
with other learning areas, such as science and English (KT, pp. 13-14): “I think
SOSE is one of the easiest ones to link to other subject areas because you do English
in SOSE….science is in geography” (VN, p. 2). Another approach was through
personal development thematic units focused on teaching for integration across the
whole school curriculum:
…it was integrated curriculum with thematic units, which meant that we
were simply given a theme and we built around that. Within that, it’s very
difficult to describe the sorts of things that we did because we had units on
water. We had units on trust. We had units on all sorts of, what they saw as
Essential Learnings for the kids. They had lots of things on respect and
honesty – and we built off those. (JI, p. 1)
The example typifies a flexible curriculum approach, where SOSE was being
taught through personal development concepts such as “trust” and “honesty”, which
were part of the cross-curricular perspective of life skills in SOSE (Queensland
School Curriculum Council, 2000). Similarly, “stewardship of the environment” was
a broad, values-based theme that one teacher (CT) felt was important in all subjects.
She explained how a community service unit was a great opportunity to teach life
skills based on the personal development concept of “relationships” combined with
“environment”:
Facilitator: And what do you think they were learning in that one?
Interviewee: Oh, a whole range – they were learning about awareness of
others, their own skills, integrating with people, solving problems, heaps of
stuff, depending on what community service they were doing. But
230 Middle school social sciences: Exploring teachers’ conceptions of essential knowledge
sometimes they’d learn about the environment and how it worked; other
times they’d look at relationships. (CT, pp. 19-20)
Similarly, in a unit on “Individual Identity and Family Identity” (VN, p. 1),
developing trust was an important foundation for exploring the differences between
values and beliefs:
The trust that we had developed and we really got to look at, they didn’t
realise, it was sort of subtle really, because they had to really understand the
difference between what they valued and what they believed and codes of
behaviour and separate those, how they all interacted. (VN, p. 7)
The teacher was implicitly drawing on sociology when teaching the themes of
individual and family identity but the pedagogy focused primarily on developing
trust as a way to develop a conceptual understanding of identity. Category 5
describes integrated learning in personal development thematic units loosely based
on concepts from the disciplines, in comparison with Category 4, which saw the
same emphasis on personal development and life skills for holistic education.
Knowledge of general concepts
Teachers integrated the disciplines in SOSE through their own knowledge of
general concepts. Many teachers focused on the concept of “democracy”, as it
enabled them to teach the civics and citizenship perspective of SOSE while drawing
on history, political studies and government. Democracy was a broad topic within
which other concepts, such as citizenship, law, Australian governmental systems and
human rights, could be taught. For example, one teacher said, “…we’re doing
government and the law, democracy and the law is the unit” (SL, p. 8). Another
teacher identified a range of important concepts on the theme of Australia:
Interviewee: So, I’m certainly not about, oh, yes, we must teach A to Z of
everything that happened in Australia. I would rather deal with the big
concepts that have been important to Australia.
Facilitator: Yes, and those would be something like…
Interviewee: Well, I think democracy and our government. [Emphasis
added]
Facilitator: Right.
Chapter 5: Categories of Description 231
Interviewee: Issues of how we deal with our indigenous past.
Facilitator: Right.
Interviewee: And our present. Issues to do with our place in Asia. I mean,
issues to do with modern, you know, contentious social issues in Australia.
(DB, p. 14)
The bold text indicates concepts centred on democracy, indigenous perspectives,
Asian studies and social issues taught through the overarching theme of “Australia”.
In the case of civics and citizenship, the concepts were understood as both
process and content, underpinned by the “need to grow better citizens” (DB, p. 26):
I do question, you know…the kind of history that I grew up with, which I
loved. Which was let’s learn about all the kings of England…while I’m not
saying it isn’t important, I think it’s far more important that we have good
citizens of the future in this country. Now, you can’t make informed
decisions about where our country is now, or understandings of where our
country is now and where we’re going if you don’t do something about
where we came from. (DB, p. 26)
While a historical perspective is implied, the teacher was inspired by the process of
developing citizenship qualities. Similarly, for another teacher, participation in a
democracy was implicit in a unit on citizenship: “I think Citizenship…it is important
to know a lot of those things, not so much the, you know, who was our first Prime
Minister stuff, but the basics of our government system and how they’re going to
then participate in that later on” (JE, p. 7). In both examples, the facts were
secondary to citizenship conceptualised as participating in the democratic process.
The manner in which teachers focused on general concepts and related them
back to examples from the disciplines of history and geography illustrated how
teachers with different discipline expertise could teach the same concepts in SOSE,
thereby integrating diverse discipline-based subject knowledge into one unit. In one
example, a unit on democracy “was a largely civics-based unit but it had some
history and geography in it as well” (KR, p. 16). The unit, which focused on the dual
concepts of “active citizenship” to effect “change”, was taught concurrently through
case studies by several teachers with different discipline expertise:
232 Middle school social sciences: Exploring teachers’ conceptions of essential knowledge
So, what I say is you need to do two case studies, each one about a week and
a half long but they can be whatever you want as long as they look
at…either a time in history or an issue now which is experiencing change
and where people have brought about change within a democratic society. I
look at child labour in the industrial revolution, because I’m a history
teacher, and the kids just can’t believe it. Then I bring that to the present and
talk about child labour now, but, um other teachers do, like we’ve done the
Franklin River, we’ve done Lake Pedder. These are all geography teachers
obviously. (KR, p. 16)
Yeah, a lot of the teachers do that [Eureka Stockade] because I’ve got that
very well structured and they can do it even if they don’t know much of the
history. They can go with their own strengths....Um, I think one of them did
the Vietnam war protests, so they can pick their own content. So they’re still
teaching the same idea of how in a democracy you bring about change
[added emphasis]. Like whether you’re looking at how the diggers brought
about change in Eureka or whether you’re looking at the Vietnam War
protests and the moratorium, it’s still bringing about change. (KR, p. 19)
This example shows how teachers could exercise professional discretion in teaching
core concepts, showing a unique approach to integrated learning in SOSE.
The way that concepts from different disciplinary backgrounds were taught
through the overarching concepts of change and democracy is a compelling
argument for integrating the disciplines. Further, because of the emphasis on
teaching the concept rather than the discipline, teachers were encouraged to teach to
their professional strengths and select their own content. Such units were cleverly
constructed to draw on the teachers’ diverse professional subject knowledge and
subject expertise. Conversely, while a lack of detailed prescribed content facilitated
integration of a variety of discipline perspectives, it also enabled those with limited
or no disciplinary expertise in the concept to teach it through examples, without
paying attention to the historical context implicit in understanding change. The focus
here is on both teachers and students: in this instance, a broad conceptual knowledge
is in the foreground of teachers’ awareness as they acknowledge the needs of
students, whereas the disciplinary context is far less important.
Chapter 5: Categories of Description 233
Knowledge of discipline-specific concepts
Apart from integration through general concepts, integration in SOSE also
occurred through teaching discipline-specific concepts, such as “time”, “civilisation”
and “environment”, as a way of introducing the scope of the discipline. Although
teaching discipline-specific concepts is also a feature of Category 1, in Category 5,
the emphasis is on integration of content within a discipline, rather than focused
teaching of discipline-specific concepts. In this way, the students became acquainted
with the concept in the broad scope of the discipline, but there was very little depth
of knowledge.
For example, when teaching about the concept of “civilisation”, one teacher
was happy to teach it out of context, developing a composite idea of the features of
“any” civilisation rather than focusing on one in particular. This approach canvassed
a broad range of examples and led to a depth of knowledge about the concept, but
comparatively shallow knowledge about any one civilisation:
We talk about civilisation and we go, right at the beginning of the unit, we
talk about, you know, what do we mean by civilisation. You know, there’s
monumental architecture. They produce a surplus, highly specialised
division of labour, a complex social hierarchy and we sort of talk about those
things in relation to lots of examples, even Australian society sort of thing
and then we look at the Sioux Indians and you know, well they don’t
produce a surplus. A very small surplus. They don’t produce monumental
architecture. There isn’t a complex division of labour. It’s a fairly simple
sexual division of labour. They’re kind of getting that concept of civilisation
and sort of applying it to that society and then writing a little essay. (MC,
p. 3)
A similar broad brush approach to teaching discipline-specific concepts is
evident in how the concept of “time”, which is core to history, was taught:
We started with a brief history and doing timelines and we’ve done some
Round Robins which I think that’s what makes it much more enjoyable for
the students and definitely for the teachers, as we’ve had an activity and
we’ve swapped that activity four times and the students have all, the four
different classes have moved around, so I haven’t just had the one class the
whole time. We’ve also, so that sort of made my knowledge, I’ve only had
234 Middle school social sciences: Exploring teachers’ conceptions of essential knowledge
to look at, I only looked at the timeline of Gondwanaland and I could look at
that in depth and then someone else did Settlement, someone else did
Colonisation and someone else did Federation so we could look at them all
in depth and not me trying to do all four at once. (VN, p. 7)
In this example, the four examples relate to history-based themes and the teacher’s
awareness of the importance of teaching in depth. However, the scope of the
examples used in this case does little or no justice to the concept of chronology (a
key feature of history), as there is a considerable leap in time between
Gondwanaland and Settlement.
These examples illustrate how discipline-based concepts, such as “civilisation”
and “time”, were taught through an integrated lens to fit the scope of SOSE.
However, in the absence of relevant subject expertise, it is evident that some teachers
compromised a clear understanding of the concepts. Further, the emphasis on
learning discipline-based concepts through an integrated approach resulted in
shallow learning. The integrated approach to learning enabled teachers with weak
subject knowledge of discipline-based concepts to teach the concepts, however, the
learning that emerged was shallow and at times inaccurate.
Value of integration
The premise of SOSE is that it integrates the social sciences, however,
experience in teaching the curriculum made teachers aware of the gains and
compromises that came with integration. Some teachers noted the potential for
innovative teaching and furthering knowledge by integrating the discipline areas
through transdisciplinary concepts:
Some teachers are doing the most brilliant explorations of some frontier
areas that are between the disciplines such as, let’s look at the history of
introduced species into Australia. That’s both geography and history, at the
same time. Let’s look at the geographical patterns of unemployment in
Australia and some people, who you talk to about this, I’ll say, what’s this,
and they’ll say SOSE, and somebody else will say, it’s geography. The
labels vary a bit but I see a lot of frontier work in the sense that it’s frontiers
of more than one discipline occurring around the place…. (IN, p. 4)
Chapter 5: Categories of Description 235
This teacher’s conception of exploring new “frontiers” in knowledge emerged in the
context of a seamless integration of concepts in transdisciplinary teaching. What this
means is that teachers were making cross-disciplinary links in their work (for
example, links between history and geography) that demonstrated interesting and
innovative thinking. Such teaching developed new understandings in the classroom
that may not have been possible had a disciplinary approach been used.
Similarly, in another unit on local government, a school excursion promoted
new intercultural understanding. Indigenous and non-Indigenous students in a rural
area visited the council chambers of an Indigenous community and a country town to
compare and contrast the different approaches to local government. The success of
the unit was attributed to its transdisciplinary approach: “I’m not sure it would fit
under any of the disciplines perfectly. It wasn’t really just history, even though we
had a historical component. Certainly [it] wasn’t just geography. And it wasn’t even
just civics. It was probably a combination of those things” (JE, p. 13).
Moreover, the value of this approach to integration was that the teacher was
aware that it furthered personal development and informed attitudes to cultural
difference:
I don’t think it was a ginormous step in race relations, but I was definitely
confident those kids walked away knowing a little bit more about…[town]
and Aboriginal culture than they otherwise would have. (JE, p. 12)
….
And I guess that’s my worry, if we were to drift down a path of just
disciplines. Those little things that don’t neatly fit under the disciplines
would be lost from the curriculum. And maybe an experience like that might
not otherwise happen. (JE, p. 13)
A transdisciplinary, integrated approach facilitated a deep intercultural
understanding that may not otherwise have been possible.
Some teachers, however, were critical of transdisciplinary teaching and the
personal development focus because it compromised the integrity of the disciplines.
They believed that SOSE privileged relevance to students and the community over
discipline-based knowledge. For example, teaching history in SOSE was perceived
236 Middle school social sciences: Exploring teachers’ conceptions of essential knowledge
to be “very community orientated, and it’s sort of all almost a bit nebulous what
you’re actually getting at. You’re looking at community generally, but it’s almost a
bit like sociology or something. It’s very general” (CS, p. 6). Ensuring relevance to
the students made it difficult to teach discipline-specific topics such as Medieval
history and achieve a depth of understanding in history: “So I feel that it [SOSE]
gives you this sort of forced connection to study history through a prism that
makes…history less exciting, less connectable, and less pure about history” (CS, p.
7). Similarly, it was perceived that the thematic approach had diminished geography
(KF, p. 2). One interviewee generalised that SOSE was really about life skills rather
than learning anything specific about social science disciplines:
I think in its most basic sense, SOSE is like life, isn’t it? It just covers how
you live and how being a good person and being a good citizen, that’s what
SOSE is. You know, and how we have done in the past, and how we can do
in the future. And that geography side of it, the environment, is about life –
it’s life skills, not meaning anything to do with the subject [emphasis
added], life skills. (CS, p. 9)
Conversely, as revealed in Category 4, other teachers considered learning about life a
great strength in SOSE because it “[I]t informs so much of their life” (CW, p. 6).
SOSE helped “students understand the world more deeply” (JA, p. 12), helped create
decision-makers (KM, p. 14) and was “educating them to be better adults” (AN, p.
1). For these teachers, thematic units on personal development were a compelling
and useful integrative device.
In summary, there were mixed views amongst middle school SOSE teachers
about the educational value of integration. While some thought that integration in
SOSE had the potential to extend students’ understanding through innovative and
engaging units of work, others deplored the emphasis on student relevance, which, in
their view, compromised any serious discipline-based teaching or learning. The
following section explores the role of inquiry learning to facilitate integration.
Inquiry learning to teach concepts
In Category 5, SOSE teachers’ use of inquiry learning to integrate across the
subject areas of SOSE is explored. This conception of inquiry is different from
Category 4, which examined the role of inquiry learning to develop students’
Chapter 5: Categories of Description 237
thinking skills as part of life-long education and inquiry learning as an overarching
framework for teaching disciplinary skills in Categories 1 and 2. This section
explores teachers’ knowledge and use of inquiry principles and strategies to teach
concepts to integrate learning.
Knowledge of principles of inquiry learning
Inquiry-based learning was perceived to be integral to the way in which
students gained knowledge of the concepts as part of an integrated approach to
learning. One teacher explained her planning process as follows:
I think, first of all, identifying the deep learning that the concepts that you
really want the students to take away. Long lasting learning….
So, I would then generate lessons and activities that cover some of the
concepts. See, I’ve gone away from you know, a lot of basic factual
information. I want them to focus on concepts that are to do with the unit,
and then so we would do lesson activities, a whole variety of them, some of
them teacher-directed, and many of them students working in groups from
sources, resources, you know, stations around the room. (DB, pp. 19-20)
For this teacher, the way to achieve deep understanding of concepts was to provide
inquiry-based, student-centred activities that engaged students to develop that
knowledge.
The use of inquiry learning principles as the best method by which to teach
SOSE appeared to be well understood by teachers. One interviewee explained that,
with SOSE, students needed to “process” information, but because SOSE crossed the
disciplines, general rather than discipline-specific inquiry learning was needed:
I always felt that students needed to know how to process in a social
scientific sort of way or to be more precise in a SOSE-y way. But what was
SOSE? SOSE wasn’t a social science per se because social science is on
about generating laws of behaviour or coming up with generalities compared
to history which is on about understanding specifics and the unique. Then
what we had here in SOSE was some sort of amalgam of the whole lot. I
thought O.K., that being the case, we need to take the best of the disciplines,
disciplinary approaches and work up a SOSE inquiry, which we did. (IN, p.
3)
238 Middle school social sciences: Exploring teachers’ conceptions of essential knowledge
The “SOSE-y” process was based on general inquiry learning principles, which were
directed towards teaching students how to investigate a topic, building on Category
4, where inquiry learning was seen to promote engagement with SOSE. In Category
5, the aim of inquiry learning was to develop thinking skills through a “SOSE way”,
as a way of integrating the diverse content areas of SOSE:
I had a structure of the discipline mentality going into the whole exercise
thinking that we needed to have students that could understand how to think
in a particular way and that particular way was going to be called SOSE.
(IN, p. 4)
Evidently, as a way of facilitating integration, inquiry skills and process knowledge
were harnessed to teaching SOSE content.
SOSE teachers’ conception of inquiry as key to integrated learning was based
on the use of investigative questions and developing critical thinking skills that
would help students’ learning in SOSE and other areas. This conception of inquiry
extends the perception of inquiry in Category 4, which was seen as a way to promote
interest and engagement with SOSE topics. For example, the use of key questions to
direct the inquiry was fundamental to driving investigation, research and
communication of social science knowledge: “What are the key questions that drive
you to answer an overarching larger question like why something happened?” (TA,
p. 8). SOSE also promoted worthwhile learning tasks, such as research, decision-
making, justifying choice and writing an evidence-based, argumentative essay (JL,
p. 6). These activities promoted vital learning skills that were valued across all SOSE
topics and subject areas:
…they brought it all back together in a practical exercise that improved their
writing, that they all felt good about with some skills that the teachers all
liked, because they can see these skills, critiquing evidence and bringing
evidence together with skills that they were going to use further on in the
school. (IN, p. 8)
As one participant said, the processes and skills learned in SOSE made it
“fundamental to a learning culture in school” (TA, p. 7). Other useful general skills
promoted by inquiry learning in SOSE were “the ability to voice their opinion,
justify what they think, and the empathy and sensitivity of debate and discussion”
Chapter 5: Categories of Description 239
(TA, p. 14), indicating student-centred, inquiry learning benefited learning in all
subject areas and not just SOSE. In Category 5, these skills were associated with the
academic culture of schooling, thereby extending the conception of inquiry learning
in Category 4 which promoted interest in SOSE topics and enhanced thinking skills.
Strategies to teach concepts
Teachers’ knowledge of inquiry learning incorporated many strategies by
which to teach broad concepts and themes to facilitate integration. Teaching
strategies included kinaesthetic approaches, case studies, library-based research,
transmission teaching, field excursions and other process-based activities that
developed learning skills.
For example, when teaching about the concept of human rights, the teacher
decided to link human rights to the then interest in the 2008 Beijing Olympics and
the environmental issues posed by the Three Gorges Dam. A broad range of topics
was addressed in the unit in an effort to integrate learning across the disciplines. A
case study approach was used to explore human rights and environmental issues:
[In] term three we worked it [human rights] in with the Olympics and China.
So I actually got them to do a little case study on Three Gorges Dam that is
being built in China and we looked at the issues there: human rights,
environment and they had to finish by doing a little short response giving
their opinion about weighing up the pros and cons of the dam and making a
decision. (KT, p. 11)
This case study paid attention to developing the inquiry skills of investigation,
reporting and decision-making. A similar emphasis on processes was evident in a
unit on democracy, where students determined an important local issue, investigated
it and then presented it to their local councillor. Intrinsic to understanding democracy
was being engaged in the processes of active citizenship:
I think traditionally that’s been taught as quite a dry subject, as something
that’s fairly removed from them. But we’ve worked really hard at like,
coming together as a class and deciding on an issue that’s really important
for them and then letting them go to the councillor and do a presentation to
their local member about things they’d like to see change. It’s stuff that’s
really important to them. (EK, p. 3)
240 Middle school social sciences: Exploring teachers’ conceptions of essential knowledge
This type of inquiry learning facilitated integrated, process-based knowledge across
the KLA.
Similarly, the kinaesthetic learning activities were widely used to integrate
concepts and themes. A balance between transmission teaching and kinaesthetic,
inquiry-based learning activities integrated environmental concepts, such as
stewardship and sustainability, with active citizenship initiatives:
Interviewee: …And through my experiences, I was finding that more were
retaining the visual-kinaesthetic experiences, than the auditory or notes.
Facilitator: So they were retaining what though?
Interviewee: They were retaining the content or the concepts that were
around those experiences.…I’ll give you an example back at the water unit.
One of the activities that I asked them to do was to go home and take a water
check of their own house. So how many times did their brother flush the
button? How many litres did mum use to fill up the saucepan? With that
particular unit, they did that independently. Then we did a stock take of the
school as well, so which taps are leaking?….And they learnt and they were
able to retain and they were able to put into practice in their homes, water-
saving techniques. (YE, p. 14).
A similar kinaesthetic approach was undertaken by another teacher to teach energy
sustainability and active citizenship through a home audit (KM, p. 16). These
inquiry-based activities demonstrated the integration of learning across broad
environmental concepts and promoted a personal disposition of stewardship of the
environment. To conclude, teachers used inquiry learning principles and teaching
strategies to facilitate the integration of concepts and skills.
Category 5: Dimensions of variation
The three dimensions of variation of content, inquiry learning and teacher
autonomy manifest themselves through the internal horizon of Category 5. First,
content is described as an integration of discipline-based concepts and personal
development concepts. Second, inquiry learning is described as facilitating
integration through general inquiry skills or SOSE “processes”. Third, we see teacher
autonomy to promote integration through SOSE pedagogical content knowledge. The
Chapter 5: Categories of Description 241
internal horizon of Category 5 focuses on integration through themes, broad concepts
and inquiry learning, illustrating the dimensions of variation.
The first dimension of variation related to content as integration of discipline-
based concepts and personal development concepts. It included teaching broad
concepts to promote transdisciplinary knowledge and personal development. It
builds on the emphasis on holistic knowledge in Category 4 because it takes account
of the educational and social needs of the middle years learner; however, it differs
from all other categories because the focus is on integration. As such, content as
integration in Category 5 is different from Categories 1 and 2, which focused on
identifying and teaching the core content of discipline-based knowledge, and from
Category 3, where teachers’ understanding of content was mediated through their
teaching and life experience. In each category we see teachers’ increasing awareness
of the capacity of inquiry learning to promote learning in SOSE.
The second dimension of variation related to inquiry learning as facilitating
integration through SOSE “processes”. This approach focuses on general inquiry
skills, such as integration, communication and reflection, to integrate diverse areas of
study and promote a transdisciplinary understanding, which is based on the processes
as well as the content. Process was emphasised as a way of integrating general
concepts related to the disciplines and personal development, for example,
stewardship of the environment and active citizenship. The focus on SOSE processes
extends the understanding of inquiry as a way of learning to promote integration of
knowledge across the disciplines, rather than content knowledge particular to the
disciplines. In comparison, in Category 1, inquiry learning focused on learning the
skills of inquiry, while in Category 2, we see inquiry learning as the means to
develop deep learning. In Category 3, inquiry learning was facilitated by teachers’
knowledge of teaching resources, while Category 4 showed that inquiry promoted
thinking skills and engagement with SOSE.
The third dimension of variation, related to teacher autonomy, is revealed as
teachers’ autonomy to promote integration through SOSE pedagogical content
knowledge. As in the previous categories, the emphasis here is on teachers’
professional discretion and ability to exercise choice in the way that they taught. In
Category 5, SOSE teachers promoted integration through cooperative/collaborative
242 Middle school social sciences: Exploring teachers’ conceptions of essential knowledge
teaching approaches that extended teacher autonomy in Category 4 as developing
SOSE pedagogical content knowledge strategies. This builds on teacher autonomy in
Category 1, where teachers chose to emphasise skills over content, on Category 2,
where teachers drew on teaching and life experiences to enhance SOSE, and on
Category 3, where professional discretion was exercised in interpreting the
curriculum guidelines.
In summary, in Category 5, integration constitutes the internal horizon, while
concepts and skills are discerned in relation to the external horizon of the SOSE
learning area and the societal context of the middle years learner. As in Category 4,
by focusing on the integration of concepts and skills, Category 5 has a dual focus on
the students and teacher. The focus on students is evident in the emphasis placed on
content to address students’ cognitive and affective development. The focus on
teachers is revealed in the way that teachers conceptualise integrated units and
knowledge of concepts (specific to the disciplines and personal development) using
the principles of inquiry learning. It represents a particular view of integration for
learning, where the cognitive and affective elements of the curriculum are merged
for the benefit of students. The integration of academic learning with skills for life
distinguishes Category 5 and builds on Category 4, which focused on students’
holistic education. Category 6, in the next section, illustrates currency of knowledge
to ensure the relevance to students of studying SOSE.
Chapter 5: Categories of Description 243
Category 6: Essential knowledge for teaching SOSE conceived as “currency of knowledge”
Category 6 describes knowledge of contemporary events and issues as
knowledge for SOSE. Table 5.7 summarises the structural and referential aspects of
Category 6.
Table 5.7
Knowledge for Teaching SOSE as “Currency of Knowledge”
Knowledge for teaching SOSE as “currency of knowledge” (Student & teacher focus)
Features of category Evidence
Referential aspect Essential knowledge for SOSE refers to knowledge of current affairs, events and issues associated with social and environmental topics
“I think they have to be passionate, first of all, about current world issues.” (KT, p. 12)
Structural elements Internal horizon: Current events and issues promote active citizenship to engage students in SOSE
Knowledge of current affairs and social issues “You should be informed about current affairs, current events and issues.” (DL, p. 12)
SOSE as active citizenship “It’s the social sciences. It’s social.” (IN, p. 10)
SOSE as an engaging school subject
“When we were doing with my Year 9s about parliament, we watched Rudd’s ‘Sorry speech’ with the kids just to make it more relevant to them.” (NC, p. 6)
External horizon: Knowledge of social contexts
Dimensions of variation
DoV 1: Content as contextualised within students’ interests
DoV 2: Inquiry learning as contextualised within students’ interests
DoV 3: Teacher autonomy to contextualise learning to students’ interests
Category 6 explores middle school SOSE teachers’ knowledge of current
affairs and social issues as sources of essential knowledge in the profession. As
indicated in Table 5.7, the referential aspect of Category 6 describes “currency of
knowledge” of events and issues within a variety of social and environmental topics
as a significant aspect of knowledge for SOSE: “You should be informed about
current affairs, current events and issues” (DL, p. 12). The perception of being up-to-
date with new thinking on SOSE topics, as presented in the news media, promoted
the value of SOSE as student engagement and active citizenship. Like Category 5,
244 Middle school social sciences: Exploring teachers’ conceptions of essential knowledge
the focus of Category 6 is on student and teacher. They share the focus because “you
[the teacher] are the person who brings in that outside knowledge to the kids” (NC,
p. 7). The focus on current affairs and social issues was driven by teachers’
awareness that students’ perspectives were restricted: “With SOSE, I would like
them to have some knowledge about what’s going on in the world and where things
are, and what’s happened. I like to broaden their knowledge about anything that
we’re doing. It’s amazing how little they know about anything really” (IG, p. 8).
While Category 4 embraces middle school students’ holistic education as essential
knowledge for SOSE and Category 5 focuses on integration, Category 6 emphasises
currency of knowledge as ways of achieving the goal of holistic, integrated education
for active citizenship in the middle years.
The three structural elements of Category 6 are as follows. First, knowledge
of current events and social issues is perceived as essential knowledge, for both
students and teachers; second, as a school subject, SOSE promotes active citizenship;
and third, the role of current affairs and issues makes SOSE an engaging school
subject. These elements form the internal horizon of Category 6 (that current affairs
and social issues make SOSE “relevant” to students). Like Categories 4 and 5, the
effort to address the holistic education of middle school students focuses Category 6
on both the teacher and the students. The emphasis on making learning in SOSE
meaningful and “relevant” to the students motivated teachers to seek out current
affairs and issues that contextualised their teaching of SOSE topics and skills. As
such, Category 6 captures the contemporary edge, focuses on active citizenship and
depicts the dynamic nature of conceptions of knowledge for SOSE.
The structural elements of Category 5 are discerned in the context of the
external horizon emphasising life-long learning drawn from the SOSE learning area
and social contexts that also informed Category 4 and 5. By alerting students to
current affairs and the currency of the issues and topics taught, teachers are widening
their world view and promoting life-long learning. Education in current affairs also
provides a real-world context in which to hone student-centred inquiry learning.
Further, currency of knowledge as part of students’ holistic education is underpinned
by the disciplinary basis of SOSE. The internal horizon of Category 6 now follows.
Chapter 5: Categories of Description 245
Knowledge of current affairs and social issues
Middle school SOSE teachers were passionate advocates of the importance of
current affairs to SOSE education: “Well, what I bring to it is a passion for current
affairs” (TA, p. 8). They were enthusiastic about the role that current affairs, issues
and topics played in their teaching, and their relevance to SOSE: “…you’ve got to
have a very good knowledge of current affairs. Because everything – and I can
probably say Everything with a capital E – everything that we cover in SOSE is
happening again now” (JS, p. 15). It was perceived that the best SOSE teachers were
those who maintained an interest in keeping their knowledge base current:
I think that’s probably No. 1. Having a really good grip on, you know, not
just what’s happened in the past but what’s happening right now. Probably
the best SOSE teachers are the really informed ones, the ones that keep
themselves informed….I think it’s engaging with really good quality
journals etc and constantly, you know, watching the news, good quality
newspapers. That’s what I tell the kids all the time, you’ve got to do that,
not just me [added emphasis]. You need to do that, because you’ve got to
know what’s happening in the world and you can’t understand the world
unless you keep up-to-date and you connect with what’s happened in the
past. (SL, p. 10)
This type of essential knowledge was distinct from the disciplinary knowledge
gained from wider reading (see Category 1) and was largely based on being informed
by the news media. The dual focus on teachers and students in Category 6 is
indicated in the bold text in the excerpt above. Currency of knowledge was important
for both teachers and students as a way of widening content knowledge. It made
SOSE education relevant to students and a way to understand the world better.
SOSE as active citizenship
The perception that knowledge of current social issues and events was a
valuable dimension of professional knowledge for SOSE was promoted by the nature
of the learning area as the “social” sciences which engendered life skills and
citizenship skills. Life skills is a cross-curricular priority in the Queensland SOSE
curriculum incorporating personal development skills and citizenship skills (QSCC,
2000, p. 6). As indicated in Category 2, the Rationale for the SOSE curriculum
promoted active citizenship. One participant argued that the nature of the social
246 Middle school social sciences: Exploring teachers’ conceptions of essential knowledge
sciences behoved teachers take interest in the world around them and, if possible, be
actively involved in addressing social problems:
It’s the social sciences. It’s social. You need to be applying that knowledge
in some context outside of your lounge room and doing something to make
the world a better place. Surely the first step in that direction is to understand
what’s going on around you so an interest in current events. And preferably
the second level again, not everybody can get there, that is actively
participating in that society. I’d like social science teachers to be out in the
society trying to do something. Drawing upon their discipline knowledge to
try and make the world a better place. (IN, p. 10)
This excerpt asserts a discernible link between teachers’ disciplinary knowledge of
the social sciences and their capacity to extrapolate an understanding of wider issues
and take action to address social problems. It is implied that SOSE teachers’
knowledge base in the disciplines created this personal disposition for active
citizenship, which broadened and enriched their knowledge for teaching (see
Category 7 for further detail). Those SOSE teachers who lack this disposition, it
seems, lack the essential knowledge to teach social issues. For example, one
participant held that Indigenous studies had suffered from this deficit in teachers’
knowledge and lack of disposition to be informed and make a difference:
Well if they’re not well-informed they can’t capture that and bring it into
what’s happening now, what we’re doing now. We could go back to the
Indigenous material for instance. Um I think the ignorance that’s been
allowed to fester in that regard speaks for itself in the general community
and attitudes over time. (DL, p. 13)
Teachers who were well-informed played a role in educating to break negative
attitudes. Aware that “teenagers tend to live in their own little world” (KF, p. 9), by
bringing current social issues into the classroom, teachers encouraged active
citizenship and long-term attitudes of life-long learning: “…that’s where we’re
trying to lead them…to love learning, to really engage with their world and to
become an active citizen. That’s the end point. Can you leave here and be a valuable
contributing person in society? (SL, p. 10). These excerpts indicate that teachers held
a view of knowledge for SOSE as active citizenship which underpinned their
commitment to link current events and issues to their teaching. In doing so, they
Chapter 5: Categories of Description 247
were implementing a curriculum guideline to “enable students to function in, critique
and improve the world in which they live, now and in the future” (QSCC, 2000, p.
7).
As such, the imperative for active citizenship and life-long education meant
that SOSE teachers provided explanations and contexts for issues raised by students
that sometimes had no direct relevance to what was being studied:
I mean, the kids, even though we were doing Stone Ages the other day, they
were asking me about the economic crisis. What’s that? What does it mean?
You do have to spend that 10 minutes saying, this is what it is, this is what’s
happening, this is why it’s happened. (SL, p. 10)
SOSE teachers knew students considered that there would be room in SOSE to
explore this type of curiosity about the world: “They’re so fascinated and they know
that you will talk about it where no other classroom will talk about it, you know”
(SL, pp. 9-10). By accommodating this interest, SOSE teachers were meeting goals
of life-long education. Further, teachers would refer to some current events because
they were judged to have merit and long-term significance. For example, the election
of Barack Obama to the US presidency:
You know for instance, the kids took real notice of when Obama won so I
used that to my advantage and YouTubed the whole speech – the thank you
speech – and they sat and watched it. Now it didn’t fit in with anything that
we were doing but I just thought, well, it’s important that they see that. (NC,
p. 5)
These instances illustrate the significance of knowledge of current affairs and issues
as part of teachers’ knowledge for SOSE and promotion of life-long learning.
SOSE as an engaging school subject
Teachers’ perceptions of SOSE as a school subject impacted on the way that
knowledge for SOSE was formulated as knowledge of current affairs and issues. One
perception was the great flexibility of SOSE: “It could either be something quite
bland or it could be a subject that’s very exciting for the kids, depending on how it’s
done. There’s so many opportunities for discussion, exploring in different directions.
It’s very, I suppose, a fluid subject, you know” (KT, p. 13). The “fluid”
characteristics of the KLA facilitated integration of the disciplinary foundations of
248 Middle school social sciences: Exploring teachers’ conceptions of essential knowledge
SOSE and integration with other learning areas (see Category 3). Similarly, the
flexibility of SOSE enabled teachers to draw on current events and social issues,
which increased the real world relevance of SOSE and enthusiasm for SOSE as a
school subject. The enormous benefit of linking class-based study to current events is
evident in the following excerpt, which documents the excitement engendered by
Obama’s election to the US presidency and the way that it was linked to Australian
Government:
With the US election, with Barack Obama they were following that bit by
bit. I came into class on the day of the election, and I had 26 girls saying
quick, quick, put the computer on, they’re doing updates on the voting
tallies. And so we had the screen with the votes clicking over, and I was
teaching that lesson but the girls’ eyes were also in their peripheral vision
watching the votes. They were so excited about what was happening, and we
were able to draw parallels between our Government and what happens
here…. (YE, p. 5)
While incorporating current events substantiated an understanding of broad
concepts, such as democracy, knowledge of current events and social issues was also
harnessed to deepen disciplinary knowledge of the content and skills being taught.
For example, tracking the incidence of earthquakes worldwide during a unit on
Disasters in geography enhanced the real-world value of the unit, supported inquiry-
based learning, and maintained students’ interest in the topic:
I remember in years past we used to do Disasters. You know, in geography
you always look at Disasters. We used to put a map on the wall and we used
to put dots every time a disaster would appear and I’d say to the kids, “By
the time we finish this unit there would have been this many earthquakes,”
and they would go, “Oh no, miss, you’re lying.” At the end of it, “Oh look at
the chart now, see, there you go”. (NC, pp. 6-7).
As with geography, teachers felt that the study of history should not only be about
the past, but also incorporate a knowledge of the present: “I think that even if you’re
learning about the past, kids need to know – well if you can link things that are
current, then that will engage the kids” (PH, p. 14). A similar engagement was
evident in topics on sustainability: “I think it’s [sustainability] something that the
kids really have an awareness and care about, so they value it, and think it’s
Chapter 5: Categories of Description 249
important. So they want to contribute, so it makes it much easier to teach” (CT p.
19). These examples illustrate the focus on students in Category 6, as teachers
acknowledged the very real benefits of connecting with the students’ readiness for
learning about topics that mattered to them.
Moreover, current affairs and issues provided the stimulus for developing
inquiry-based skills: “What I also bring to it though is a constant sense of you know,
what’s relevant, what’s interesting, what’s topical, and how can we flesh this out so
that kids can access that and enjoy studying it, and be able to make some sense of
it?” (TA, p. 9). In the case of one teacher, current affairs rather than a topic from the
curriculum was the vehicle for skills education: “So the way that I teach is, okay, I’m
going to give you the skill of enquiry, or the skill or communication, or the skill of
reflection, and then I just choose whatever is happening at the time, and then teach it
through that” (CT p. 2). This example indicates that current affairs and issues were
one avenue by which to teach inquiry skills. The decision to draw on current events
builds on the perception of inquiry learning portrayed in Category 1 and 2, where
inquiry skills were taught within a disciplinary context to deepen learning, and in
Category 5 as a way of integrating learning. Finally, it was perceived that SOSE
issues and topics were constantly evolving and changing, implying the need for
teachers to update their own knowledge on topics such as sustainability, weather,
business and economics (AN, p. 5).
Category 6: Dimensions of variation
In Category 6, SOSE teachers’ knowledge of current affairs, events and issues
has a dual focus on student and teacher. The student focus in the internal horizon is
seen in efforts to increase student engagement with SOSE topics through current
affairs and issues. A teacher focus is also revealed, as teachers perceived that it was
their responsibility to bring the world into the SOSE classroom. Teachers perceived
that currency of knowledge was essential for teachers because it promoted active
citizenship to make SOSE a “relevant”, engaging school subject. “Good” SOSE
teachers were perceived to be passionate about current affairs. By being informed
and active citizens themselves, they increased the students’ enthusiasm for SOSE.
The internal horizon refers to knowledge of “social” sciences. Thus, what occurs in
society impacts what is taught and opportunities for active citizenship were
250 Middle school social sciences: Exploring teachers’ conceptions of essential knowledge
paramount to perceptions of SOSE as a school subject. These views were manifested
in the dimensions of variation of content, inquiry learning and teacher autonomy.
The first dimension of variation related to content as contextualised within the
students’ interests in the world around them. By drawing on current affairs and
issues, teachers made the content relevant to the students and increased their
enthusiasm and the real-world value of studying SOSE. Knowledge of current affairs
and issues in Category 6 built on the foundation of discipline-based content
knowledge (Category 1), the curriculum requirement for active citizenship (Category
2) and teachers’ life experience (Category 3). It included personal development
concepts (Category 5) promoted as part of the push for integrated holistic education
in the middle years (Category 4 and 5). A focus on “currency of knowledge” justified
the content by making it “relevant” to students and promoting action on social issues.
However, as seen in Category 1, there was variation in the teachers’ acceptance of
the significance of current affairs to SOSE. Some teachers did not support the
argument on student relevance because it potentially compromised the integrity of
the disciplines: “SOSE tends to have this idea of, well, how does it connect to you
now in your life….Um, I think we would have found it hard to do the same unit of
Medieval history within the boundaries of the SOSE program” (CS, p. 6-7). Teachers
were clearly aware of the benefits and compromises in widening SOSE content to
include an emphasis on current issues and active citizenship.
In the second dimension of variation, inquiry learning was contextualised
within students’ wider interests. Teachers used current events as a real-world context
for teaching inquiry-based skills. This increased the importance of inquiry learning
and skills education (Categories 1 and 2) and widened the scope of resources for
inquiry learning (Category 3). Further, by drawing on social issues and current
events in increased students engagement with SOSE (Category 4) and promoted
integration (Category 5). By teaching inquiry learning through current affairs,
students perceived the value of inquiry skills across a range of contexts, and the
significance of studying SOSE.
In the third dimension of variation, teacher autonomy was revealed as
contextualising learning to students’ interests and curiosity about current events and
social or environmental issues. Teachers drew on students’ interests or selected
Chapter 5: Categories of Description 251
current events and issues, and related them to the topics being taught. Such
professional knowledge promoted active citizenship as taking a stand on social and
environmental issues and making a difference. This aspect of teachers’ professional
judgement to make ongoing current affairs relevant to social education (irrespective
of whether there is a direct correlation with the topic being studied) extends the
perceptions of teacher autonomy in previous categories. Thus, disciplinary skills
were promoted in Category 1, teachers made informed interpretations of the
curriculum in Category 2 and selected from their own life experience in Category 3.
Teachers had freedom to develop their own SOSE pedagogy in Category 4 and
devised personal development concepts and themes to integrate learning in Category
5. In each category, teacher autonomy varies in terms of what they choose to
emphasise and how they do it.
The structural elements of Category 6 were discerned against the external
horizon of knowledge of the learning area and knowledge of social contexts.
Knowledge of current events and issues broadened students’ understanding of the
world and increased their enthusiasm for learning about social issues and topical
areas of study. As discussed in Category 5, this generated a disposition for life-long
education. Professionally, teachers were passionate about this approach to SOSE
education because it also contributed to the holistic educational goals explored in
Category 4. Currency of knowledge appeared to increase the real-world value of
SOSE and its status as a school subject.
Summary of dimensions of variation in Categories 4, 5 and 6
The dimensions of variation in Categories 4, 5 and 6 are themes of awareness
that extend the different ways in which teachers experience the foundation of
essential knowledge for SOSE revealed in the previous three categories. The
summary in Table 5.1 (p. 160) indicates that each dimension of variation in
Categories 4, 5 and 6 is discerned in the internal horizon in relation to the student
and the teacher. Because these three categories are discerned in relation knowledge
of students, the external horizon refers to both knowledge of the learning area
(relevant for Categories 1, 2 and 3) and knowledge of contexts (relevant for
Categories 4, 5 and 6).
252 Middle school social sciences: Exploring teachers’ conceptions of essential knowledge
Building upon the foundation of the learning area established in previous
categories, in Categories 4, 5 and 6, a logical progression is observed for content as
holistic knowledge (Category 4), to content as integration of discipline-based
concepts and personal development concepts in Category 5, to content contextualised
within students’ interests in Category 6. While inquiry learning in the previous
three categories had a technical focus on developing skills of inquiry, in Category 4
inquiry learning enhances students’ thinking skills and engagement with SOSE
topics, facilitates integrated learning in Category 5, and is contextualised within
students’ interests in Category 6. Similarly, understanding of teacher autonomy,
defined in previous categories as professional discretion in relation to the learning
area, extends in Categories 4, 5 and 6 to take note of the student context. Teacher
autonomy is perceived in Category 4 as developing SOSE pedagogical content
knowledge, as promoting integration in Category 5, and as being contextualised
within students’ interests in Category 6. Teachers’ knowledge for SOSE in
Categories 4, 5 and 6 is discerned in relation to the needs of the middle years learner.
Each dimension of variation is discerned in relation to a knowledge of context
(external horizon), while also embracing knowledge of the learning area, which
defined Categories 1, 2 and 3. In this way, the dimensions of variation in Categories
4, 5 and 6 are a logical extension of the previous three categories and provide links to
Category 7.
Summary of Categories 4, 5 and 6
To conclude, Categories 4, 5 and 6 comprise the second group of categories in
the outcome space, where knowledge of middle years, integration and currency of
knowledge were discerned against an external horizon that encompasses knowledge
of the learning area and knowledge of contexts. While the first group of categories
was focused on knowledge in relation to teachers, Categories 4, 5 and 6 elucidated
knowledge in relation to students and teachers, which indicates a clear difference
between the two groups. “Currency of knowledge” in Category 6 builds on the
previous categories by explicitly acknowledging the interests of middle school
students to make SOSE “relevant” to their education. In the final section, Category 7
focuses on teacher identity, moving to a teacher-student focus to explore the
Chapter 5: Categories of Description 253
professional and personal identities of the SOSE teacher in their role as classroom-
based curriculum makers.
254 Middle school social sciences: Exploring teachers’ conceptions of essential knowledge
Category 7: Essential knowledge for teaching SOSE conceived as “teacher identity”
Category 7 describes essential knowledge invested in teacher identity. Table
5.8 summarises the structural and referential aspects of Category 7.
Table 5.8
Knowledge for Teaching SOSE as “Teacher Identity”
Knowledge for teaching SOSE as “teacher identity” (Teacher & student focus)
Features of category Evidence
Referential aspect Essential knowledge for SOSE is teacher identity, comprising personal and professional identities as a social education teacher.
“I am a history teacher and now I’m a SOSE teacher but I am a history teacher first. That’s the way I think of myself.” (JA, p. 2)
Structural elements Internal horizon: The “SOSE teacher” and cognitive and affective aspects of teaching SOSE
Teachers’ view of themselves as teachers of SOSE and the humanities • Influence of teachers’ educational history
on teacher identity
“Of course, I’m a geography specialist, so I actually did a double major in geography at Queensland Uni, and that was going to be my area….”(KM, p. 3)
• Significance of professional background for SOSE
“I think there’s a great range out there of what people are doing and even what they’re drawing on.” (IN, p. 4-5)
• Influence of evidence-based teaching and other factors on teacher identity
• Conflicts in teacher identity
“I guess I always struggle, because I’m a bit of a – I believe in middle-school SOSE rather than just pure subjects I guess now. I see more benefit in SOSE, now, at a Year 8 or 9 level.” (KM, p. 7)
A perception of teachers as learners • Teachers’ lack of knowledge “Because I didn’t know about it, I really made a
lot of effort to know about it.” (JE, p. 5) • Teachers’ self-awareness of their
knowledge base “I’m quite happy to acknowledge that I don’t know things….” (JA, p. 5)
• Perceptions of the nature of knowledge • Evidence-based practice for professional
development
“I think the essential knowledges [sic] for a SOSE teacher is that knowledge is problematic, that knowledge is culturally constructed, and is therefore inherently biased.” (TA, p. 18)
Essential personal attributes of SOSE teachers • Passion; values; creativity “SOSE people are really certain people and they
have to be very creative people. I think they need to be really passionate people....” (SL, p. 8)
External horizon: Knowledge of self as teacher
Dimensions of variation
DoV 1: Content as co-construction
DoV 2: Inquiry learning as the foundation for teaching and learning SOSE
DoV 3: Teacher autonomy as self-efficacy
Chapter 5: Categories of Description 255
Category 7 describes teacher identity, comprising personal and professional
identities as a social education teacher as essential knowledge for teaching SOSE. As
indicated in Table 5.8, middle years SOSE teachers are aware of the influence of
their own education, professional training and evidence-based teaching practice as
knowledge for SOSE. While Category 3 explored the role of teaching and life
experience as knowledge for SOSE, Category 7 explores the knowledge bound in
teacher identity. Such knowledge is pivotal to the conceptualisation of the teacher as
curriculum maker (see Chapter 1, pages 3-33), that is, one who interprets and enacts
the curriculum rather than restricting themselves to delivering the prescribed
curriculum (Craig & Ross, 2008).
The referential aspect of Category 7 is the teacher’s professional sense of self
and his or her view of the self as a member of a profession holding distinctive
academic and pedagogical knowledge. When participants were asked, “Is there
anything else you’d like to add in terms of what is essential for a good SOSE teacher
to know?” one participant simply replied: “Themselves” (JA, p. 14). As such,
Category 7 includes teachers’ self-awareness of the professional self as knowledge
for teaching SOSE.
The focus of awareness in Category 7 is on co-construction of knowledge
based on a teacher and student focus that builds on the previous categories.
Teachers’ perceptions of personal and professional identities are defined in relation
to their work with students, but unlike Categories 4, 5 and 6, where the focus was
primarily on students and to a lesser extent on teachers, in Category 7, the focus is on
knowledge of self as teacher. While the previous six categories were discerned in
relation to the learning area and knowledge of contexts, Category 7 builds on these
perspectives and incorporates the teacher’s personal and professional domain. The
professional domain is defined as the context of the school and relations with
colleagues. It refers to the teachers’ self-perception as an educator in the school and
community.
As such, Category 7 describes a compelling intersection of the personal and
professional domains of teachers’ essential knowledge for SOSE. While identity as a
SOSE teacher draws on professional knowledge, this knowledge is inextricably
bound by a personal sense of self as a SOSE or social education teacher. The nature
256 Middle school social sciences: Exploring teachers’ conceptions of essential knowledge
of this type of knowledge, however, is never clear-cut. Insights into the connections
between professional and personal knowledge fosters a constantly evolving sense of
self:
I think because of the material, the background that I’ve had, that I can feel
confident. But I’m not a historian, I always say I’m a “general knowledge
historian” and probably I can get by in the middle school with history, but
geography is fine with me across the board, civics, those sorts of things I’m
fine with, yeah, and I’ve done legal studies. So I don’t feel inadequate in
what I’m doing most days... (DL, p. 3)
Category 7 examines the multiple teacher professional teacher identities that
characterise SOSE educators’ view of themselves and their colleagues: “Yes, but
he’s a discipline man because he’s a pure geographer, but he loves history too and
he’s very capable and he’s a great SOSE teacher” (KM, p. 17). Teacher identity as a
SOSE educator is founded in a subject and professional knowledge base, harnessed
to personal capacity and experience as a SOSE teacher. This sense of self
encompasses the professional and personal identity of the teacher.
The structural elements of Category 7 comprise three aspects of teachers’
identity as SOSE teachers: (1) teachers’ view of themselves as teachers of SOSE and
the humanities; (2) a perception of teachers as learners; and (3) the essential personal
attributes of SOSE teachers. These elements comprise the internal horizon of
Category 7. The intersection of the personal and professional addresses different
aspects of teacher identity.
The internal horizon of Category 7, revealed through the dimensions of
variation of content, inquiry learning and teacher autonomy, link to perceptions of
the “SOSE teacher” and cognitive and affective aspects of teaching SOSE. First,
content knowledge, developed through the act of teaching as co-construction with
students. Second, teachers’ own knowledge of inquiry learning, derived from
disciplinary expertise, was perceived to be the foundation of SOSE teaching and
students’ learning. Finally, teacher autonomy was revealed in perceptions of teacher
self-efficacy. Here, teachers focus on the cognitive and affective aspects of SOSE
teaching and defend their professional strengths and personal attributes in
comparison with non-SOSE teachers. The dimensions of variation illustrate aspects
Chapter 5: Categories of Description 257
of SOSE teacher identity, effectively differentiating Category 7 from the other six
categories.
The external horizon of Category 7 draws on knowledge of the learning area
and knowledge of contexts, as well as knowledge of self as teacher. It refers to the
intersection of the personal/professional domain of the teacher’s perception of self in
the school community and wider society. The investment of essential knowledge in
teacher identity combines the personal/professional domain in a unique way with
knowledge of learning and contexts, illustrating emotional aspects that underpin
teachers’ conceptions of essential knowledge for SOSE. The following discussion
examines the internal horizon of conceptions of essential knowledge for teaching
SOSE embedded in teacher identity.
Teachers’ view of themselves as teachers of SOSE and the humanities
The way that teachers referred to themselves is evidence of their own identity
and gives some insight into their personal perceptions of the knowledge base for
teaching. When asked to recall memorable SOSE units that she had taught, one
participant said:
I guess because I’m an ancient history teacher, I tend to remember the units
on the ancient world the most and I guess also, the introductory geography
units; [that] I always felt that, coming from a history background, I always
did a much better job with the history based units, really, than the units that
were more dominantly geographic, because I didn’t feel my content was as
strong in that area and obviously everyone, all SOSE teachers have a base
knowledge of things, but I think, often the enrichment that comes in classes
is based upon deep knowledge….I am a history teacher and now I’m a SOSE
teacher but I am a history teacher first. That’s the way I think of myself. (JA,
p. 2)
In the course of the interview, this participant referred to herself as an ancient history
teacher, a history teacher, and finally as a SOSE teacher. Significantly, this excerpt
shows that identity as a history teacher was rooted in her knowledge of history and
her perception of her own teaching. The reference to “student enrichment” and “deep
knowledge” indicates that professional identity referred to two important aspects.
First, it accommodated a teacher and student focus. Subject knowledge is intrinsic to
teacher identity, simultaneously perceived in relation to students. A relational
258 Middle school social sciences: Exploring teachers’ conceptions of essential knowledge
understanding is perceived, where the teacher is in focus; but at the same time,
enriching the students’ understanding is also in the foreground. Second, the excerpt
is revealing about types of knowledge. A “base knowledge of things” held by all
SOSE teachers is contrasted with the “deep knowledge” held by teachers with a
strong disciplinary background: “When that deep knowledge isn’t, like really is quite
shallow, then you just don’t have the same ability to enrich and offer alternatives and
cover things from different perspectives…” (JA, p. 2). The teacher acknowledged
gaps in her presentation of geography units, precisely because she was a history
teacher and not a geography teacher. Conceptions of knowledge for SOSE in this
instance were characterised as “deep knowledge”, derived from a social science
background and bound to identity as a history/SOSE teacher. By describing her
identity in terms of her subject knowledge for teaching, she acknowledged the role of
students in determining her identity primarily as a teacher of history. Moreover, her
self-efficacy as a capable teacher related to perceptions of her knowledge base.
To further explore teachers’ view of themselves as teachers of SOSE and the
humanities, the following sections will explore 1) the influence of teachers’
educational history on teacher identity, 2) the significance of professional
background for SOSE, 3) the influence of evidence-based teaching on teacher
identity, and 4) conflicts in teacher identity.
Influence of teachers’ educational history on teacher identity
SOSE teachers’ view of themselves as educators in the social science area was
influenced by their own school education, their tertiary education and their
professional education as teachers. The teachers’ education history influenced their
view of themselves as teachers of specialist subject areas and of SOSE. As such,
many beginning teachers and young teachers had experienced SOSE themselves in
their own education, while older SOSE teachers had taken on SOSE as a school
subject later in their careers because they were history or geography specialist
teachers. For example, one participant, who had studied SOSE at school, said, “I
think that’s why I’m a SOSE teacher, 'cause I always remember SOSE and history as
being the things that really caught me as a person…” (EK, p. 3). Similarly, a teacher
with over 20 years’ experience, who was educated before SOSE, acknowledged the
link between her teacher identity as a history teacher and her professional education:
Chapter 5: Categories of Description 259
I am a result of my age and my generation and when I did my teacher
training SOSE was nothing, SOSE didn’t exist, and so there was social
science as such but that’s not the same, and so in terms of discipline
background, when I did a Diploma in Education at the University of
Queensland, my two areas were history and economics, so when SOSE was
introduced, I still thought of myself [pre]dominantly as a history teacher.
Economics, let’s not raise that. It was a bit of an ugly moment in the past,
which I don’t want to revisit. I think that’s really, is the training is the
significant variable in how you do think about yourself. (JA, p. 3)
In this instance, teacher-education in discipline-based subject areas played a
significant role in shaping or rejecting teacher identity.
Tertiary or secondary education in the disciplines was another influence on
teachers’ conception of their knowledge for SOSE. Some secondary teachers of
middle school SOSE referred to their discipline-based tertiary study as the
foundation of their knowledge in the social sciences: “Of course, I’m a geography
specialist, so I actually did a double major in geography at Queensland Uni, and that
was going to be my area….” (KM, p. 3). Others drew on their own secondary
education when exploring concepts that were unfamiliar to them. For example, a
SOSE Head of Department, who had a history background, admitted that he referred
back to his school studies of business principles when developing a unit on economic
systems: “…I felt myself drawing back on was a lot of the Year 9 and 10 business
principles that I did when I was at school. Some of the knowledge or I guess key
concepts look like they haven’t changed all that much” (JE, p. 6). Similarly, a
primary teacher (KT) recounted that studying modern history in high school had
given her added confidence to teach middle school SOSE.
Moreover, teachers’ secondary and tertiary education in the disciplines
impacted on their teacher identity. This personal educational experience directly
related to substantive knowledge for SOSE. It was qualitatively different from the
general teaching and life experiences described in Category 3, which contributed
broad knowledge for SOSE. In the shift from discipline-based teaching to integrated
SOSE, the discipline (for example, history) took precedence over SOSE in a
teacher’s identity. For example, while keen to explore the potential of SOSE to
“move us into a more higher-order thinking, problem-solving, you know, social
260 Middle school social sciences: Exploring teachers’ conceptions of essential knowledge
conscience area”, one teacher asserted, “having said that, I am a history teacher first”
(DB, p. 6). In sum, teacher identity was clearly bound to the disciplinary base for
SOSE, highlighting the dominant teacher focus of Category 7. Concomitantly, there
was a secondary focus on developing students’ thinking and values, which reflects
the relational focus on teacher and student in this category.
Significance of professional background for SOSE
Participants in the study held that SOSE should only be taught by teachers with
a background in the humanities. Timetabling constraints in many schools meant that
SOSE was often taught by non-SOSE teachers, who, though well-intentioned, could
not adequately deliver either the knowledge or skills required: “You’ve got teachers
who are teaching dance, who have been chucked into SOSE and who are doing their
very best to do it….” (KM, p. 17). SOSE was often taught by “conscripts in SOSE”
(IN, p. 4), who had no formal education in the humanities and relied on dated subject
knowledge and transmissive pedagogy:
“Have you taught English or Phys Ed or something?” and they’re now asked
to teach this SOSE thing and they’re just falling back on their memories of
what they did when they were at high school, primary school or something.
I’m afraid we’re back into, you know, early 60’s or 70’s or something. A
very rote approach, a content based approach, not as much process, not as
much critical inquiry. I think there’s a great range out there of what people
are doing and even what they’re drawing on. (IN, p. 4-5)
Teachers with no background in humanities potentially created problems with
students’ skills:
I think it’s essential that they’ve either studied history or geography or
civics, whatever that is, or that they’re…if they haven’t, that they’re
prepared and that they’re given the time to do that preparation. I shudder at
the thought, with the English teacher teaching Year 10 history next year –
and I’m going to be getting them in Grade 11 – and the thought of trying to
unteach them English essays in history gives me the heebie-jeebies. You
need to either have the skills or be given the opportunity to get the skills.
(KR, p. 21-22)
Chapter 5: Categories of Description 261
SOSE teachers perceived that the subject areas were not interchangeable in middle
school, even though there may be some areas in common (for example, the literacy
expectations in SOSE are similar to those in English but the concepts and skills base
are different). A background in humanities was considered essential knowledge for
SOSE and teachers defended this priority in school staffing.
However, as it was unlikely that even qualified or experienced SOSE teachers
would have secondary or tertiary education in all the contributing disciplines of
SOSE, teachers’ knowledge of the processes of inquiry was the foundation for
integrated social education. Education in at least one discipline area was the basis of
inquiry learning, which paved the way for developing knowledge in other areas of
SOSE:
“I think an understanding of the inquiry process, whether it be historical,
geographic. I think some knowledge of an inquiry process. And if you’ve
got that as a foundation, I think you can adapt it to the different disciplines,
or at least see the relevance.” (JE, p. 16).
From this teacher’s perspective, the common link between the social sciences was
the focus on teaching the skills of inquiry.
Influence of evidence-based teaching and other factors on teacher identity
Given the breadth of subject knowledge required for SOSE, teaching
experience provided teachers with evidence-based knowledge, which broadened their
content knowledge and built their professional identity. The role of teaching
experience as essential knowledge was discussed in Category 3, but in Category 7,
teaching experience emerges as evidence-based knowledge that builds identity.
Evidence-based practice refers to the use of research or action-based research
originating in reflective practice as the basis for teaching (Dinham & Rowe, 2007;
Hempenstall, 2006). Different instances of evidence-based practice informed the
teaching of SOSE and teachers’ professional identity. It significantly broadened the
teachers’ knowledge outside their discipline area and built teacher identity as
knowledge for SOSE.
In Category 3, the experience of teaching SOSE supported a general
knowledge of SOSE education. This is a qualitatively different experience from
Category 7, where self-reflection provides evidence-based knowledge of teaching
262 Middle school social sciences: Exploring teachers’ conceptions of essential knowledge
and identity as a social education teacher. In the following excerpt, the teacher’s
foundation in inquiry learning, deep knowledge of one discipline, and experience as
Head of SOSE (implying years of experience in the SOSE area) augmented his
subject knowledge and self-efficacy as a SOSE teacher:
…just seeing a process of inquiry and knowing how at least one of the
disciplines deals with that, I think would give you some understanding. Even
if you’re teaching in a discipline area that you’re not that familiar with. Like
when I’m teaching geography, even though I’m not geography trained, I’ve
been head of a SOSE department for so long now that I feel as though I do
know the geographic inquiry process really, really well. And that gives me
some grounding. (JE, pp. 16-17)
Another factor that impacted on teacher identity was mentoring relationships with
colleagues. Mentoring was another way of developing the broad subject-knowledge
base expected in SOSE. A geography teacher describes the significance of working
with a history colleague:
For me, because I was heavily involved as a Head of Department at…with
doing integrated SOSE and I had a very, very good mentor teacher there who
had [a] history background, I learned a lot of history, I was able to do the
history myself, I’d learnt a lot about the history. So I felt comfortable with it,
whereas I didn’t before that. (KM, p. 6)
The induction into disciplinary areas outside of teacher’s expertise led to a
distinctive conceptualisation of subject matter and broadened notions of professional
identity. For example, one teacher said, “I can actually now teach, I could teach
Ancient Greece with a geography slant and integrate both of those things if I wanted
to” (KM, p. 7). Realising the need for an expanded evidence-based knowledge for
SOSE, teachers also undertook to read more widely as part of their professional
work: “Like I said before, even though I’m not history trained, you know…I may not
know the particular ins and outs of family life in Greece at that time so I have to go
and read something about it. So I feel that that’s my job.” (NC, p. 9). These
comments support the view that evidence-based practice informed teachers’
professional identity and self-efficacy as an educator.
Chapter 5: Categories of Description 263
Conflicts in teacher identity
The foregoing discussion has revealed that teacher identity built on subject
specialism was intrinsic to their conceptions of essential knowledge for SOSE.
However, teachers experienced conflicted identities associated with discipline
specialisation and the need for integration in SOSE. One participant enjoyed working
at her new school where “it’s been very prized to keep history and geography
separate” (CS, p. 4) compared with her previous school:
Because we didn’t teach like this at my old school in the State system. We’d
gone very SOSE-y and this school [new school] was like going back in time.
These are the units I did when I went to school. But personally, because I’m
a very academic person and I’m a pure history person, I felt…I loved that,
and I’m so glad my daughter who goes here is doing that proper history
focus. (CS, p. 5)
This teacher’s identity as a scholarly-minded history teacher had been compromised
by working in a “SOSE-y” school. Referring to Category 1, she considered that
discipline-based knowledge was key to knowledge for social education. A specialism
in history or geography appeared to create a personal and professional conflict for
some teachers faced with SOSE. A secondary geography/SOSE teacher explained
how teachers’ education in specialist subjects conflicted with middle years SOSE:
I think what happens is that teachers come out as purists in their subject
areas in high schools. Pure geography, pure history, like we did at uni – you
do your history, you do your geography, you walk into a school that says,
“Teach SOSE”, and you say, “No, I’m a history teacher, I want to teach
history”. I was very much no, I hate history, stay away from it, I can only
teach geography. Until I became comfortable over the years with both of
those things in my knowledge base….I was then able to integrate them
effectively. (KM, p. 7)
She claimed that very few older teachers were comfortable with integration; in her
case, as a geography teacher, teaching experience over time had shown her the value
of integration, causing her to question her teacher identity: “I guess I always
struggle, because I’m a bit of a – I believe in middle-school SOSE rather than just
pure subjects I guess now. I see more benefit in SOSE, now, at a Year 8 or 9 level”
(KM, p. 7).
264 Middle school social sciences: Exploring teachers’ conceptions of essential knowledge
There was also a perception amongst some teachers that subject-based teacher
identity was detrimental to integration. Subject-based teacher identity as “history
teacher” or “geography teacher” impacted negatively on understanding of the
concepts of values education and civics and citizenship, which were explicit in
SOSE, compared with discipline-based study:
Interviewee: …like “I’m a history teacher” and that’s all I teach; or “I’m a
geography teacher” and that’s all I teach.
Facilitator: Yes?
Interviewee: So I[’m] like, “There’s a lot more than that, there’s the civics
and citizenship and there’s the values”, and I think they need to be a lot
broader in their teaching and way of thinking, rather than just being locked
into…“Oh, but they’re a history specialist, or geography [specialist]”. (CT,
p. 21)
While questions of teacher identity were bound to teachers’ personal educational
histories and experience, it seems that subject-based teacher identity as a discipline
specialist, for example, “I am a geography teacher”, potentially compromised the
teaching of SOSE. Despite these personal/professional complexities around teacher
identity, expertise in at least one discipline was the essential foundation that enabled
teachers to explore topics outside their area. In summary, teacher identity embedded
certain conceptions of essential knowledge for SOSE.
A perception of teachers as learners
Teachers widened their subject knowledge by learning and teaching new
topics. A perception of “teachers as learners” derived from teachers’ awareness of 1)
gaps in their knowledge base for teaching, 2) insights into the nature of knowledge
for SOSE and 3) evidence-based practice prompting professional development. Each
of these conceptions, which are explored below, supports teacher identity as a
conception of knowledge for SOSE and illustrates the relational focus on teachers
and students in Category 7.
Teachers’ lack of knowledge
One aspect of teachers’ awareness of professional identity was the
acknowledgment that, at times, their own knowledge was limited or, in some cases,
Chapter 5: Categories of Description 265
completely lacking. The breadth of topics that had to be addressed in SOSE meant
that there was always more to learn. Experienced and beginning teachers alike
perceived their lack of subject knowledge, although the nature of the gaps in
knowledge varied between beginning and experienced teachers. Awareness of
subject knowledge deficiencies affected teachers’ self-esteem and confidence. For
example, a beginning teacher implied that she lacked content knowledge on a range
of topics: “I actually really didn’t know a lot of the content. It was, as I said, quite a
humbling experience to realise how little [I knew]…” (EK, p. 6). Another teacher
recounted that the effort he had made to learn about land tenure in Aboriginal
communities gave him confidence in the classroom: “Because I didn’t know about it,
I really made a lot of effort to know about it. So then when I was in front of the
classroom I actually felt really confident” (JE, p. 5). The example demonstrates the
teacher’s perception that knowledge for teaching derived from further learning and
study, building the argument that some SOSE teachers held a perception of “teachers
as learners”. Evidence-based knowledge, underpinned by admissions of an
inadequate knowledge base, was critical to teachers’ conceptions of knowledge for
SOSE.
Teachers’ self-awareness of their knowledge base
Furthermore, teachers were aware that their knowledge for SOSE was a key
feature of their identity. Experienced SOSE teachers were aware of how a lack of in-
depth subject knowledge significantly affected their pedagogy. For example, one
teacher was acutely aware of how the gaps in his knowledge of land management
contradicted the social science framework of the curriculum and the student-centred
pedagogy on which it was based: “I remember teaching that and it was becoming a
bit dry and it had become too teacher-centred and what was that about? That was
probably more about my lack of knowledge of environmental science I guess” (IN, p.
7). He characterised this failure as a lack of “intellectual knowledge but it’s also
emotional knowledge” (IN, p. 7). The reference to “emotional knowledge” refers to
intuitive understandings of his brief to convey a deep understanding of the issue. A
history teacher, he explained his failure as “the absence of people. I veered too much
away from people and, from my own ignorance, from my own lack of world
experience of being in rural places” (IN, p. 9). In another example, an experienced
SOSE teacher tacitly avoided teaching strategies (such as leading a discussion) that
266 Middle school social sciences: Exploring teachers’ conceptions of essential knowledge
showed gaps in her knowledge: “I’m quite happy to acknowledge that I don’t know
things….But I don’t want to say it, you know….I don’t want to put myself in a
position where I’m going to say it, so I rein things in a little bit (JA, p. 5). Teachers’
self-awareness of their knowledge for SOSE highlights the significance of their
teaching practice as knowledge for teaching. This awareness highlighted the
professional difficulties that arose when teaching unfamiliar topics and affected
teachers’ self-efficacy as educators.
Self-awareness of their own knowledge meant that SOSE teachers were open
to new learning, and consequently that their knowledge was sometimes constructed
with their students:
Yeah, I think what would be essential to know is that your knowledge is not
um is not um complete. Like I think it is essential to know, in that area in
particular, that there are things to learn all the time and things might change
or things might stay the same and if you stop….If you teach only what you
know, then you are not teaching all the, you know, the kids are not learning
outside of your knowledge base. Which could be drastic in some cases.
[Laughter] So I think that it is essential to know that you don’t know
everything and that you can learn along the way. (JL, p. 15)
Despite having considerably more knowledge than their students, teachers always
learned something more with their students: “But I don’t think I have ever had a
topic that I haven’t learnt. I think I have felt knowledgeable about things but I think I
have always come out knowing more at the end then I have at the beginning” (AN,
pp. 4-5). The benefits of undertaking learning together with one’s students impacted
positively on pedagogy, making it far more interactive and student-centred:
I think once you get over that idea that, oh, I’m the teacher, so therefore I
must know everything and know all the answers, I think your teaching
becomes much more dynamic, much more interactive with the kids, and
sometimes you have to wean them off the idea that you, the teacher, have to
know everything. I do think you have to have a really good understanding of
the pedagogy behind what you are doing. (DB, p. 23)
Learning with students is evidence of a democratic approach undertaken by teachers
and students to build knowledge together, highlighting the focus on both teachers
and students in Category 7. Here content is co-constructed by teachers and students,
Chapter 5: Categories of Description 267
making it quite different to conceptions of content in the previous categories.
Further, it points to the role of teacher as curriculum maker in the classroom,
drawing on interactions between teacher and students and relations between teacher
and students to create new, jointly created understandings of the topic or issue at
hand.
Perceptions of the nature of knowledge
The perception that knowledge was embedded in learning derived from
teachers’ insight into the nature of knowledge for SOSE and how knowledge was
created. Some teachers perceived that, in the act of teaching, they were also learning
with and from their students. Such perceptions indicate that some participants in the
study had great respect for the teaching/learning process, which mutually increased
and deepened the students’ and teacher’s knowledge: “By continuing to learn you’re
modelling to the kids that you’re forever learning new things” (PH, p. 15). Further,
the teacher as “learner” and “co-learner” motivated students to take more
responsibility for their learning:
Cause I’ve often said to them, “I don’t know, let’s find that out”. I come
back, “Look what I found out” and they come back, “Look what I found out”
and I think it kind of makes it you’re a co-learner. I think it changes even for
them what a teacher is like, and puts it a bit more back on them. (EK, p. 19)
These excerpts reveal a perception of content as co-constructed with students and
further evidence of the notion of teachers as learners. For these teachers the nature of
knowledge for SOSE was that it was co-constructed with students and developed
over time.
Yet another teacher maintained that the nature of knowledge for SOSE was
inherently problematic because it depended on the sources of information being
used: “I think the essential knowledges [sic] for a SOSE teacher is that knowledge is
problematic, that knowledge is culturally constructed, and is therefore inherently
biased” (TA, p. 18). She argued a socially critical view of knowledge (Habermas,
1971), asserting that knowledge for a range of SOSE topics and issues involved
exploring and critiquing different perspectives:
…being able to make way for diverse cultural perspectives, to impact the
way in which we view and teach knowledge, and that’s geographic
268 Middle school social sciences: Exploring teachers’ conceptions of essential knowledge
knowledge as well as historical knowledge. I mean, even looking at
something as simple as climate change, there are diverse perspectives on
this. Understanding that there are diverse perspectives, and who gains, and
who benefits, who’s advantaged, who’s disadvantaged from those views is
fundamental. (TA, p. 18)
While this represents just one person’s view among the participants interviewed for
this study, it illustrates that SOSE units examined controversial issues, warranting
the examination of diverse perspectives. Furthermore, in this case, the nature of
knowledge for SOSE derived from a collaborative, socially critical approach to
learning.
Evidence-based practice prompting professional development
A perception of teachers as learners was prompted by gaps in teachers’
knowledge that undermined subject identity. This awareness based on evidence from
their own teaching practice encouraged teachers to invest in professional
development and increase self-efficacy: “I probably need more knowledge. I
probably need more professional development and more time to actually gain better
knowledge but with being so busy as teachers, you don’t get the time to do that, so I
suppose it’s sometimes in SOSE you have to just keep one step ahead of the kids at
times” (BL, p. 16). While time for professional development was an issue, teachers
accessed a range of opportunities to develop curriculum, conceptual and skills-based
knowledge. Local moderation of assessment was also seen as an opportunity for
professional development:
Teachers do professional development so we go to, there might be
something on using GIS for geography in the senior years, and teachers will
go there and have a look at that to learn that. There might be a program
where they are running a SOSE program through BCEC [Brisbane Catholic
Education Commission] where they are trying to educate, and introduce new
ideas into the policy so teachers will go to that. We are always funded for
professional development. People like our co-ordinators would go to things
like that.
They do moderation so that they have times where they actually sit with
other schools and talk and discuss topics and you look at that, and of course
we have the government and their curriculum so there are rules, you know
Chapter 5: Categories of Description 269
certain things that we have got to follow so we are always made aware of
those. (AN, p. 7)
Moreover, there was a perceived need for professional development based on
pedagogy and core skills relevant to SOSE: “I think we need to have conferences and
discussions on the best way to teach writing a paragraph, the best way to teach
writing an essay” (KR, p. 23). An awareness of evidence-based teaching,
underpinned by the need to meet students’ needs, encouraged middle years SOSE
teachers to access professional development to widen their knowledge base and self-
efficacy as a teacher.
In summary, the perception of “teacher as learner” emerged in the context of
teachers’ awareness that their knowledge for SOSE was sometimes limited or
lacking, illustrating that evidence-based practice informed their knowledge for
SOSE. Teachers acknowledged that lack of subject knowledge adversely affected
their pedagogy and focus on inquiry learning. They positioned themselves as
learners, learning both with and from their students, and invested in professional
development.
Essential personal attributes of SOSE teachers
As Category 7 is focused on teacher identity, it appears that the personal
attributes of SOSE teachers influence their approach to teaching and knowledge for
SOSE. Personal characteristics such as passion, personal values and creativity
contribute to teachers’ identity, influencing their conceptions of essential knowledge
for SOSE. These attributes motivate middle years SOSE teachers to work in
particular ways. They point to emotion as an underlying facet of teacher identity,
which is expressed as knowledge for SOSE. The following section explores the role
of each of these personal attributes in teachers’ knowledge.
A noted personal attribute in the data was the importance of being passionate
about teaching SOSE. Passion signified an emotional dimension to and a motivation
for teaching: “Passion makes a good ‘any’ teacher. If they really want to come to
work, if they like kids, got to really want to teach what it is that you’re teaching and
make a difference” (IN, p. 9). Teachers used “passion” in several ways to describe
their work and how they felt about it. They referred, first, to being passionate about
their subject area and, second, to being passionate about wanting to teach to make a
270 Middle school social sciences: Exploring teachers’ conceptions of essential knowledge
difference to society. Passion for the disciplines implied a depth of understanding
and commitment to inquiry:
I think you’ve got to be passionate about geography and history and
economics and politics. I think if you don’t have an interest in those things,
you’re just going to be teaching out of the book. (BL, p. 5)
So, I do bring an inquiry I think, a real passion for inquiry to the job. (TA,
p. 9)
Passion for the disciplines and inquiry learning reveals an emotional dimension to
teachers’ commitment.
Moreover, by showing their own passion for SOSE, teachers promoted the
practical benefits to society. A “good SOSE teacher” engaged in active citizenship
and was passionate:
About their subject areas. About people’s ability to make a difference in the
world, both environmentally, like geography used to be, and also your
interaction with society. Because I feel that SOSE is where – and I might be
making it too romanticised, I don’t know – but I feel that SOSE is where you
realise that you can make a difference, as a person, to society. (CS, p. 17)
An idealised goal for teachers was that SOSE motivated students to learn and
develop a sense of personal and social purpose: “I’m actually there to show them
how to be passionate about a subject or how to find something to care about or why
you should care about something” (EK, p. 12). They were committed to encouraging
a predisposition towards making a difference to social and environmental causes,
such as “sustainability, and environmentalism, poverty” (CS, p. 18) and giving
students experiences that would develop in them “a sense of compassion” (BL, p. 5)
and widen their horizons: “Getting them to understand that Australia is a very lucky
country and the world is not always nice and that there are horrible things that
happen and to give them a bit of a reality check” (BL, p. 5). These wider social and
educational objectives for active citizenship derived from teachers’ passion and
feelings about SOSE.
The emotional dimension manifested in the personal attributes of SOSE
teachers was linked to teachers’ identity as values educators. The basis of being a
Chapter 5: Categories of Description 271
values educator for some teachers was, first, understanding what they valued (DL,
p. 15) and, second, living the values they wished to teach through their actions:
I mean, we’ve got to be the people we want our kids to be and if they don’t
see it, it’s that thing of, don’t tell me what to do, just let me watch you, and
I’ll do what you do kind of thing. (JA, p. 7)
If you want kids to appreciate other cultures and value other cultures and
other ways of doing things, then you’ve got to do that. That’s got to be your
own value. You can’t not have that value and teach that value. So having
those kinds of values are really important I think. (MC, p. 15)
For some SOSE teachers, values education reflected their own values, making
personal values a foundation of essential knowledge for SOSE. The conflation of
values education and teachers’ values as knowledge for SOSE builds on Category 6,
which illustrated that teachers’ knowledge of current affairs and issues created a
personal disposition of active citizenship. It signifies values education as part of the
practical and personal dimension of teachers’ knowledge for SOSE.
The role of creativity as a personal attribute was only mentioned by one
participant. Nevertheless, it describes the link between the knowledge base for
SOSE, the focus on inquiry learning and the personal attributes of SOSE teachers.
Reacting to the perception in school staffing that anyone could teach SOSE, this
participant believed that creative teachers focused on student-centred pedagogy:
SOSE people are really certain people and they have to be very creative
people. I think they need to be really passionate people and if you’re just
coming in and teaching it when you don’t really want to be, it can be hard, to
teach. Because, you know, it’s one of those things where people are
constantly coming to me and saying, “I need some stuff on this”. You go,
“Well, when I teach that I’m not always using stuff”, for a start. You know,
you can come up with activities and things. Quite often they’re out of your
head, but, you know, they want whole lessons, you know, everything to be
prepared for them because they just don’t know what to do. And it’s not
because they’re [not] necessarily being lazy. They just don’t know what to
do with it except chalk and talk. (SL, p. 8).
For this teacher, personal attributes of passion and creativity influenced their
pedagogical content knowledge as a SOSE teacher.
272 Middle school social sciences: Exploring teachers’ conceptions of essential knowledge
To conclude, the hallmarks of a passion for SOSE, teachers’ values, a
commitment to active citizenship and the ability to be creative are underlying
personal attributes that influence teacher identity as knowledge for SOSE. The
affective aspects that influence knowledge for SOSE are manifested in the personal
attributes of SOSE teachers. These personal attributes illustrate the intersection of
personal and professional qualities that contribute to teacher identity.
Category 7: Dimensions of variation
In Category 7, the concept of “teacher identity” encompasses notions of the
teacher’s subject and pedagogical knowledge, which is bound to their view of
themselves as teacher. Teacher identity is shaped by a relational focus on knowledge
generated by teachers and students. The internal horizon of Category 7 illustrates
how the dimensions of variation of content, inquiry learning and teacher autonomy
relate to cognitive and affective aspects of teaching SOSE and teacher identity.
In the first dimension of variation, related to content, teachers viewed their
content knowledge as co-constructed with students, growing out of their teaching
experience. It expands the perception of content in Category 6, which contextualised
content in relation to students’ awareness of current affairs and issues. Like their
students, some teachers perceived themselves as inquiry learners while they were
teaching: “I felt like I was on a learning journey with them and it was really nice to
learn with them” (EK, p. 5). Evidence-based teaching experience, which manifested
gaps and strengths in teachers’ subject knowledge, informed teachers’ identity.
Teachers’ knowledge of content is perceived as co-constructed with students.
Teacher-student co-construction of content knowledge in Category 7 is a
complex and sophisticated understanding of content for SOSE embedded in teacher
identity. Founded on disciplinary knowledge, and enhanced by evidence-based
teaching, the teacher perceives content knowledge as learning with students through
the act of teaching. It builds on the previous group of categories (Categories 4, 5 and
6) where the educational and developmental needs of middle years students
dominated content. In turn, it expands the understanding of content in the first group
of categories (Categories 1, 2 and 3), which is concerned with knowledge of content
residing in the teachers’ disciplinary knowledge and knowledge of content in the
curriculum, as mediated through teaching and life experience. Clearly delineated
Chapter 5: Categories of Description 273
from the other six categories, the teacher-student co-construction of content in
Category 7 is intrinsic to teacher identity and self-efficacy.
In the second dimension of variation, related to inquiry learning, teachers’
own knowledge of inquiry and disciplinary process in at least one of the social
sciences was revealed to be the foundation for both teachers’ practice of teaching
SOSE and students’ learning in SOSE. It is a teacher-student relational view of
inquiry learning, which differentiates it from inquiry learning in the other categories.
Inquiry learning in Category 7 builds on the student-teacher focus in the previous
group of categories (Categories 4, 5 and 6), where inquiry was taught in the context
of current affairs, facilitated the integration of discipline-based knowledge, and was
perceived to enhance students’ thinking skills. In turn, these views of inquiry
learning expanded the focus on teachers in the first group of categories (Categories
1, 2 and 3). Here, the attention was on skills, rather than content, mandated by
curriculum and facilitated by a knowledge of relevant teaching resources. Inquiry
learning, as the foundation of teaching and learning in SOSE, is a key feature of
SOSE teacher identity in Category 7.
In the third dimension of variation, related to teacher autonomy, teachers
defended their professional and personal strengths as SOSE teachers compared to
other teachers uneducated to teach in the area. Teacher autonomy as self-efficacy
was based on convictions based on professional competence and personal traits, such
as passion, active citizenship and creativity, which were perceived as intrinsic to
SOSE teacher identity. This perception of teacher autonomy builds on Category 6,
where teachers exercised autonomy to contextualise learning to students’ interest in
contemporary events and issues. It expands on teacher autonomy focused on students
in the previous group of categories (Categories 4, 5 and 6), where teacher autonomy
was expressed in pedagogical content knowledge that facilitated integration. In turn,
this manifestation of teacher autonomy expanded on the first group of categories
(Categories 1, 2 and 3), where teachers expressed their autonomy in relation to the
learning area by choosing to focus on skills rather than content and by exercising
discretion in interpreting curriculum and policy guidelines. Teacher autonomy as
self-efficacy builds on the previous categories and connects to the conceptualisation
of teacher as curriculum maker in this thesis.
274 Middle school social sciences: Exploring teachers’ conceptions of essential knowledge
Summary of dimensions of variation in Category 7
The dimensions of variation in Category 7 delineate the internal horizon of
the cognitive and affective aspects of teacher identity as knowledge for SOSE. The
structural elements of Category 7 are discerned in relation to the external horizon
that embraces knowledge of the learning area, knowledge of contexts and knowledge
of teacher as self, that is, the personal/professional domain of being a SOSE teacher.
The personal/professional domain alludes to the teachers’ sense of self in the school
community and broader society. Thus, the dimensions of variation in Category 7 are
themes of awareness that extend the different ways in which teachers experience the
foundation of essential knowledge for SOSE and knowledge of contexts revealed in
the previous six categories.
The summary in Table 5.1 (p. 160) indicates each dimension of variation in
Category 7 is discerned in the internal horizon in relation to the teacher and student.
This distinguishes Category 7 from the previous group (Categories 4, 5 and 6), which
had a student-teacher focus, and Categories 1, 2 and 3, which had a teacher focus.
The significance of the internal horizon in this phenomenographic analysis is that it
enables us to see the logical ordering of categories starting with the teacher, moving
to student-teacher focus and culminating in the teacher-student focus in the structure
of awareness.
Summary of Category 7
Teachers’ conceptions of knowledge for SOSE are revealed in the
intersection of personal and professional identities of SOSE teachers in Category 7.
In complete contrast to the previous categories, however, it is the only category that
focuses on perception of self as teacher as a source of knowledge for middle years
SOSE. Category 7 incorporates the conceptions of knowledge depicted in the
previous six categories but is qualitatively different from them because knowledge
for social education is intrinsically linked to a sense of self as a professional and
curriculum maker.
Chapter 5 summary
This chapter has reported on the data gathered from thirty-one middle school
SOSE teachers in the Brisbane area to investigate the phenomenon of conceptions of
Chapter 5: Categories of Description 275
essential knowledge for SOSE. Based on a phenomenographic analysis of the
interview data, the key findings of this chapter are revealed in seven categories of
description. This study found that the dimensions of variation of content, inquiry
learning and teacher autonomy represent themes of expanding awareness across the
seven categories of description. A range of experiences is revealed, illustrating SOSE
teachers to be independent, knowledgeable professionals who, while true to their
disciplinary roots, can ably interpret and accommodate the educational needs of their
middle years students. As such, knowledge for SOSE as teacher identity is intrinsic
to the conceptualisation of teacher as curriculum maker identified at the beginning of
this thesis.
Next, in Chapter 6, these findings are presented in an outcome space that
embraces the categories of description and the dimensions of variation. The results of
the phenomenography will be presented as a structure of awareness of the
phenomenon of essential knowledge for SOSE. The findings will be discussed in
relation to existing theories of teachers’ knowledge. The key findings of the
significance of teacher identity and a practice-based theorisation of teachers’
knowledge for integrated social education will be examined. Attention to teacher
identity in teacher education and in-service professional development has the
potential to widen teachers’ knowledge and capacity for classroom-based curriculum
leadership.
Chapter 6: Outcomes and Conclusions 277
Chapter 6: Outcomes and Conclusions
The categories of description are discussed in Chapter 6 in light of the theories
that frame this investigation of Queensland middle years teachers’ conceptions of
essential knowledge. The findings of the study contribute to a “middle years” theory
of teachers’ knowledge and to a practice-based theorisation of social education. First,
the key findings are discussed in terms of the outcome space. Next, the contribution
of the categories of description to teachers’ knowledge in the middle years and
theorisations of social education is explored. The variation in teachers’ conceptions
of essential knowledge for social education is analysed in reference to theory.
Further, the value of phenomenography to investigate conceptions of knowledge in a
contested curriculum area is considered and the limitations of the research are
discussed. Future research directions arising from the study are also considered.
Finally, the key contribution and wider significance of the study for middle years
teachers’ knowledge, middle years teacher-education and national education policy
is explored.
The outcome space
The relationship between the seven categories of description and the three
dimensions of variation identified in Chapter 5 (see Table 5.1) may be illustrated in
an outcome space (see Figure 6.1), which depicts the key findings of the study as a
hierarchy in the form of a pyramid. The categories of description constitute the
findings of the study. The relationship between the categories of description is
typically presented in phenomenography as an outcome space. To this end, the
grouping of categories in the outcome space in Figure 6.1 places each category of
description in relation to all others. The outcome space is a diagrammatic
representation of the variation in participants’ understanding of the phenomenon of
middle years teachers’ conceptions of essential knowledge for social education.
278 Middle school social sciences: Exploring teachers’ conceptions of essential knowledge
Figure 6.1. Outcome space of middle years SOSE teachers’ conceptions of essential knowledge.
The outcome space presents the seven categories of description ordered into
three levels of a pyramid. Each level is denoted by the external horizon for the
categories on that level and illustrates how the categories are organised in the
“structure or organisation of awareness” (Marton & Booth, 1997, p. 100). Thus
Categories 1, 2 and 3, which form the base of the pyramid, are focused on knowledge
of the learning area. The categories on the first level focus on core foundational
knowledge that resides with the teacher. In Categories 4, 5 and 6 on the second level,
this core knowledge broadens to incorporate teachers’ knowledge of their students
and the societal context of social education. In contrast with Categories 1, 2 and 3,
Categories 4, 5 and 6 are focused on the role of students and to a lesser degree on the
role of the teacher. The knowledge represented by each category on the second level
refers to and builds upon knowledge of the learning areas described in Categories 1,
2 and 3, as well as knowledge of contexts. Finally, in Category 7, at the apex of the
pyramid, conceptions identified in the previous six categories are synthesised with
Knowledge of the learning area
Knowledge of learning area and contexts
Knowledge of learning area,
contexts and self as teacher
DoV 3: Teacher autonomy
DoV 2: Inquiry learning
DoV 1: Content
(4) Middle Years
[Student & teacher]
(5) Integration of learning [Student & Teacher]
(6) Currency
of knowledge [Student & teacher]
(7) Teacher Identity
[Teacher & student]
(1) Discipline‐based
knowledge [Teacher]
(2) Curriculum knowledge [Teacher]
(3) Teaching and life experience
[Teacher]
Chapter 6: Outcomes and Conclusions 279
personal and professional knowledge as knowledge of self as teacher. Thus the
pyramid structure of the outcome space is a visual metaphor of the logical
relationship between the categories.
In order to discern something, one must experience variation (Pang, 2003).
Accordingly, the dimensions of variation discerned in the structure of awareness are
also presented in the outcome space. The three arrows that converge at the apex of
the pyramid remind us of the three dimensions of variation, which link the categories
of description while simultaneously differentiating the categories from one another in
the structure of awareness. The shape and stability of a triangular pyramid is a device
used to portray visually the relationship between the categories and the significance
of each category in the overall structure of awareness. The dimensions of variation
delineate the referential and structural detail for each category of description (see
Chapter 5) and build links between the categories.
While the knowledge described in the internal horizon of each category is
distinctive, representing what is focal in participants’ awareness, the external horizon
forms the context of the phenomenon (Cope, 2004; Marton & Booth, 1997). In this
study, the grouping of categories into the three levels of the outcome space makes
use of a common external horizon for each of category on that level. For example, on
level 1 of the outcome space, “Knowledge of the learning area” is the common
external horizon for Categories 1, 2 and 3. Harris (2011b) argues the need for clarity
in how the external horizon is applied to phenomenographic research. Accordingly,
in this study, what is peripheral to the participants’ awareness applies to more than
one category, thus providing a way of logically ordering them into three sets of
categories. Whereas in many phenomenographical studies, each category of
description is defined by its external horizon, in this study, external horizons are
defined for each set of categories. At the same time, each category is clearly
differentiated from the others by its internal horizon and the dimensions of variation.
The significance of the external horizon in logically ordering each set of categories is
now considered in further detail.
(1) Knowledge of the learning area
For Categories 1, 2 and 3, the external horizon comprises knowledge of the
learning area of SOSE. This refers to the integration of the social science disciplines
280 Middle school social sciences: Exploring teachers’ conceptions of essential knowledge
into one school subject, based on principles of inquiry learning. In Category 1
(Discipline-based knowledge), there is tension between facts, disciplinary knowledge
and skills, since the learning area favours integration. In Category 2 (Curriculum
knowledge), implementing knowledge of the SOSE curriculum, policies and other
teaching and learning frameworks is shaped by the integrated nature of SOSE. In
Category 3 (Experience), we see the teachers drawing on their own life experiences
and experiences of teaching SOSE as a way of mediating the integrated knowledge
base of SOSE. Discipline-based knowledge, curriculum knowledge and teachers’
experiences are the foundation of middle years teachers’ knowledge discerned in
relation to knowledge of the SOSE learning area. In Categories 1, 2 and 3, the focus
of awareness is on the teacher who has special understanding of the “what” (the
content) of social education.
(2) Knowledge of contexts
Categories 4, 5 and 6 are bound by knowledge of the learning area, as well as
by knowledge of contexts or the societal aspect in which SOSE education occurs.
Grossman (1995) considers knowledge of context as a domain of teacher knowledge:
Knowledge of context includes knowledge of the multiple and
embedded situations and settings within which teachers work, including
the school, district, or area, state or region. Knowledge of context also
includes teachers’ knowledge of their students and their families, as
well as the local community. It can also include knowledge of the
historical, philosophical, and cultural foundations of education within a
particular country. (Grossman, 1995, p. 20)
In Category 4 (Middle years learner), knowledge of contexts refers to the holistic
educational needs of middle years students. In Category 5 (Integration), the way to
deliver holistic education is to focus on the integration of concepts and inquiry-based
learning, rather than maintaining the boundaries of discipline-based knowledge.
Further, in Category 6 (Currency of knowledge), as SOSE is broadly about
knowledge of society, it is important to contextualise learning within current affairs
and social issues in local, national and global contexts. The knowledge embraced by
Categories 4, 5 and 6 emerges from the societal context for teaching and learning. In
other words, when teaching in the middle years, the family, school and community
Chapter 6: Outcomes and Conclusions 281
context in which that teaching and learning occurs must be taken into account.
Young adolescents, that is, students aged between 11 and 14, are still learning about
the world, even as they become more independent learners. The categories grouped
by knowledge of contexts build on knowledge of the learning area. In contrast to the
previous three categories, which focused on the teacher, Categories 4, 5 and 6 are
student-centred as teachers focus on “who" they teach.
(3) Knowledge of self as teacher
In Category 7 (Teacher identity), the external horizon builds on knowledge of
the learning area and knowledge of contexts of the previous categories to
acknowledge explicitly the intertwining of the personal and professional in
knowledge of self as teacher. The personal and professional domain refers to the
teacher’s perception of their role in the school, their view of their own teaching
practice, and their sense of self as an educator. It incorporates the personal and
professional identities of the teacher, which are defined by social science subject
knowledge and the role of middle school teacher. Teachers’ knowledge for SOSE is
intrinsically bound to this heightened sense of self because teacher identity is rooted
in knowledge of the nature of the learning area and knowledge of contexts. However,
as a teacher’s self-perception as an educator is continually redefined and
contextualised by his or her work with students, the focus of awareness in Category 7
is the relationship between teacher and student. As such, knowledge of self as
teacher refers to the emotional and personal dimension of teachers’ knowledge.
To summarise, the first three categories focus on knowledge of the learning
area, or what counts as knowledge of the learning area of SOSE. The second three
categories build on knowledge of the learning area and focus on knowledge of the
societal context in which middle years SOSE is taught. The last category focuses on
knowledge of self as teacher, building on the previous categories from a personal and
professional perspective. While the personal domain is associated with the emotional
aspects of middle years teachers’ work (Prosser, 2008b; Nias, 1996), in this study it
also alludes to the intellectual sense of self that informs knowledge for teaching.
I now explore the categories of description as a contribution to a “middle
years” theory of teachers’ knowledge of social education and a practice-based
theorisation of social education. The following section discusses the categories in
282 Middle school social sciences: Exploring teachers’ conceptions of essential knowledge
relation to theorisations of teachers’ knowledge (Bransford, Darling-Hammond & Le
Page, 2005; Clandinin & Connelly, 1987; Elbaz, 1983; Grossman, 1990; Shulman,
1986, 1987; Turner-Bissett, 2000) discussed in Chapter 3.
Towards a theory of teachers’ knowledge of social education
Category 1: Essential knowledge as discipline-based knowledge
Category 1 theorises social education based on the skills of the humanities and
social sciences rather than on content. Category 1 depicts discipline-based subject
knowledge as knowledge of content, procedures and skills related to the disciplines
that comprise SOSE. Factual knowledge is distinguished from content as disciplinary
knowledge. Focused on knowledge held by the teacher rather than the student,
Category 1 includes SOSE teachers’ intention to develop deeper, disciplinary
understandings of core content through the skills. As the basis of the “what” of
SOSE, Category 1 refers to technical knowledge interest (Habermas, 1971) or
propositional knowledge of the social science disciplines. The focus on facts and
procedures refers to knowledge processes of factual, conceptual and procedural
knowledge (Krathwohl, 2002). Significantly, content as a dimension of variation in
Category 1 (DoV1) refers to “facts” and “disciplinary knowledge”. This relates
closely to knowledge of content (Bransford, Darling-Hammond & Le Page, 2005;
Shulman, 1987). Turner-Bisset (2001) expanded Shulman’s (1986, 1987) view of
content knowledge to include substantive knowledge, syntactic knowledge and
beliefs about the subject. While awareness of substantive and syntactical knowledge
of the disciplines is revealed in Category 1, it was beyond the scope of this study to
examine teachers’ beliefs about disciplinary knowledge in SOSE.
However, in inquiry learning (DoV2) as the second dimension of variation and
teacher autonomy (DoV3) as the third dimension of variation, we see middle school
SOSE teachers privileging disciplinary skills over content. Such efforts emphasise
cognitive processes, such as apply, analyse and evaluate as described by Krathwohl
(2002), but signify a departure from notions of content knowledge (Shulman, 1987)
and subject matter knowledge (Grossman, 1990). The teachers elected to separate
discipline-based factual knowledge from disciplinary skills, and to emphasise skills
education over factual knowledge. Thus, even though Category 1 focuses on
Chapter 6: Outcomes and Conclusions 283
substantive and syntactic discipline-based knowledge, the emphasis is on the
processes of learning discipline-based skills that support learning in general, rather
than the “what”, or the propositional knowledge, of the social science disciplines.
The significance of Category 1 for an emerging theory of middle years
teachers’ knowledge is that discipline-based knowledge of the social sciences is
central. In this respect, it is congruent with other theories of teachers’ knowledge.
“Knowing” the propositional and syntactical basis of history, geography, economics,
civics and citizenship is critical. However, the skills derived from these disciplinary
structures are often weighted more heavily by teachers as social education is
concerned with integration rather than with discipline-based specialism.
Category 2: Essential knowledge as curriculum knowledge
Category 2 illustrates that knowledge of curriculum is key to theorising social
education. Category 2 focuses on teachers’ knowledge of SOSE curriculum and other
frameworks for teaching and learning required to enact the curriculum presented in
State and Commonwealth documents. The impact of curriculum change was a
constant feature of teachers’ discussions of curriculum knowledge. In Category 2,
content (DoV1) and inquiry learning (DoV2), as revealed by the teachers studied,
were defined and implemented based on curriculum and policy guidelines. Teacher
autonomy (DoV3) was a significant feature of Category 2, since the teachers knew
that the integrated nature of SOSE gave them some latitude. They perceived that they
had the autonomy to interpret curriculum guidelines and core content within the
broader scope of the integrated learning area. However, while Category 2 focused on
the discipline-based Queensland SOSE Essential Learnings (Queensland Studies
Authority, 2007b, 2007c), teachers also anticipated the impact of the national history
curriculum. They were aware that their professional freedom would be constrained
by a prescriptive, “knowledge-driven” (CT, p.2) curriculum, with less emphasis or
opportunity for integration and skills development compared with SOSE.
Like Category 1, knowledge of curriculum in Category 2 is concerned with
technical knowledge interest (Habermas, 1971), as it focuses on the rules and
procedures for enacting the required curriculum. It refers directly to knowledge of
curriculum (Shulman, 1987), and knowledge of subject matter and curriculum goals
(Bransford, Darling-Hammond & Le Page, 2005). These requirements clearly form
284 Middle school social sciences: Exploring teachers’ conceptions of essential knowledge
the basis of teaching. Teacher autonomy (DoV3) to interpret SOSE curriculum
objectives builds on teacher autonomy in Category 1, where teachers chose to
emphasise skills over content.
The significance of Category 2 for a theory of middle years teachers’
knowledge is that curriculum knowledge is foundational, confirming the importance
given to curriculum by Shulman (1987), to curriculum development by Elbaz (1983),
and to curriculum goals by Bransford, Darling-Hammond and Le Page (2005).
Similarly, knowledge of curriculum is critical to theorising social education, as the
published curriculum is the “manifesto” for what teachers are expected to know and
do.
Category 3: Essential knowledge as teaching and life experience
Category 3 acknowledges teaching and life experience as a foundation for a
theory of social education. It embraces a variety of individual and collaborative
experiences of teaching SOSE and teachers’ own life experience as knowledge for
SOSE.
Relating to Habermas’ (1971) technical and interpretive/communicative
knowledge interests, the focus is on the technical and practical aspects of teaching,
such as the access to and use of resources and ICT, and teachers’ life experience that
informs knowledge for SOSE. In some instances, there was tension between SOSE
teachers and SOSE leaders, represented by heads of department, who interpreted
curriculum intent in different ways, but in the main, knowledge for SOSE in this
Category was linked closely with teachers’ classroom and life experiences. Teachers’
revelations of their experiences of teaching SOSE gave a special insight into how to
teach the curriculum; further, teachers’ personal life experiences, such as parenting,
travel and experiences such as migration and apartheid, mediated how they saw the
issues or content to be taught. Teaching and life experience as knowledge for
teaching refers to teachers’ practical and personal knowledge. Such knowledge
demonstrates self-awareness (showing knowledge of self) and knowledge of
instruction (Elbaz, 1983), and is implied in Shulman’s (1987) categories of
pedagogical content knowledge and knowledge of educational goals, values and
philosophies.
Chapter 6: Outcomes and Conclusions 285
However, in contrast with Shulman’s (1987) categories, Category 3 indicates
that essential knowledge as teaching and life experience bridges professional and
personal experiences as a source of knowledge for teaching. Thus, content as a
dimension of variation for SOSE (DoV1) was mediated through the teacher’s own
teaching and life experience, and inquiry learning as a dimension of variation
(DoV2) was facilitated by the teacher’s knowledge of teaching resources.
Significantly, teachers exercised autonomy (DoV3) to draw on their teaching and life
experience as knowledge for teaching. As with Category 7 (Teacher identity), the
focus on teachers’ personal knowledge and experiences relates to theorisations of
teachers’ knowledge similar to that described by Clandinin and Connelly (1987) as
personal practical knowledge.
The significance of Category 3 for a “middle years” theory of teachers’
knowledge is that it values teaching experience and life experience, in contrast to
Category 7 (Teacher identity), where knowledge for teaching is invested in teachers’
personal and professional identity. Category 3 refers to the subjective experiences of
living and teaching as knowledge of self. In contrast, Category 7 is evidence-based,
referring to the use of research or action-based research rooted in reflective practice
as the basis for teaching (Dinham & Rowe, 2007; Hempenstall, 2006).
Category 4: Essential knowledge of middle years students and learning
Category 4 reveals that teachers’ knowledge of middle years learners is
important for a theory of social education. The focus on students is evident in the
emphasis on middle years philosophy, age appropriate content and life-long learning.
Category 4 demonstrates that essential knowledge for SOSE refers to students’
developmental needs and education of the whole person: “…it’s a lot more holistic.
It’s not so much about the individual subject matter” (KR, p. 9), illustrating a clear
shift from educating students about SOSE topics in previous categories to educating
them as “people”.
The emphasis on a student-centred middle school philosophy resonates with
the notion of “psychologised” school subjects (Dewey, 1897/1972, 1902), which is
concerned with students’ experience of the discipline, for example, what geography
means to the child rather than how to teach the child geography. Further, the
interdependence of the disciplines (Dewey, 1916/1944) implicit in holistic education
286 Middle school social sciences: Exploring teachers’ conceptions of essential knowledge
indicates a Deweyan approach to middle school education (refer to Chapter 2 for a
detailed discussion of Dewey’s (1897) views on discipline-based teaching). As
argued in Chapter 3, SOSE bears a different but related dialectical (Stengel, 1997)
connection with the social science disciplines, demonstrated by the significance of
both disciplinary knowledge and the students’ own values and experience. Having a
middle school philosophy of teaching acknowledges this understanding of a
“psychologised” school subject. It is also implicit in Shulman’s (1987) knowledge of
educational goals, values and philosophies, and manifests Beane’s (1997) student-
centred, integrative model for middle school curriculum integration.
Category 4 indicates the significance of a middle school philosophy in
implementing a social education curriculum. Content (DoV1), as the first dimension
of variation, was conceptualised as holistic knowledge rather than the discipline-
based factual or content knowledge evident in Category 1. The use of inquiry skills
(DoV2) as the second dimension of variation was a way to increase and deepen
students’ engagement with SOSE topics, revealing interpretive and emancipatory
knowledge interests (Habermas, 1971) to make a difference in society by learning
about social problems. As the third dimension of variation, teacher autonomy
(DoV3) is illustrated in pedagogical content knowledge (Shulman, 1987), as teachers
developed strategies to teach SOSE that acknowledged the middle years context. The
dimensions of variation in Category 4 are clearly cognisant of a middle school
approach (Pendergast, 2005; Prosser, 2008a). Each dimension of variation builds on
the previous categories to focus on integration of knowledge across different subject
fields. In this way, knowledge is more accessible and meaningful to middle years
students, helping them understand themselves, better understand their world, and
learn ways to “make a difference” (Beane, 1997; Habermas, 1971).
The significance of Category 4 for a “middle years” theory of teachers’
knowledge is that it prioritises knowledge of the middle years learner (Shulman,
1987; Bransford, Darling-Hammond & Le Page, 2005), knowledge of social contexts
(Grossman, 1990) and student-centred philosophy of education (Dewey, 1897/1972,
1902; Beane, 1997). Knowledge of middle years students resonates with Dewey
(1897/1972) who argued that teaching the disciplines must first take note of the
learner’s experience of the discipline. Thus Category 4 theorises social education in
relation to the child rather than the social science disciplines.
Chapter 6: Outcomes and Conclusions 287
Category 5: Essential knowledge of integration
Category 5 captures the significance of integrated learning for a theory of
social education. Category 5 focuses on SOSE teachers’ knowledge for teaching
broad themes and concepts such as “democracy” and “citizenship”, and personal
development concepts such as “trust”. The cognitive and affective aspects of
integrated learning build on holistic knowledge (Category 4). Inquiry learning skills,
such as research, analysis, communication and reflection, are perceived to be generic
to the social science disciplines and are used to integrate learning, illustrating (as in
Category 1) that SOSE is underpinned by a discourse that privileges integration
rather than discipline-specific specialisation. However, while Category 1 (Discipline-
based knowledge) illustrated the tension between facts, disciplinary knowledge and
skills, in Category 5 the focus is on integration to achieve holistic education.
Category 5 emphasises students’ cognitive and affective development.
Cognitive development refers to developing students’ thinking skills, while affective
development refers to enhancing their social and emotional capacity. Category 5
depicts how teachers conceptualise integrated units and teach concepts using the
general principles of inquiry. In this way, teachers integrate the cognitive and
affective elements of the curriculum for their students’ benefit. In Category 5,
teachers focus on students, perceiving the cognitive and affective elements of social
education as separate; in contrast, in Category 7 (Teacher identity), they are
perceived as closely allied aspects of knowledge, bound to the identity of the SOSE
teacher.
In terms of teacher knowledge, as with Category 4 (Middle years learner), the
emphasis on integration in Category 5 demonstrates fidelity to a student-centred,
middle school philosophy (Beane, 1997) and knowledge of learners and their social
contexts (Bransford, Darling-Hammond & Le Page, 2005; Shulman, 1987).
Reference to the SOSE “processes” of learning reveals the interpretive knowledge
interest (Habermas, 1971) and teachers’ efforts to develop Krathwohl’s (2002)
procedural and metacognitive knowledge processes and cognitive processes, such as
apply, analyse and evaluate.
What is most interesting about Category 5, however, is how teachers’
knowledge of integration enables them to seamlessly integrate discipline-based
288 Middle school social sciences: Exploring teachers’ conceptions of essential knowledge
concepts, such as “democracy”, with civics and citizenship concepts, such as “rights
and responsibilities”, that have a civic, as well as a personal, meaning. The ability to
merge cognitive and affective aspects for the benefit of students demonstrates an
ability to psychologise the curriculum (Dewey, 1897/1972, 1902) and deliver a
student-centred, middle school curriculum (Beane, 1997). The teacher autonomy
dimension of variation (DoV3) reveals increasingly enhanced integration through
pedagogical content knowledge (Shulman, 1987). Category 5 is unambiguously
defined as “practical knowledge” derived from knowledge of subject matter and
instruction (Elbaz, 1983). This practical knowledge refers to techniques and
strategies that integrate “big ideas” and concepts within the curricular scope of
SOSE.
The significance of Category 5 for a “middle years” theory of teachers’
knowledge is that teachers need to know how to integrate for cognitive and affective
development. It alludes to the “wisdom of practice” (Shulman, 1987) that emerges in
teaching an integrated curriculum, where pedagogical content knowledge
amalgamates with the learners’ knowledge. However, Category 5 departs from the
views of Shulman and associates (Grossman, 1990; Shulman, 1986, 1987; Wilson et
al., 1987), who prefer to distinguish between pedagogical content knowledge and
knowledge of learners. In contrast to previous studies of teachers’ knowledge
(Bradbeer et al., 2004; Ohn & Wade, 2009; Rynne & Lambert, 1997; Wilson, 1992;
Wilson & Wineburg, 1988; Wilson et al., 1987; Wineburg & Wilson, 1991a, 1991b;
Yilmaz, 2008), which identified the importance of understanding features of the
social science disciplines as knowledge for teaching, this study has highlighted the
significance of integration as knowledge for social education. As SOSE is, by
definition, an integrated curriculum, knowledge of integration is critical to theorising
social education.
Category 6: Essential knowledge as currency of knowledge
Category 6 refers to SOSE teachers’ knowledge of current affairs and social
issues in theorising social education. The perception of being up-to-date with SOSE
topics promotes the value of SOSE as fostering active citizenship. Knowledge of
current events and issues broadens students’ understanding of the world and
increases their enthusiasm to learn about social issues and topical areas of study,
Chapter 6: Outcomes and Conclusions 289
generating a disposition for active citizenship and life-long education. Currency of
knowledge contributes to holistic educational goals (Category 4) and increases the
real-world value of SOSE and its status as a school subject.
Although this category alludes to knowledge of contexts and wider community
(Shulman, 1987; Grossman, 1990, 1995), it refers specifically to the wider social
context of knowledge of current affairs and issues through an awareness of mass
communication media. Regular reference to the media and reports of contemporary
events and issues contribute a new source of knowledge for social education. As
such, Category 6 redefines what is meant by knowledge of context, as originally
defined by Shulman and others, to the broader, worldly context of social science
education. Currency of knowledge refers to links between the “what” of SOSE
(Category 1) and the wider social context, showing close links to subject matter
knowledge (Elbaz, 1983; Grossman, 1990; Bransford, Darling-Hammond & Le Page,
2005) and content knowledge (Shulman, 1987).
However, as the three dimensions of variation reveal, the purpose of engaging
with current affairs and social issues was to contextualise SOSE learning to students’
interests and encourage them to “make a difference” by engaging in active
citizenship. Thus, from a pedagogical perspective, Category 6 also addresses the
“how” of SOSE, and is a compelling expression of emancipatory knowledge interest
(Habermas, 1971). The significance of Category 6 for a “middle years” theory of
teachers’ knowledge is that teachers extend pedagogical content knowledge
(Shulman, 1987) to contextualise discipline-based content to a worldly context.
Moreover, it theorises social education as a student-centred curriculum that harnesses
knowledge of social issues to other sources of subject knowledge, to enhance active
citizenship.
Category 7: Essential knowledge as teacher identity
Category 7 describes teacher identity, comprising personal and professional
identities, as essential knowledge for teaching social education. Watson (2006)
argues that, while the traditional notion of identity in teaching is something that is
stable and fixed, an alternative view is that identity has meaning within relationships
and as such may be perceived as relational rather than fixed. She argues that
teachers’ professional identity is defined by professional action and may be
290 Middle school social sciences: Exploring teachers’ conceptions of essential knowledge
conceived as “an ongoing process of identification” (Watson, 2006, p. 510). This
appears to be the case with middle years SOSE teachers, who are aware of their own
education, professional training and teaching practice as knowledge for SOSE. In
Category 7, the teacher identifies with the curriculum and considers self as a source
of knowledge, further supporting the notion of teacher as curriculum maker
(Clandinin & Connelly, 1992; Craig & Ross, 2008). While Category 3 explored the
role of teaching and life experience as personal knowledge for SOSE, Category 7 is
evidence-based, emphasising personal and professional knowledge. This is most
evident in teacher autonomy (DoV3), revealed as self-efficacy and confidence in the
teacher’s role and knowledge for teaching. Unlike the other categories, knowledge
embedded in teacher identity is perceived in relation to teaching students, as revealed
in the following discussion of content (DoV1) and inquiry learning (DoV2).
In Category 7, “content” as a dimension of variation is perceived as being co-
constructed with students, distinguishing Category 7 from all others. Confident in
their own knowledge, teachers are able to give students more freedom to construct
knowledge. The co-construction of knowledge with students is facilitated by inquiry
learning (DoV2), where teachers and students inquire together into topics of study.
In contrast to the previous categories, content (DoV1) and inquiry learning (DoV2),
as dimensions of variation in Category 7, define the middle school ideal of a
democratic relationship between teacher and student (Beane, 1997). Thus, this study
reveals that middle school social education teachers are curriculum makers in their
own right. In the absence of other research in this area of middle years teachers’
knowledge, this finding makes an original contribution to the literature.
In part, this view of teacher identity resonates with earlier theorisations of
teachers’ knowledge. Some features of teacher identity were described by Elbaz
(1983) as knowledge of self. However, what does knowledge of self as a teacher
really mean? Knowledge of self is not widely considered as a distinct area of
teachers’ knowledge. For example, according to Turner-Bissett (1999), Shulman
(1986, 1987), did not refer to knowledge of self as an area of teachers’ knowledge.
While it is generally held that pedagogical content knowledge (PCK) refers to
elements of teachers’ special knowledge to teach subject knowledge, knowledge of
self as a teacher is different from PCK because it embraces awareness of the
resources of oneself as a teacher as knowledge for teaching. According to Elbaz
Chapter 6: Outcomes and Conclusions 291
(1983), knowledge of self considers how the “teacher’s personal values and purposes
relate to and inform her practical knowledge” (Elbaz, 1983, p. 46). Elbaz (1983)
describes three aspects of knowledge of self: (1) self as resource, in terms of skills
and abilities, (2) self in relation to others, in terms of knowledge of relationships
with others, and (3) self as an individual with unique talents, limitations and abilities
that contribute to teaching.
While Category 7 supports elements of Elbaz’s (1983) knowledge of self,
teacher identity as revealed here is much more. It is an informed, evidence-based
perspective rooted in teachers’ awareness of their own professional practice. It
embraces knowledge of SOSE content, pedagogy and personal values that bridge the
personal and professional domains. Moreover, whilst knowledge of self is a resource
for teaching (Elbaz, 1983), an informed, evidence-based perspective is evident when
teachers enact personal values as part of their job of teaching SOSE: “I mean, we’ve
got to be the people we want our kids to be….” (JA, p. 7). Category 7 extends
Elbaz’s (1983) view of knowledge of self to include the “what” and “how” of SOSE
education with the emotional/personal aspects of teachers’ knowledge.
Category 7 also offers empirical support for Clandinin and Connelly’s (1987)
theorisation of teachers’ knowledge as personal practical knowledge from a middle
years perspective. It is personal knowledge of the self, intertwined with practical
knowledge, embraced by knowledge of subject, pedagogy, curriculum and students
(Connelly & Clandinin, 1999, Clandinin & Connelly, 1987). Furthermore, in
complete contrast to the previous categories of description, this is the only category
that focuses on perception of self and self-efficacy as knowledge for teaching, as
revealed in teacher autonomy (DoV3). This conception reveals that self-efficacy is
critical to the conceptualisation of teacher as curriculum maker.
These findings indicate that previous theorisations of teachers’ knowledge
have not adequately considered the close relationship between the personal or
emotional aspects of teaching and the professional knowledge that is embedded in
teacher identity. Turner-Bissett (1999) notes that teachers are people before they
become teachers; she argues that, as the profession demands heavy investment of the
self, particularly in terms of evaluation and reflection, knowledge of self should be
added to the knowledge base of teaching. However, the current research shows that
292 Middle school social sciences: Exploring teachers’ conceptions of essential knowledge
having knowledge of self and teacher identity are more than being self-reflective.
Teacher identity is underpinned by content (DoV1) and inquiry learning (DoV2),
illustrating that middle school SOSE teachers consider self as a resource for
teaching. The study extends previous thinking on knowledge as self (Elbaz, 1983;
Turner-Bissett, 1999) because teachers refer to evidence from their own professional
action, invested in their teacher identity, as knowledge for teaching. Moreover, this
finding is consistent with constitutionalism based on non-dualistic assumptions of
phenomenography (Marton & Neumann, 1989). In other words, essential knowledge
for social education intrinsic to teacher identity denotes the internal, relational
understanding of knowledge constituted by the teacher and the experience of
teaching social education.
Significance of co-construction of knowledge by teachers and students
The non-dualistic basis of phenomenography which underlies a
constitutionalist approach to knowledge (Marton & Neuman, 1989) offers insights
into co-construction of knowledge by teachers and students in Category 7. As
discussed, Category 7 draws on evidence-based knowledge of oneself as a teacher,
derived from the relational experience of teaching social education to middle years
students. The focus on relationality illustrates a constitutionalist didactic knowledge
interest where teachers and students co-construct knowledge, differentiating
Category 7 from all others.
Further, teaching experience provides teachers with evidence-based knowledge
that builds professional identity. Evidence-based practice refers to the use of research
or action-based research rooted in reflective practice as the basis for teaching
(Dinham & Rowe, 2007; Hempenstall, 2006). The role of teaching experience as
essential knowledge was discussed in Category 3 as personal knowledge, which
provided a foundation for social education. However, Category 3 is qualitatively
different from with Category 7, where evidence-based teaching experience builds
professional identity as a social education teacher. Here teachers refer to knowledge
invested in their identity as a teacher as evidence of their knowledge.
Category 7 is the only category of knowledge to emerge that shows an
informed, evidence-based perspective. The reason for this is not immediately
evident. It could be that middle school teachers identify as themselves “generalist
Chapter 6: Outcomes and Conclusions 293
teachers” rather than “subject teachers” with distinctive, subject specialist
knowledge. However, teacher identity is evidence of knowledge based on
professional action. Clearly, the co-construction of content (DoV1) by teachers and
students in Category 7 is facilitated by inquiry learning (DoV2), which encourages
students to be actively involved in the learning process.
Attention to critical inquiry approaches (DoV2) means that teachers recognise
that social education subject knowledge is tentative and subject to change,
illustrating a sophisticated understanding of the role of knowledge in teaching and
learning. Constructivist teaching approaches, such as discovery learning and inquiry-
based learning, have attracted criticism for being too focused on learning by doing,
rather than on learning through cognitive activity based on selecting, organising and
interpreting knowledge (Mayer, 2004). However, in Category 7, we see teachers
using inquiry learning to further deep learning, and experiencing the uncertainty
implicit in knowledge creation with their students. The evidence cited in Category 7
suggests that students are taught through a variety of approaches, including direct
instruction and inquiry learning. Knowledge invested in teacher identity reveals that
teachers have a good understanding of the potential of inquiry learning for co-
constructing knowledge for social education.
The categories of description described in the foregoing section comprise the
key findings of the research, contributing to a theory of teachers’ knowledge.
Analysis of the dimensions of variation will further elucidate the findings by
highlighting what is in focus within each category.
Dimensions of variation (DoV)
The dimensions of variation in middle school teachers’ conceptions of essential
knowledge for SOSE education are: (1) the role of content; (2) inquiry learning; and
(3) teacher autonomy. The features of each dimension of variation within the
categories and links to other categories were discussed in detail in each of the
categories in Chapter 5 and summarised in Table 5.1.
The focus on content (DoV1) and inquiry learning (DoV2) as features of
teachers’ knowledge is unsurprising. They broadly refer to the what (subject
knowledge) and the how (pedagogical content knowledge; general pedagogical
knowledge). In contrast, the emergence of teacher autonomy (DoV3) in the
294 Middle school social sciences: Exploring teachers’ conceptions of essential knowledge
categories of essential knowledge for teaching was quite unexpected. The role of
teacher autonomy as a variation in the phenomenon of essential knowledge is
connected to the personal and professional features of teachers’ practice. Teacher
autonomy extends the source of teachers’ knowledge to teachers’ identity and sense
of self, expressed as professional independence. Furthermore, it points to the
conceptualisation of teacher as curriculum maker in this study (Clandinin &
Connelly, 1992; Craig & Ross, 2008). In other words, the self is a resource for
teachers’ knowledge (Elbaz, 1983). Before analysing the dimensions of variation, the
theorisation of teacher autonomy that emerged in the categories is explored.
What is teacher autonomy?
Teacher autonomy may broadly be seen as a professional attribute that links to
the personal practical knowledge (Clandinin & Connelly, 1987) of teachers who
know themselves, their students, the subject matter and the context for teaching. The
view of teacher autonomy that emerges in this study parallels Goodson and
Hargreaves’ (1996) notion of teacher professionalism. Over 15 years ago, Goodson
and Hargreaves (1996) asserted that thinking on teacher professionalism privileged
knowledge and cognition over the importance of care of one’s students, yet “care as
well as cognition should be at the heart of the teaching profession and for many
teachers [it] is so” (Goodson & Hargreaves, 1996, p. 9). Their model of
professionalism recognised the emotional and cognitive aspects of teaching through
which teachers exercise “discretionary judgement” over issues of teaching,
curriculum and care (Goodson & Hargreaves, 1996, pp. 19-21). The view that
teachers can, and do, exercise judgement in terms of what they should teach, how
they can interpret curriculum or how to best care for their students remains quite
compelling at a time when teachers must conform to national and State-based
standards for teaching (AITSL, 2011). This kind of professional independence is
rooted in sound knowledge for teaching, arguing a level of self confidence and belief
in teachers’ professional capacity. Goodson and Hargreaves (1996) argue that such
convictions and the capacity to exercise independent judgement point to a model of
teacher professionalism that incorporates the cognitive and emotional domains of
teachers’ work. This view of teacher professionalisation contrasts with Shulman’s
(1987) work on professionalisation, which emphasised “wisdom of practice” based
on knowledge for teaching.
Chapter 6: Outcomes and Conclusions 295
In the current research, “discretionary judgement” is captured by
manifestations of teacher autonomy (DoV3) in relation to the categories of essential
knowledge for teaching. However, compared to content (DoV1) and inquiry learning
(DoV2), which directly relate to the conduct of teaching practice, teacher autonomy
(DoV3) pertains to teachers’ professional discretion over how and what they teach. It
is an unpredictable element of teachers’ knowledge, for teachers exercise their
professional autonomy according to the context or situation in which they find
themselves.
The three dimensions of variation appear as a variation on the same theme. The
participants’ increasing awareness of the theme is revealed in each category
(Åkerlind, 2005b). The following section discusses the dimensions of variation as
themes of expanding awareness (Åkerlind, 2005b) in relation to theorisations of
teachers’ knowledge (Clandinin & Connelly, 1987; Bransford, Darling-Hammond &
Le Page, 2005; Elbaz, 1983; Grossman, 1990; Shulman, 1986, 1987).
Dimensions of variation in Categories 1, 2 and 3
In the first level of the pyramid, content (DoV1) as a dimension of variation in
Category 1 (Discipline-based knowledge) is experienced as factual knowledge and
discipline-based knowledge in relation to knowledge of the learning area. It relates to
the what of teachers’ knowledge, described as content knowledge (Bransford,
Darling-Hammond & Le Page, 2005; Elbaz, 1983; Grossman, 1990; Shulman, 1987).
Content is expanded in Category 2 (Curriculum knowledge) to include content as
defined through curriculum and policy documents or curriculum knowledge
(Bransford, Darling-Hammond & Le Page, 2005; Shulman, 1987). However, the
curriculum described in these documents has to be translated into classroom practice;
so, in Category 3 (Experience), we see content mediated through the personal
teaching and life experiences of the teacher, which draws to some extent on teachers’
professional understanding through general pedagogical knowledge (Grossman,
1990) and reference to the personal elements of teaching practice described by
Clandinin and Connelly (1987).
While content (DoV1) dominates the categories of description, inquiry
learning (DoV2) is similarly important, manifesting the recurring theme of the
importance of skills education in knowledge for integrated social education. Inquiry
296 Middle school social sciences: Exploring teachers’ conceptions of essential knowledge
learning (DoV2) is intertwined with content (DoV1) because it describes the skills
knowledge base or the how of social education, which is intrinsic to learning the
content. In Category 1 (Discipline-based knowledge), we see teachers choosing to
emphasise the skills of social education rather than the content. In this decision,
teachers were supported by their knowledge of the curriculum (Category 2), which
advocated paying attention to the process of inquiry learning to encourage deep
learning. The emphasis on process is further identified in Category 3 (Experience).
Teachers’ knowledge of teaching materials and resources relates to pedagogical
content knowledge and curriculum knowledge through their awareness of knowledge
of their “tools of the trade” (Shulman, 1987, p. 8).
Teacher autonomy (DoV3) is revealed in relation to discipline-based
knowledge (Category 1) when teachers appear to prioritise skills education over
teaching content. The choice to privilege skills rather than content is an example of
teachers exercising autonomy in unpredictable ways, for it would have been expected
that in teaching subject matter, content would be deemed more important than skills.
Yet teachers perceive skills as intrinsic to subject knowledge in social education. As
such, they exercise professional judgement to focus on developing skills of research
and analysis, the use of different forms of evidence, and reaching justifiable
conclusions. In Curriculum knowledge (Category 2), teachers exercise their
perceived professional independence to interpret the guidelines and core content
presented in the published curriculum. While neither Category 1 nor Category 2
refers to teachers’ knowledge of self (Elbaz, 1983; Clandinin & Connelly, 1987), in
Category 3 (Experience), teachers mine their own teaching and life experience as
knowledge for social education to expand teacher autonomy as a dimension of
variation from Categories 1 and 2.
Summary of variation in Categories 1,2 and 3
The three dimensions of variation in Categories 1, 2 and 3 were discerned in
relation to a common external horizon of “knowledge of the learning area”,
establishing each dimension of variation as a foundation of teachers’ knowledge. The
grouping of Categories 1, 2 and 3, and the unique expression of the dimensions of
variation in relation to knowledge of the learning area, is focused on the teacher. The
subsequent manifestations of variation widen with each category to build a more
Chapter 6: Outcomes and Conclusions 297
complete picture of teachers’ knowledge. The expansion of the dimensions of
variation in Categories 4, 5 and 6 is focused on the learning and educational needs of
the middle years student and, to a lesser extent, on the teacher. In addition to the
external horizon of “knowledge of the learning area”, the dimensions of variation in
the second group of categories are also discerned in relation to the external horizon
of “knowledge of contexts”. The following section explores expressions of the
dimensions of variation in Category 4 (Middle years learner), Category 5
(Integration) and Category 6 (Currency of knowledge).
Dimensions of variation in Categories 4, 5 and 6
In Category 4 (Middle years learners) on the second level of the pyramid,
understanding content (DoV1) for holistic knowledge emerges as being more
important than content for its own sake. In middle years learning, holistic knowledge
refers to learning that responds to the developmental needs of middle years students
and draws on integrated rather than discipline-based curriculum (Carrington, 2006;
Pendergast, 2005). This view is further developed in Category 5 (Integration), where
content is perceived as the integration of discipline-based concepts and personal
concepts, and then is contextualised within students’ interests in the wider world in
Category 6 (Currency of knowledge). In terms of theorisations of teachers’
knowledge, content (DoV1) is seen as subject knowledge that is relevant to the
middle years student, defined in relation to their educational needs and interests. This
view of content closely relates to Bransford, Darling-Hammond and Le Page’s
(2005) knowledge of learners and their development in social contexts. Moreover, it
reminds us of Dewey’s (1902) psychological view of the curriculum in The Child
and the Curriculum that subject matter should be understood in relation to the
student, rather than merely for its own sake.
However, the portrayal of content (DoV1) in Categories 4, 5 and 6 differs from
the view held by Shulman and colleagues, where expert knowledge of subject matter
is transformed for the benefit of students during teaching (Shulman, 1987; Shulman
& Quinlan, 1996; Wilson et al., 1987). In Categories 4, 5 and 6, middle years social
education teachers recognise the significance of transforming content (DoV1) to
meet students’ educational and personal development, and attach far less importance
to conveying an expert understanding of content. By focusing on personal
298 Middle school social sciences: Exploring teachers’ conceptions of essential knowledge
development rather than content, middle years students are learning about what
interests them. However, they may be poorly prepared for further study in the
humanities and social sciences in the senior school and beyond.
This begs the question of whether subject knowledge is the best avenue to
achieve deep learning in middle school social education. Inquiry learning (DoV2)
as a dimension of variation in Categories 4, 5 and 6 suggests that teachers see inquiry
learning as a compelling means by which to engage students with the social sciences.
In Category 4 (Middle years learner), inquiry learning builds on the skills foundation
established in the first level of the pyramid by enhancing thinking skills. The SOSE
inquiry “processes” of investigate, create, participate, communicate and reflect,
facilitate integration in Category 5 (Integration). Moreover, inquiry learning
increases students’ engagement with SOSE topics (Category 5), and wider interests
in Category 6 (Currency of knowledge). Here we see an expansion of the role of
skills in social education in response to “knowledge of the contexts” (external
horizon) of Categories 4, 5 and 6. Teachers see inquiry learning as a way of
increasing engagement, developing students’ thinking skills and teaching generic
social science skills.
This approach remains true to the ideals of middle school curriculum and may
develop general academic and cognitive skills. However, in this conceptualisation of
inquiry learning, it is hard to detect any real attention to the way historians use
primary and secondary evidence, or geographers or sociologists conduct field
studies. As in previous categories, the skills of inquiry learning continue to be
privileged over subject knowledge; however, teaching discipline-specific skills is an
oddity rather than the norm because of its focus on addressing middle years students’
educational and developmental needs.
There can be little doubt that the manifestation of inquiry learning (DoV2) in
Categories 4, 5 and 6 subscribes to the student-centred view of teaching promoted by
Bransford, Darling-Hammond and Le Page (2005) and Connelly and Clandinin
(1999), which gives equal consideration to the needs of students, subject and
curriculum knowledge. Inquiry learning in Categories 4, 5 and 6 is responsive to
learners’ knowledge and characteristics (Shulman, 1987) and the milieu or context of
teaching (Connelly & Clandinin, 1999; Elbaz, 1983). Inquiry learning is underpinned
Chapter 6: Outcomes and Conclusions 299
by a contemporary, democratic view of teacher knowledge that acknowledges the
role of the student in the educational process. The view of teacher knowledge
implicit in inquiry learning is quite different to earlier scholarship on teachers’
knowledge, which centred on making key facts and concepts of the discipline
explicit to the learner (Grossman, 1990; Grossman et al., 1989; Gudmundsdorttir,
1991; Shulman & Sherin, 2004; Shulman, 1987; Shulman & Shulman, 2004; Wilson
& Wineburg, 1988; Wilson et al., 1987; Wineburg & Wilson, 1991a, 1991b).
The significance attached to tailoring knowledge to meet middle school
students’ needs evident in Category 4, 5 and 6 is further substantiated in teacher
autonomy (DoV3). Here, teacher autonomy relates to choosing topics for study
which relates to knowledge of teaching (Bransford, Darling-Hammond & Le Page,
2005). It also refers to the freedom to develop pedagogical content knowledge and
knowledge for educational purposes (Shulman, 1987). In Category 4 (Middle years
learner), teacher autonomy is practical, focused on developing pedagogy for SOSE-
related topics. Teacher autonomy is seen in the diversity of techniques that different
teachers choose to teach the same concept or skill. For example, teachers could
choose to teach mapping in a theoretical way through pictures and reference to
atlases, or in a practical way outdoors by viewing, measuring or sketching the
physical environment. Similarly, in Category 5 (Integration), teachers use their
pedagogical content knowledge of SOSE topics to promote integration of broad
concepts and skills across subject boundaries. Teacher autonomy in Category 6
(Currency of knowledge) expands to contextualise the learning in such a way as to
inspire students to become active citizens and “make a difference” in society.
As with content (DoV1) and inquiry learning (DoV2), teacher autonomy
(DoV3) in Categories 4, 5 and 6 is related to the external horizon of knowledge of
the learning area and knowledge of context. In particular, Category 6 (Currency of
knowledge) reveals a significant expansion of teachers’ capacity for professional
judgement (Goodson & Hargreaves, 1996), as knowledge of educational ends and
purpose (Shulman, 1987) is manifested through encouraging students to be better
informed about current affairs so that they can take action on social issues. Such
aims contextualise social education in broader social and environmental concerns;
however, there is a real danger that this may limit teaching to current, controversial
social and environmental issues, at the expense of significant discipline-based topics.
300 Middle school social sciences: Exploring teachers’ conceptions of essential knowledge
While a national history and geography curriculum is likely to curtail teachers’
discretion in this area, conversely, this may mean that students are less engaged or
interested in the social sciences.
Summary of variation in Categories 4, 5 & 6
So what does this analysis of the dimensions of variation contribute to
teachers’ conceptions of essential knowledge for social education? The second group
of categories expands our understanding of the variation in the phenomenon because
the categories were discerned in relation to “knowledge of contexts” as well as
“knowledge of the learning area”. Compared with the first group of categories,
attention moved to the student (and, to a lesser extent, the teacher); this resulted in a
student-centred view of knowledge for teaching, rather than a subject-centred view
of knowledge for teaching. In the final category (Category 7: Teacher identity), the
focus reverts to the teacher (and, to a lesser extent, the student), with each dimension
of variation being discerned in relation to knowledge of self as teacher. Category 7
harnesses knowledge of the learning area and knowledge of contexts to knowledge of
self, revealing the significance of the personal domain in essential knowledge for
teaching social education.
Dimensions of variation in Category 7
In Category 7 (Teacher identity), knowledge for teaching is identified as
teacher identity, uniting the personal and the professional. This category on the third
level of the pyramid represents a sophisticated and complex framing of teachers’
knowledge that builds on the student-centred view of teaching that emerged in
Categories 4, 5 and 6. In Category 7, content (DoV1) is co-constructed by teachers
with their students, meaning that, because the teacher is secure in his or her
knowledge, there is opportunity and scope to learn from and with students to
generate a deeper understanding. This argues a democratic, inclusive approach to
content, which admits that students bring a unique perspective to constructing
subject knowledge. However, in this endeavour, the teacher’s role is far from
redundant, for Category 7 also shows that inquiry learning (DoV2) is now
perceived by the teacher as the very foundation of teaching and learning. Rather than
a vehicle by which to teach the skills of social education seen on the first level of the
pyramid, or a refining of general pedagogical knowledge (Shulman, 1987) on the
Chapter 6: Outcomes and Conclusions 301
second level of the pyramid, in Category 7, attention to critical inquiry approaches
means that social education subject knowledge is tentative and subject to change. In
Category 7, teachers feel sufficiently confident in their knowledge to convey this
understanding to their students. In sum, in Category 7, content (DoV1) and inquiry
learning (DoV2) are subsumed in teacher identity as the “SOSE teacher”, who is
secure in the cognitive and affective aspects of teaching integrated social education.
Concomitantly, teacher autonomy (DoV3) in Category 7 is revealed as
teacher self-efficacy. Here, teachers are confirmed in their personal and professional
sense of self because their professional judgement, which has progressively built in
the previous categories, is now inextricably linked with their personal identity as a
SOSE teacher. The depiction of teacher autonomy in Category 7 points to the
personal/emotional characteristics of teacher identity. But, far more than a
personally-held conviction about the role of teachers, teacher self-efficacy is a
compelling expression of teachers’ knowledge, which is bound to their sense of self
and their role as classroom-based curriculum makers.
Summary of variation in Category 7
The variation discerned in Category 7 relates to “knowledge of self as teacher”.
The concept of self as teacher builds on “knowledge of the learning area”
(Categories 1, 2 and 3) and “knowledge of contexts” (Categories 4, 5 and 6) to
embrace personal, emotional and professional awareness of knowledge of self as a
teacher. The teacher autonomy revealed in Category 7 captures the role of the middle
school teacher as curriculum maker.
Significance of variation in a theory of teachers’ knowledge
The three dimensions of variation confirm and extend some features of theories
of teachers’ knowledge. The role of content (DoV1) addresses the “what” of middle
school SOSE teachers’ knowledge. Inquiry learning (DoV2) addresses the “how” of
middle school SOSE teachers’ knowledge. Teacher autonomy (DoV3) addresses
teachers’ personal and professional roles. While each highlights features of teachers’
knowledge for social education, teacher autonomy is arguably the most significant
finding. It implies that, like medical and legal professionals, middle school social
education teachers’ professional judgement is underpinned by a discernible and
302 Middle school social sciences: Exploring teachers’ conceptions of essential knowledge
identifiable knowledge base which has not been described before in the research
literature.
Teacher autonomy demonstrates that middle years SOSE teachers have the
capacity for “informed professionalism”, that is, being well-informed about their
knowledge for teaching and enacting a professional role in schools, based on this
knowledge (Luke, Weir & Woods, 2008). The teachers’ knowledge included
awareness of professional discretion (Goodson & Hargreaves, 1996) and competence
to interpret the curriculum and implement it in accordance with the needs of middle
school students. The teachers clearly valued the disciplinary knowledge base of
SOSE as the foundation of SOSE; additionally, they were aware of their professional
autonomy and exercised their independence to teach in ways that respected the
context. In Category 7 (Teacher identity), it was found that teacher autonomy
affirmed the cognitive and affective aspects of teaching SOSE and embraced
teachers’ personal/professional identities as informed curriculum-makers.
Furthermore, teacher autonomy as self-efficacy clearly manifests a constitutionalist
approach to knowledge (Marton & Neuman, 1989), for knowledge for social
education is constituted as the internal relationship between the knower and the
known.
Although Shulman’s (1986, 1987) original theorisation of teachers’ knowledge
has been pivotal to subsequent scholarship on teachers’ knowledge,
phenomenographic analysis revealing variation in teachers’ knowledge in this study
has confirmed that his view of teaching was traditional, subject-centred, and better
suited to a secondary rather than primary or middle school context (Poulson, 2001).
Nevertheless, as seen in this study, Shulman’s (1986, 1987) work continues to offer
good insights into theorisations of teachers’ knowledge in new and emerging fields
of school study. The picture of student-centred knowledge for teaching that emerges
in Categories 4, 5 and 6 supports the argument that teachers’ professional judgement
manifested in teacher autonomy (DoV3) is critical to knowledge for teaching. As
such, this interpretation of teachers’ knowledge resonates with notions of the teacher
as curriculum developer (Deng, 2007a).
Inspired by a close reading of Dewey’s (1897) logical-psychological view of
curriculum, Deng (2007a) offers a slightly different approach to teachers’ knowledge
Chapter 6: Outcomes and Conclusions 303
than that of Shulman (1986, 1987). He argues that teachers are “curriculum
developers” who translate and interpret “the curriculum-as-offered into a curriculum-
in-use” (Deng, 2007a, p. 514). In Shulman’s (1986, 1987) case, teachers’ knowledge
is based on making the discipline explicit to the learner; in contrast, like Dewey
(1897), Deng (2007a) maintains that teachers’ knowledge should centre first on
knowing the learner. This study has shown that middle years SOSE teachers
subscribe to this view.
In discussing the current changes to the social science curriculum in Australia,
Marsh and Hart, (2011) observed, “It might be that SOSE teachers commit to an
interdisciplinary approach to the teaching of SOSE issues and use various
disciplinary bases to examine issues from an interdisciplinary angle” (Marsh & Hart,
2011, pp. 22-23). This view implies that SOSE is largely concerned with teaching
generic issues and themes from an interdisciplinary perspective, rather than topics
that have a propositional and substantive discipline base in the humanities and social
sciences that underpin it. But in light of the current research, how accurate is this
view?
The research-based insights into Queensland middle school SOSE teachers’
knowledge for teaching produced by this study suggest that the middle years SOSE
teachers who participated are committed to sound discipline-based knowledge, as
well as other forms of knowledge, as ways to teach social issues. However, while
SOSE is certainly centred on making the study of social issues relevant to students,
social education is not limited by the study of issues. By investigating teachers’
conceptions of knowledge through phenomenography, this study honours the
practitioner’s experience as a credible source of teachers’ knowledge. As such, the
research has shown that the middle years social education teachers in this study
position themselves as classroom-based curriculum makers who interpret social
science topics in the best interests of the students; in the process, the study of
contemporary events and issues (Category 6) is only one source of teachers’ subject
knowledge. In contrast to popular perceptions of SOSE, discipline-based knowledge
(Category 1) is foundational to teaching about issues.
To sum up, knowledge for teaching social education refers to how disciplinary
knowledge is transformed into subject knowledge for teaching. However, there
304 Middle school social sciences: Exploring teachers’ conceptions of essential knowledge
remain some differences in how theorists of teachers’ knowledge conceptualise the
role of teacher, learner and the body of knowledge itself. In the absence of research
and poor conceptualisation of social education in Australia, the findings of the
current study offer a practice-based theorisation of social education or SOSE derived
from enacting the curriculum. The findings make a new contribution to the literature
by theorising social education or SOSE based on “curriculum-in-use” (Deng, 2007a,
p. 514).
The limitations and wider significance of phenomenography in establishing
these findings are now considered.
Methodological limitations and significance
This study has reported on the conceptions of essential knowledge for social
education as perceived by a group of Queensland middle school teachers using a
phenomenographic research approach. Thus the outcomes of this study are limited to
the conceptions reported by the participants. Those who volunteered may have done
so because they have an interest in SOSE or in teachers’ knowledge, and these
interests may have imposed some limitations on the data gathered. The outcome of
any phenomenographic research is dependent on the views held by the participants at
the time of research. Clearly, the experience of teaching SOSE in specific middle
school contexts in Queensland coloured participants’ views. While these views may
also have been affected by the teachers’ disciplinary backgrounds in the social
sciences, the conceptions captured by the categories of description are representative
of those held by that group of Queensland teachers at that time.
As such, some limitations are acknowledged in generalising the findings.
Minor differences in other jurisdictions in Australia may be evident, depending on
how the nationally formulated learning area of SOSE has been interpreted.
Moreover, the way that middle schooling is implemented in other states or
jurisdictions may also affect how SOSE is taught. The conclusions drawn about
middle years teachers’ conceptions of essential knowledge are a snapshot of those
discerned in relation to the group that participated in the study. However, as the
participants recruited from a variety of Queensland schools had a wide range of
experience, it may be inferred that the findings that emerged from the study resonate
Chapter 6: Outcomes and Conclusions 305
to some degree with the knowledge and experience of other middle school social
education teachers.
The real strength of qualitative research through phenomenography is the depth
of understanding that can be gained about teachers’ knowledge in a contested
curriculum area. Phenomenography facilitates the exploration of teachers’
knowledge from their lived experience of teaching the curriculum; it enables the
researcher to examine a poorly understood phenomenon from the viewpoint of those
who enact the curriculum rather than the perspective of policymakers or curriculum
developers. While the sample group of SOSE teachers may not be statistically
representative, it has provided a comprehensive snapshot of a range of views.
Moreover, phenomenographic analysis provides a way to unravel or discern the
many threads of teachers’ knowledge that are in the foreground of their structure of
awareness of knowledge for social education at any one time. Phenomenography
provided the conceptual tools to elucidate teachers’ knowledge from their “ways of
experiencing” the curriculum. As such, this study has shown that, in addition to
studies of learning, which have been a typical focus for phenomenography, this
research approach can also be used to explore questions of “what is knowledge” in
different spheres of education, including curriculum.
This research demonstrates the potential of phenomenography to map the
qualitative differences in teachers’ perceptions of knowledge in other contested areas
of the curriculum. The categories of description and dimensions of variation
generated in this research may also be applicable to other integrated school subjects,
such as science. By focusing on identifying the qualitatively different ways in which
teachers experience knowledge, phenomenography provides a different avenue for
accessing and defining the knowledge base of teachers. Moreover, the unique
grouping and ordering of the categories of description in the structure of awareness
yielded insights that extended current theories of teachers’ knowledge. Finally, the
visual depiction of middle years SOSE teachers’ conceptions of essential knowledge
in the outcome space may assist teacher educators and others who provide in-service
professional development for teachers with ways of conceptualising teachers’
knowledge in integrated curriculum areas of middle school.
306 Middle school social sciences: Exploring teachers’ conceptions of essential knowledge
Theoretical implications of the study
The key findings make two major contributions to the research literature. First,
the results of the study contribute to a “middle years” theory of teachers’ knowledge
for social education, and second, the findings facilitate a practice-based theorisation
of social education. The contribution made by each key finding of the study is now
considered.
Contribution to a “middle years” theory of teachers’ knowledge for social education
The first contribution to educational research made by this study is the
identification of seven qualitatively different conceptions of essential knowledge for
middle years social education. These conceptions of knowledge comprise a
conceptual framework for teachers’ knowledge in middle school social education
that updates and extends our current understanding of theories of teachers’
knowledge for the middle phase of schooling. Essential aspects of teachers’
knowledge for social education emerging from the study were: (1) discipline-based
knowledge; (2) knowledge of curriculum; (3) knowledge derived from teaching
experience; (4) knowledge of middle years learners; (5) knowledge of integration;
(6) knowledge of current affairs; and (7) knowledge invested in teacher identity.
Variation between these aspects of knowledge for social education was discerned in
relation to the common themes of content, inquiry learning and teacher autonomy.
Influential work by Shulman and colleagues (Grossman, 1990; Grossman et al.,
1989; Gudmundsdorttir, 1991; Shulman, 1986, 1987; Shulman & Sherin, 2004;
Shulman & Shulman, 2004; Wilson & Wineburg, 1988; Wilson et al., 1987;
Wineburg & Wilson, 1991a, 1991b) on theorisations of teachers’ knowledge has
promoted a largely teacher-centred view of teachers’ knowledge based on the
importance of making discipline-based subject knowledge known to the learner. At
the time, Shulman (1986) convincingly argued that the “missing paradigm” was
research into teachers’ knowledge of what was being taught.
However, while theories of teachers’ knowledge that evolved twenty years ago
were teacher-centred and subject-oriented, the contribution of the current research is
that theorisations of teachers’ knowledge should take far greater note of the phase of
schooling and the nature of the curriculum. This study builds on Shulman’s (1987)
Chapter 6: Outcomes and Conclusions 307
original theorisation of teachers’ knowledge derived from a secondary context to
teachers’ knowledge in the middle years. This study illustrates that, reminiscent of
Dewey (1897, 1902), on the second and third level of the pyramid, middle school
teachers hold a student-centred view of essential knowledge for teaching. The data
analysis revealed two schools of thought about the role of the disciplines in social
education: some teachers favoured integration, while others favoured Dewey’s
(1916/1944) view of the interdependence of the disciplines. While social science
teachers may subscribe to one or both views (depending on the topic being taught),
the participants in this study broadly adhered to a psychological view of the
curriculum (Dewey, 1902), where the significance of subject matter is first
considered in relation to the student, rather than for its own sake. The findings
confirm that with the exception of categories on the first level of the pyramid,
teaching social education in the middle years is student-centred and more concerned
with a holistic approach than with a subject-oriented view of knowledge.
Moreover, the significance of teacher identity as teachers’ knowledge departs
from established theories of teacher knowledge. As discussed in Chapter 2, teachers’
identities are constantly shifting in relation to perceptions of the professional self
(Day et al., 2006; Stronach et. al., 2002). Research on pre-service teacher education
shows that middle years pre-service teachers harness middle years philosophy and
desire for educational reform to their identity as middle years teachers (Garrick et al.,
2008), and develop a teacher identity distinct from primary teachers (Pendergast,
Whitehead, de Jong, Newhouse-Maiden, Bahr, 2007). What the current research
shows is that a middle years teacher’s identity as a “SOSE teacher” incorporates
knowledge for teaching subject-specific curriculum within the context of middle
school philosophy. As such, teacher identity is a powerful expression of knowledge
for teaching.
Similarly, while early work on teachers’ knowledge emphasised the
importance of the professional domain of teachers’ knowledge, the current research
argues that such theorisations of teachers’ knowledge do not adequately consider the
significance of the personal domain in teachers’ knowledge. The variation of content,
inquiry and teacher autonomy in the categories of description, seen especially in
Category 3 (Experience), illustrate that teachers’ personal and teaching experiences
constitute knowledge for teaching. Further, as seen in Category 7 (Teacher identity),
308 Middle school social sciences: Exploring teachers’ conceptions of essential knowledge
identity as a social education teacher is integral, and is invested with personal and
professional knowledge for teaching. What this means is that some middle school
teachers are classroom-based curriculum makers (Craig & Ross, 2008). Teachers’
identity and knowledge of self are critical aspects of their knowledge.
This study manifests a “middle years” theory of teachers’ knowledge that
differs from previous theorisations of teachers’ knowledge. In the middle years, the
professional and personal domains are linked, extending Shulman’s (1986, 1987)
original theorisation of teachers’ knowledge into the personal arena. The practical
implications of these findings are explored at the end of this chapter.
Contribution to theorisation on social education curriculum
The second contribution to educational research made by this study is that
attention to teachers’ conceptions of essential knowledge offers an unusual but
compelling way to theorise the troubled area of social education curriculum. The
integration of the social sciences in Australia, in the form of social education or the
school subject called Studies of Society and Environment (SOSE), is now in
disarray, with national initiatives for the Australian Curriculum in history and
geography (ACARA, 2010c; ACARA, 2011). Many wonder what will happen to the
teaching of those interdisciplinary topics on globalisation, multiculturalism, peace
studies, local sustainability studies, civics and citizenship education, and Australian
identity that do not fall into neat discipline-based subject boundaries mandated by
the new curriculum but remain relevant to the students’ overall educational needs.
Current curriculum initiatives raise the question of whether the hopes of the
Melbourne Declaration (MCEETYA, 2008) to promote interdisciplinary learning
based on disciplinary foundations will be realised. Marsh (1994) argues that the
creation of the SOSE learning area in 1991 was a pragmatic decision. However,
national education priorities have shifted since the early 1990s (Marsh, 2010). The
conceptual inadequacies of the knowledge base for SOSE (Brady & Kennedy, 2007)
mean that the early potential of SOSE now seems weak (Marsh, 2010). The emphasis
on literacy and numeracy in Australia may compromise the time allocated for social
science in Australia, as it has in the USA (Marsh, 2010). For example, in its advice
to state schools, Queensland has mandated only 50 hours per year to teach to teach
the national history curriculum in Years 7 from 2013, while literacy and numeracy
Chapter 6: Outcomes and Conclusions 309
attracts 11 hours per week (Queensland Studies Authority, 2011). General
capabilities, such as literacy, numeracy, ethics and intercultural understanding and
the cross-curriculum priorities of Indigenous perspectives, engagement with Asia
and sustainability are embedded in national curriculum subjects to ensure that some
interdisciplinary learning occurs. However, the abolition of SOSE and the return to
history (ACARA, 2010c) and geography (ACARA, 2011) reflects a marked shift in
education priorities and the decline of integrated social science. As The Australian
Curriculum (ACARA, 2010a) has not been fully implemented, how successful the
general capabilities and cross-curriculum priorities will be in effecting
interdisciplinary learning is unknown.
Twenty years after SOSE was introduced, inadequate theorisation and
conceptualisation of the learning area (Marsh & Hart, 2011) has sold short its
potential as a curriculum for middle years students. There have been no systematic
studies into the curriculum or its implementation; mired in controversy from the start
(Hoepper et al., 2000) and dismissed as a “grab bag” of disparate disciplines (Taylor,
2007), its potential as a middle school curriculum was never seriously investigated.
To this end, this study has identified seven qualitatively different ways in which
middle school social education teachers experience knowledge for social education.
Their conceptions of knowledge are rooted in their experience of the curriculum,
revealing an understanding that theorises social education in ways that illustrate its
conceptual strengths. Furthermore, the categories of knowledge relating to middle
years learners (Category 4), integration (Category 5) and currency of knowledge
(Category 6) clearly indicate the student-centred orientation of social education.
As noted in Chapter 2, social education in the form of SOSE shares similarities
with social studies taught in the USA. Although social education or social studies
may be regarded as conceptually weak from a subject-oriented, discipline-based
perspective, as Categories 4, 5 and 6 reveal, it has considerable merit when
considered from a student-centred, holistic knowledge perspective. The significance
that some middle years teachers attach to tailoring subject matter to the needs of
middle years students does not weaken their commitment to discipline-based
knowledge. However, conveying subject knowledge is not their main concern
because they are acutely aware that in the middle school, the students’ personal
development is as important as widening their knowledge of the subject area. For this
310 Middle school social sciences: Exploring teachers’ conceptions of essential knowledge
reason, a practice-based theorisation of social education favours the development of
skills over content because skills are clearly perceived to contribute to the holistic
education objectives of middle school.
Future research directions
This study has revealed teachers’ conceptions of knowledge for social
education but we cannot assume that these conceptions are similar for other areas of
middle years curriculum. For example, is co-construction of content and reference to
evidence-based knowledge for teaching, identified in Category 7 (Teacher identity),
a feature of middle years teachers’ knowledge in science or mathematics?
Furthermore, are the findings relating to teacher identity unique to middle school
social education or do they apply to other subject areas?
Thus, such questions raise a number of areas for further research into teachers’
knowledge. First, there is scope to extend this practice-based theorisation of
integrated curriculum to other areas of the curriculum such as middle school science
and, more broadly, to social studies in the international arena. Second, while this
study explored middle years social education teachers’ knowledge, more research is
needed to complete the wider picture of middle years teachers’ knowledge. For
example, what is the significance of the categories of description for teachers’
knowledge in other content areas in the middle years? Third, further research is
needed to explore middle years teachers’ knowledge invested in teacher identity.
Fourth, the current research has focussed entirely on teachers in Australia and more
specifically in the state of Queensland. Replication of the study in other national and
international jurisdictions might advise future policy decision making elsewhere.
Finally, this study has highlighted the potential of phenomenography as a research
approach to investigate the phenomenon of teachers’ knowledge in general.
Practical implications
In view of the contribution to a “middle years” theory of knowledge and
theorisation of social education, I now turn to the practical implications of these
findings.
Chapter 6: Outcomes and Conclusions 311
Implications for middle years teachers’ knowledge of social education
The findings illustrate that middle years teachers’ knowledge may be
understood in relation to knowledge of the learning area, knowledge of contexts, and
knowledge of teacher as self. Teachers appear to harness a philosophy of middle
years education to well-defined notions of knowledge for teaching.
Phenomenographic analysis of teachers’ lived experience of the curriculum has
elicited teachers’ knowledge to illustrate a practice-based theorisation and
knowledge base for SOSE. While not all teachers demonstrate the conceptions of
social science teaching represented in the outcome space, this study has shown the
existence of three dimensions of variation in the form of content, inquiry learning
and teacher autonomy that manifest in different ways across the categories of
description. Thus, the findings of the study offer a nuanced understanding of middle
years teachers’ knowledge, which acknowledges variation in how teachers perceive
knowledge.
Teachers’ conceptions of essential knowledge for social education link with
middle school curriculum objectives for integrated, student-centred curriculum.
There is a focus on students being actively engaged in their learning. Concomitantly,
there is also respect for the substantive and syntactical demands of teaching the
social sciences. Despite the emphasis on skills and process-based teaching, SOSE
teachers are attentive to the discipline-based content knowledge that underpinned
SOSE. However, teaching an integrated social education curriculum means that in
the Deweyan (1897, 1902, 1916/1944) tradition of student-centred learning, the
needs of learners are prioritised, rather than making disciplinary knowledge explicit
to the learner. Significantly, the study uncovered variation in each of the categories,
indicating that while the categories captured a snapshot of the views of participants,
each category did not necessarily represent the views of all participants. For
example, while all participants acknowledged the discipline-basis of SOSE
(Category 1), some teachers were more committed than others to integration
(Category 5) and only a few alluded to knowledge for teaching bound to teacher
identity (Category 7). On the whole, it is concluded that the results indicate that
teachers’ knowledge takes account of the disciplinary basis of the learning area and
some subscribe to the holistic educational approach of the middle years. For some,
312 Middle school social sciences: Exploring teachers’ conceptions of essential knowledge
their perceptions of themselves and their subject identity as social science educators
are important ingredients of their knowledge for SOSE.
Implications for middle years teacher-education
This study has presented seven categories of teachers’ knowledge for social
education and confirmed that middle years social education teachers are curriculum
makers in their own right. Teacher-education programs in the middle years should
note these categories in their planning and focus on developing teacher identity as
the highest level of essential knowledge. The evidence of teacher autonomy (DoV3)
in each category of description illustrates that teachers regularly exercise
professional discretion in teaching social education. Pre-service programs need to
develop teachers’ professional capacity to transform SOSE subject knowledge for
students by presenting programs to develop their identity as social education
teachers.
The study has demonstrated that teachers’ subject knowledge is a critically
important foundation for social education. But as previous work on teachers’
knowledge has shown, there are other “ways of knowing”, which are equally
important in terms of teachers’ knowledge base:
In all the processes involved in transformation, subject matter knowledge
provides the focal point. Beyond subject matter knowledge, however, the
teacher draws on knowledge of learners, pedagogical content knowledge,
knowledge of context, knowledge of educational aims, and knowledge of
other disciplines. (Wilson et al., 1987, p. 120)
The variation in teachers’ conceptions of knowledge was evident in the way in which
the three dimensions of variation emerged in the categories of description. Thus, for
some middle years teachers, the need to address the holistic educational needs of
middle years students was important. With this in mind, some teachers prioritised
integration rather than discipline specialisation. In Category 7 (Teacher identity), we
see that the professional and personal domains are relational in teachers’ identity,
illustrating that, for some, the sense of self informs knowledge for teaching. This is
powerful knowledge for it is invested in teachers’ perception of themselves.
Moreover, teacher identity also embeds the democratic and progressive ideals of
middle years philosophy.
Chapter 6: Outcomes and Conclusions 313
In view of these findings, middle years teacher-education should initiate
subject-oriented notions of teacher identity, and in-service programs should support
its development. Acknowledging that personal and professional aspects are relational
in teacher identity extends and reinforces the status of teachers as curriculum makers
in middle school. Attention to teacher identity and professionalism in pre-service
teacher education and professional development programs has the potential to grow
teachers’ knowledge and capacity for school-based curriculum leadership.
Implications for national education policy
Ironically, the findings of this research emerge at the very time that integrated
social education is being superseded by a national Australian Curriculum (ACARA,
2010a) that privileges disciplinarity over integration in the humanities and social
sciences. The Australian Curriculum: History V2.0 (ACARA, 2010c) will be
introduced from 2012 and a national curriculum in geography is currently under
development. It is likely that, in the next five years, social education in the form of
SOSE will be replaced in each State and Territory in Australia by discipline-based,
national curricula.
So what are the implications of this research for national educational policy?
The study theorises integrated social education in middle school as a valuable
learning area because, as revealed through teachers’ conceptions, for some teachers,
key tenets of middle years philosophy and student-centred learning are harnessed to
intellectual rigour and discipline-based knowledge. However, the disciplinary focus
of the Australian Curriculum (ACARA, 20101b; ACARA, 2011) precludes the same
emphasis on student-centred learning evident in the findings of this study. If national
policy eschews a student-centred curriculum, there will be less emphasis on making
the discipline relevant to the learner. Under pressure of time to deliver the national
history and geography curricula, there may be a return to the teacher-centred policies
of old, which promoted subject knowledge for its own sake.
Policy makers need to recognise that there were some significant advantages
for students studying social education, which may well be sacrificed with the move
to a national curriculum. There is a need to find a balance between intellectual
rigour, national education priorities, and most importantly, the students’ educational
needs. The dismissal of integrated social sciences will undermine the benefits to
314 Middle school social sciences: Exploring teachers’ conceptions of essential knowledge
students’ social and personal education because a discipline-based curriculum may
emphasise subject-mastery rather than educating the person. For example, under the
new policies, there are fewer opportunities to include knowledge of contemporary
events in the topics mandated for the Year 7 or 8 national history curriculum. Despite
provision in The Australian Curriculum (ACARA, 2010a) for interdisciplinary
learning through general capabilities and cross-curriculum priorities, such as such as
Indigenous perspectives, engagement with Asia and sustainability, there is little
assurance that such measures will afford the interdisciplinary scope that was
available to teachers of SOSE. Policymakers should recognise this and provide
guidelines for teachers on how to compensate for it when teaching the social sciences
in the future.
Finally, national educational policies that purport to advance teacher
professionalisation must acknowledge and support teachers’ knowledge as
professional knowledge for teaching. Middle years teachers’ role as classroom-based
curriculum makers should not be underestimated. This is an urgent priority as
Australia prepares to implement a national curriculum (ACARA, 2010a) that
prioritises discipline-based knowledge and adopts national standards (AITSL, 2011)
for teacher accreditation and professionalisation.
Chapter 6 summary
In Chapter 6, the structure of awareness of essential knowledge for social
education was presented in the outcome space. The seven categories of description
and the three dimensions of variation which are the key findings of the study were
discussed in relation to theories of teachers’ knowledge. Consistent with a
constitutionalist view of knowledge (Marton & Neumann, 1989), the findings
embrace the teachers’ relational experiences of teaching social education.
Despite the significance of the work of Shulman (1986, 1987) in theorising
knowledge for teaching, it was found that Dewey’s (1897, 1902, 1916/1944) work on
psychologising the curriculum, interdependence of disciplines and notions of
student-centred learning were pivotal to interpreting the results of the study. The
grouping of the categories of description within the outcome space according to
knowledge of the learning area, knowledge of contexts and knowledge of self is a
defining feature of the structure of awareness of the phenomenon. The key
Chapter 6: Outcomes and Conclusions 315
contribution of the study to a “middle years” theory of teachers’ knowledge for
social education and a practice-based theorisation of SOSE was explored. Future
research directions were examined and the practical implications for middle years
teachers’ knowledge, middle years teacher-education and national education policy
were considered.
Conclusion
The research has established the characteristics of middle years teachers’
knowledge and the significance of variation in teachers’ conceptions of knowledge in
a contested curriculum area. Undoubtedly, teachers’ subject expertise and knowledge
of curriculum guidelines determine what is taught in social education; what this
research has shown is that middle years social education teachers also draw on other
types of knowledge for their work. The qualitatively different ways of experiencing
knowledge in the middle years illustrates that the professional and personal domains
are relational, manifested in teacher identity. For some middle school teachers,
knowledge of self and teacher identity are critical, illustrating that this study fills a
significant gap in current theorisations of teacher knowledge. Moreover, teacher
identity is central to middle school SOSE teachers’ knowledge as curriculum makers.
The study has contributed a “middle years” theory of teachers’ knowledge in relation
to social education and revealed a theorisation of knowledge for SOSE in harmony
with middle school objectives. However, the Australian Curriculum may undermine
these achievements.
While the unique educational needs of middle years students are being
recognised by middle school teachers, there are fears that the Australian Curriculum
may mark a return to conservative values and a traditional approach to education.
Will the promise of the Melbourne Declaration (MCEETYA, 2008) be realised in
the forthcoming implementation of the Australian Curriculum? Progressive teaching
approaches may be challenged by a prescriptive curriculum and threaten the
autonomy of middle years social education teachers as competent, classroom-based
curriculum makers, to the detriment of student development. We are now at the
crossroads of curriculum change; as such, the variation in middle school teachers’
knowledge should be harnessed in support of a national curriculum that befits
Australia in the 21st century. At a time of national curriculum change and transition
316 Middle school social sciences: Exploring teachers’ conceptions of essential knowledge
in Australia, the gains achieved in middle school social science should not be lightly
dismissed in the haste to adopt a discipline-based curriculum. Respect for teachers’
knowledge is essential to ensure that social science and humanities education in the
middle years continues to address the broader educational needs of students.
.
References 317
References
Abell, S. (2008). Twenty years later: Does pedagogical content knowledge remain a useful idea? International Journal of Science Education, 30(1), 1405-1416.
Åkerlind, G. S. (2002). Principles and practice in phenomenographic research. Paper presented at The International Symposium on Current Issues in Phenomenography, 27-30 November, Canberra, ACT. Retrieved October 13, 2007, from http://www.anu.edu.au/CEDAM/ilearn/symposium/Åkerlind%202%20.doc
Åkerlind, G. S. (2004). A new dimension to understanding university teaching. Teaching in Higher Education, 9(3), 363-375.
Åkerlind, G. S. (2005a). Learning about phenomenography: Interviewing, data analysis and the qualitative research paradigm. In J. A. Bowden & P. Green (Eds.), Doing developmental phenomenography (pp. 63-73). Melbourne, VIC: RMIT University Press.
Åkerlind, G. S. (2005b). Phenomenographic methods: A case illustration. In J. A. Bowden & P. Green (Eds.), Doing developmental phenomenography (pp. 103-127). Melbourne, VIC: RMIT University Press.
Åkerlind, G. S. (2008). Growing and developing as a university researcher. Higher Education, 55(2), 241-254.
Ashworth, P., & Lucas, U. (2000). Achieving empathy and engagement: A practical approach to the design, conduct and reporting of phenomenographic research. Studies in Higher Education, 25(3), 295-308.
Australian Curriculum, Assessment and Reporting Authority (ACARA). (2010a). The shape of the Australian curriculum: Version 2.0. Retrieved February 10, 2011, from http://www.acara.edu.au/verve/_resources/Shape_of_the_Australian_Curriculum.pdf
Australian Curriculum, Assessment and Reporting Authority (ACARA). (2010b). Submission to the Senate Education, Employment and Workplace Relations Committee: Inquiry into the administration and reporting of NAPLAN testing. Retrieved October 2, 2011, from http://www.nap.edu.au/_Documents/PDF/ACARA%20(2010)%20-%20NAPLAN%20senate%20inquiry.pdf
Australian Curriculum, Assessment and Reporting Authority (ACARA). (2010c). The Australian curriculum: HistoryV2.0. Retrieved February 1, 2011, from http://www.australiancurriculum.edu.au/History/Curriculum/F-10
Australian Curriculum, Assessment and Reporting Authority (ACARA). (2011). The shape of the Australian curriculum: Geography. Retrieved July 18, 2011, from http://www.acara.edu.au/verve/_resources/Shape_of_the_Australian_Curriculum_Geography.pdf
318 Middle school social sciences: Exploring teachers’ conceptions of essential knowledge
Australian Education Council (AEC). (1989). Common and agreed national goals for schooling. Hobart, TAS: AEC.
Australian Education Council (AEC). (1994a). A Statement on studies of society and environment for Australian schools. Carlton, VIC: Curriculum Corporation.
Australian Education Council (AEC). (1994b). Studies of society and environment: A curriculum profile for Australian schools. Carlton, VIC: Curriculum Corporation.
Australian Government. (2007). National statement on ethical conduct in human research. Retrieved October 17, 2007, from http://www.nhmrc.gov.au/publications/synopses/_files/e72.pdf
Australian Institute for Teaching and School Leadership (AITSL). (2011). National professional standards for teachers. Carlton South, VIC: Ministerial Council for Education, Early Childhood Development and Youth Affairs (MCEEDYA).
Bahr, N. (2005). The middle years learner. In D. Pendergast & N. Bahr (Eds.), Teaching middle years: Rethinking curriculum, pedagogy and assessment (pp. 48-64). Crows Nest, NSW: Allen & Unwin.
Bahr, N. (2010). The middle years learner. In D. Pendergast & N. Bahr (Eds.), Teaching middle years: Rethinking curriculum, pedagogy and assessment (2nd ed.) (pp. 50-67). Crows Nest, NSW: Allen & Unwin.
Bahr, N., & Pendergast, P. (2006). Adolescence: A useful concept for this millennium. Curriculum Perspectives, 26(1), 67-73.
Ball, D.L., Thames, M. H. & Phelps, G. (2009). Content knowledge for teaching: What makes it special? Journal of Teacher Education, 59(5), 389-407.
Banks, J. (1989). Social science knowledge and citizenship education. In Kennedy, M. (Ed.), Competing visions of teacher knowledge: Proceedings from an NCRTE seminar for policymakers (Vol. 1) (pp. 159-172). East Lansing, MI: National Center for Research on Teacher Education, Michigan State University.
Banks, J. A. (2001). Citizenship education and diversity: Implications for teacher education. Journal of Teacher Education, 52(1), 5-16.
Barratt, R. (1988). Shaping middle schooling in Australia: A report of the national middle schooling project. Canberra, ACT: Australian Curriculum Studies Association.
Bateman, D., & Harris, C. (2008). Time perspectives: Examining the past, present and futures. In C. Marsh (Ed.), Studies of society and environment: Exploring the possibilities (5th ed.) (pp. 268-290). Frenchs Forest, NSW: Pearson Education Australia.
Beane, J. (1995). Curriculum integration and the disciplines of knowledge. Phi Delta Kappan, 76(8), 616-622.
Beane, J. A. (1997). Curriculum integration: Designing the core of democratic education. New York, NY: Teachers College Press.
References 319
Beane, J. A., & Brodhagen, B. L. (2001). Teaching in middle schools. In V. Richardson (Ed.), Handbook of research on teaching (4th ed.) (pp. 1157-1174). Washington, DC: American Educational Research Association.
Beijaard, D. (1995). Teachers’ prior experiences and actual perceptions of professional identity. Teachers and Teaching, 1(2), 281-294.
Beijaard, D., Meijer, P. C., & Verloop, N. (2004). Reconsidering research on teachers’ professional identity. Teaching and Teacher Education, 20(2), 107-128.
Beijaard, D., Verloop, N., & Vermunt, J. D. (2000). Teachers’ perceptions of professional identity: An exploratory study from a personal knowledge perspective. Teaching and Teacher Education, 16(7), 749-764.
Beutel, D. (2010). The nature of pedagogic teacher-student interactions: A phenomenographic study. The Australian Educational Researcher, 37(2), 77-91.
Bliss, S. (2005). ‘Global’ perspectives integrated in global and geographical education. Geography Bulletin, 37(4), 22-38.
Bloom, B. S., Engelhart, M. D., Furst, E. J., Hill, W. H., & Krathwohl, D. R. (1956). Taxonomy of educational objectives: The classification of educational goals (Handbook 1). New York, NY: David McKay.
Bolt, A. (2000, June 10). Class revolution. The Courier-Mail, p. 33.
Bowden, J. A. (2000). The nature of phenomenographic research. In J. A. Bowden & E. Walsh (Eds.), Phenomenography (pp. 1-18). Melbourne, VIC: RMIT University Press.
Bowden, J. A. (2005). Reflections on the phenomenographic team research process. In J. A. Bowden & P. Green (Eds.), Doing developmental phenomenography (pp. 11-31). Melbourne, VIC: RMIT University Press.
Bowden, J. A., & Green, P. (2005). In search of detailed instances. In J. A. Bowden & P. Green (Eds.), Doing developmental phenomenography (pp. 1-7). Melbourne, VIC: RMIT University Press.
Bradbeer, J., Healey, M., & Kneale, P. (2004). Undergraduate geographers’ understandings of geography, learning and teaching: A phenomenographic study. Journal of Geography in Higher Education, 28(1), 17-34.
Brady , L., & Kennedy, K. (2007). Curriculum construction. Frenchs Forest, NSW: Pearson Education Australia.
Bransford, J., Darling Hammond, L., & LePage, P. (2005). Introduction. In L. Darling-Hammond & J. Bransford (Eds.), Preparing teachers for a changing world: What teachers should learn and be able to do (pp. 1-39). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Bruce, C. (2006). Changing foci and expanding horizons: Some reflections on directions for phenomenography and variation theory. Paper presented at The EARLI SIG, 7-9 December, University of Hong Kong.
320 Middle school social sciences: Exploring teachers’ conceptions of essential knowledge
Bruce, C., Buckingham, L., Hynd, J., McMahon, C., Roggenkamp, M., & Stoodley, I. (2004). Ways of experiencing the act of learning to program: A phenomenographic study of introductory programming students at university. Journal of Information Technology Education, 3, 143-160.
Bruce, C., Edwards, S., & Lupton, M. (2006). Six frames for information literacy education: A conceptual framework for interpreting the relationships between theory and practice. Retrieved October 13, 2007, from http://www.ics.heacademy.ac.uk/italics/vol5-1/pdf/sixframes_final%20_1_.pdf
Calderhead, J. (1996). Teachers: Beliefs and knowledge. In D. C. Berliner & R. C. Calfee (Eds.), Handbook of educational psychology (pp. 709-725). New York, NY: Simon & Schuster Macmillan.
Capel, S. (2007). Moving beyond physical education subject knowledge to develop knowledgeable teachers of the subject. The Curriculum Journal, 18(4), 493-507.
Carnegie Council on Adolescent Development. (1989). Turning points: Preparing American youth for the 21st century: The report of the Task Force on Education of Young Adolescents. New York, NY: Carnegie Corporation.
Carr, W., & Kemmis, S. (1986). Becoming critical: Education, knowledge and action research. London, UK: The Falmer Press.
Carrington, V. (2006). Rethinking middle years: Early adolescents, schooling and digital culture. Crows Nest, NSW: Allen & Unwin.
Chadbourne, R., & Pendergast, D. (2005). The philosophy of middle schooling. In D. Pendergast & N. Bahr (Eds.), Teaching middle years: Rethinking curriculum, pedagogy and assessment (pp. 21-47). Crows Nest, NSW: Allen & Unwin.
Chadbourne, R., & Pendergast, D. (2010). The philosophy of middle schooling. In D. Pendergast & N. Bahr (Eds.), Teaching middle years: Rethinking curriculum, pedagogy and assessment (2nd ed.) (pp. 23-49). Crows Nest, NSW: Allen & Unwin.
Chan, J. K-S. (2006). The implementation of an integrated curriculum: A case study in Hong Kong. Curriculum Perspectives, 26(1), 27-37.
Clandinin, D. J., & Connelly, F. M. (1987). Teachers’ personal knowledge: What counts as ‘personal’ in studies of the personal. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 19(6), 487-500.
Clandinin, D. J., & Connelly, F. M. (1992). Teacher as curriculum maker. In P. W. Jackson (Ed.), Handbook of research on curriculum: A project of the American Educational Research Association (pp. 363-461). New York, NY: Macmillan.
Connelly, F. M., & Clandinin, D. J. (1999). Knowledge, context and identity. In F. M. Connelly & D. J. Clandinin (Eds.), Shaping a professional identity: Stories of educational practice (pp. 1-5). New York, NY: Teachers College Press.
Cope, C. (2004). Ensuring validity and reliability in phenomenographic research using the analytical framework of a structure of awareness. Qualitative Research Journal, 4(2), 5-18.
References 321
Council for the Australian Federation (CAF). (2007). The future of schooling in Australia: A report by the states and territories. Retrieved April 29, 2007, from http://education.qld.gov.au/publication/production/reports/pdfs/2007/federalist-paper.pdf
Craig, C. J., & Ross, V. (2008). Cultivating the image of teachers as curriculum makers. In F. M. Connelly, M. F. He & J. Phillion (Eds.), The Sage handbook of curriculum and instruction (pp. 282-305). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications Inc.
Crotty, M. (1998). The foundations of social research: Meaning and perspective in the research process. Crows Nest, NSW: Allen & Unwin.
Curriculum Corporation. (2006). Statements of learning for civics and citizenship. Carlton South, VIC: Curriculum Corporation.
Curriculum Corporation. (2008). Global perspectives: A framework for global education in Australian schools. Carlton South, VIC: Curriculum Corporation.
Cutter-Mackenzie, A., & Smith, R. (2003). Ecological literacy: The ‘missing paradigm’ in environmental education (Part 1). Environmental Education Research, 9(4), 497-524.
Cutter-Mackenzie, A., & Tidbury, D. (2002). Meeting commitments for a sustainable future: Environmental education in pre-service teacher education. In B. Knight (Ed.), Reconceptualising learning in the knowledge society (pp. 17-33). Flaxton, QLD: Post Pressed.
Dahlgren, L. O. (1979). Children’s conception of price as a function of questions asked (Report No. 81). Gothenburg: University of Gotborg, Department of Education.
Dall’Alba, G. (2000). Reflections on some faces of phenomenography. In J. A. Bowden & E. Walsh (Eds.), Phenomenography (pp. 83-101). Melbourne, VIC: RMIT University Press.
Day, C., Kington, A., Stobart, G., & Sammons, P. (2006). The personal and professional selves of teachers: Stable and unstable identities. British Educational Research Journal, 32(4), 601-616.
de Leo, J. (2006). International education and intercultural learning for sustainable development: Beyond the four pillars – Wisdom for transformation towards sustainability. Paper presented at The 10th APEID International Conference, 6-8 December, Bangkok, Thailand.
Deng, Z. (2007a). Knowing the subject matter of a secondary-school science subject. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 39(5), 503-535.
Deng, Z. (2007b). Transforming the subject matter: Examining the intellectual roots of pedagogical content knowledge. Curriculum Inquiry, 37(3), 280-295.
Deng, Z., & Luke, A. (2008). Subject matter: Defining and theorizing school subjects. In F. M. Connelly, M. F. He & J. Phillion (Eds.), The Sage handbook
322 Middle school social sciences: Exploring teachers’ conceptions of essential knowledge
of curriculum and instruction (pp. 66-87). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications Inc.
Denzin, N., & Lincoln, Y. (2005). Introduction: The discipline and practice of qualitative research. In N. Denzin & Y. Lincoln (Eds.), The Sage handbook of qualitative research (3rd ed.) (pp. 1-32). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Department of Education, Queensland. (1989). P-10 Social education framework. Brisbane, QLD: Department of Education, Queensland.
Dewey, J. (1902). The child and the curriculum. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Dewey, J. (1938). Education and experience. New York, NY: Collier Books.
Dewey, J. (1916/1944). Democracy and education: An introduction to the philosophy of education. New York, NY: The Free Press.
Dewey, J. (1897/1972). The psychological aspect of the school curriculum. In J. A. Boydston & F. Bowers (Eds.), The early works of John Dewey, 1882-1898 (Vol. 5, 1895-1898) (pp. 164-177). Carbondale, IL: Southern Illinois University Press.
Diem, R. (2002). Some reflections on social studies in one high school post-September 11. Theory and Research in Social Education, 30(1), 145-147.
Dinham, S., & Rowe, K. (2007). Teaching and learning in middle schooling: A review of the literature – A report to the New Zealand Ministry of Education. Camberwell: ACER.
Donnelly, K. (2004). Why our schools are failing. Sydney, NSW: Duffy & Snellgrove.
Dowden, T. (2007). Relevant, challenging, integrative and exploratory curriculum design: Perspectives from theory and practice for middle level schooling in Australia. The Australian Educational Researcher, 34(2), 51-71.
Drake, C., Spillane, J. P., & Huffered-Ackles, K. (2001). Storied identities: Teacher learning and subject-matter context. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 33(1), 1-23.
Dyer, J. (2004). Preparing students for a world which is global in its outlook and influences: The rhetoric, reality and response. Paper presented at the Symposium on Re-conceptualising Studies of Society and Environment (SOSE): Issues of Policy and Practice in Australian Schools, The Annual Conference of the Australian Association for Research in Education, November, Melbourne, VIC.
Dyer, J. (2006). Global education and teachers: The critical edge. Paper presented at The SEAA Biennial National Conference, January, Brisbane, QLD.
Education Queensland. (2001). The Queensland school reform longitudinal study: A strategy for shared curriculum leadership. Brisbane, QLD: Education Queensland.
References 323
Education Queensland. (2002). Queensland the Smart State: Education and training reforms for the future: A white paper (ETRF). Brisbane, QLD: Education Queensland.
Education Queensland. (2003). The middle phase of learning: State school action plan. Brisbane, QLD: Education Queensland.
Edwards, S. L. (2005). Panning for gold: Influencing the experience of web-based information searching. (Unpublished Doctor of Philosophy thesis). Queensland University of Technology, Brisbane, QLD.
Elbaz, F. (1983). Teacher thinking: A study of practical knowledge. London: Croom Helm.
Ellis, V. (2007). Taking subject knowledge seriously: From professional knowledge recipes to complex conceptualizations of teacher development. The Curriculum Journal, 18(4), 447-462.
Evans, R. (2006). The social studies wars: Now and then. Social Education, 70(5), 317-321.
Ewart, G. D. (1991). Habermas and education: A comprehensive overview of Habermas in educational literature. Review of Educational Research, 61(3), 345-378.
Fallace, T. D. (2009). Historiography and teacher education: Reflections on an experimental course. The History Teacher, 42(2), 205-222.
Fenstermacher, G. (1986). Philosophy of research on teaching: Three aspects. In M. C. Wittrock (Ed.), Handbook of research on teaching (3rd ed.) (pp. 37-49). New York, NY: Macmillan.
Ferrari, J. (2007, April 24). Diehard subjects return to schools. The Australian, p. 1.
Ferrari, J. (2009, February 18). Students do badly in study of civics. The Australian [Online]. Retrieved March 8, 2011, from http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,25070977-13881,00.html
Ferrari, J. (2011, February 10). System will keep top teachers in class. The Australian [Online]. Retrieved February 15, 2011, from http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/system-will-keep-top-teachers-in-class/story-fn59niix-1226003262271
Ferrari, J. & Perkin, C. (2009). Arts profile gets boost in national curriculum. The Australian [Online]. Retrieved December 1, 2011, from http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/arts-profile-gets-boost-in-curriculum/story-e6frg6no-1225700047142
Foucault, M. (1977). Discipline and punish: The birth of the prison. New York, NY: Vintage Books.
Frazer, B., & Rudnitski, R. A. (1995). Integrated teaching methods. New York, NY: Delmar.
324 Middle school social sciences: Exploring teachers’ conceptions of essential knowledge
Freebody, P. (2005). Background, rationale and specifications: Queensland curriculum, assessment and reporting framework. Retrieved February 1, 2011, from http://education.qld.gov.au/qcar/pdfs/expert_paper.pdf
Garrick, B., Pendergast, D., Bahr, N., Dole, S., & Keogh, J. (2008). Researching the construction of middle years teacher identity: A study of graduates. In T. Aspland (Ed.), Teacher educators at work: What works and where is the evidence? Proceedings of the 2008 Australian Teacher Education Association National Conference (pp. 253-271). Retrieved November 18, 2010, from http://atea.edu.au/ConfPapers/2008%20-%20ISBN:%20%5bNot%20Available%5d/ATEA2008.pdf
Gilbert, R. (2004). Teaching thinking in SOSE. In R. Gilbert (Ed.), Studying society and environment: A guide for teachers (3rd ed.) (pp. 56-79). Southbank, VIC: Thomson Social Science Press.
Gilbert, R. (2011). The knowledge base for studying society and environment. In R. Gilbert, & B. Hoepper (Eds.). Teaching society and environment (4th ed.) (pp. 62-78). South Melbourne, VIC: Cengage Learning Australia.
Gillard, J. (2008). Supporting geography in our schools. Media release on 7 April 2008. Retrieved December 1, 2011, from http://mediacentre.dewr.gov.au/mediacentre/Gillard/Releases/SupportingGeographyinOurSchools
Gilsbach, M. (1997). Improvement needed: Preservice geography teacher education. Social Studies, 88(1), 35-38.
Gleeson, D., & Whitty, G. (1976). Developments in social studies teaching. London: UK, Open Books. Cited in Marsh, C., & Hart, C. (2011). Exploring the importance and relevance of the social sciences and humanities to student learning in the 21st century. In C. Marsh & C. Hart (Eds), Teaching the social sciences and humanities in an Australian curriculum (6th ed.) (pp. 1-27). Frenchs Forest, NSW: Pearson Australia.
Glesne, C. (2006). Becoming qualitative researchers: An introduction (3rd ed.). New York, NY: Pearson.
Godinho, S. (2007). A re-visioning of curriculum integration for the 21st century: Creating spaces for conversation and dialogue. Curriculum Perspectives, 27(1), 61-66.
Good, T. L. (1990). Building the knowledge base of teaching. In D. A. Dill (Ed.), What teachers need to know: The knowledge, skills, and values essential to good teaching (pp. 17-75). Oxford, UK: Jossey-Bass Publishers.
Goodson, I. (1988). The making of curriculum: Collected essays. Washington, DC: The Falmer Press.
Goodson, I., & Hargreaves, A. (1996). Teachers’ professional lives. London: Falmer Press.
Grossman, P. L. (1990). The making of a teacher: Teacher knowledge and teacher education. New York, NY: Teachers College Press.
References 325
Grossman, P. L. (1995). Teachers’ knowledge. In L. W. Anderson (Ed.), International Encyclopaedia of Teaching and Teacher Education (pp. 20-24). New York, NY: Pergamon.
Grossman, P. L., & Schoenfeld, A. (2005). Teaching subject matter. In L. Darling-Hammond & J. Bransford (Eds.), Preparing teachers for a changing world: What teachers should learn and be able to do (pp. 201-231). San Francisco, CA: Jossey Bass Publishers.
Grossman, P. L., & Stodolsky, S. (1995). Content as context: The role of school subjects in secondary school teaching. Educational Researcher, 24(8), 5-11 + 23.
Grossman, P. L., Wilson, S. L., & Shulman, L. S. (1989). Teachers of substance: Subject matter knowledge for teaching. In M. C. Reynolds (Ed.), Knowledge base for the beginning teacher (pp. 23-36). Oxford, UK: Pergamon Press.
Groundwater-Smith, S., Ewing, R., & Le Cornu, R. (2007). Teaching: Challenges and dilemmas (3rd ed.). South Melbourne, VIC: Cengage Learning Australia.
Grundy, S. (1987). Curriculum: Product or praxis? London, UK: Falmer Press.
Grundy, S. (1994). The curriculum and teaching. In E. Hatton (Ed.), Understanding teaching (pp. 27-37). Sydney, NSW: Harcourt Brace.
Gudmundsdorttir, S. (1991). Pedagogical models of subject matter. In J. Brophy (Ed.). Advances in research on teaching, Vol. 2: Teachers’ knowledge of subject matter as it relates to their teaching practice (pp. 265-304). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.
Gurwitsch, A. (1964). The field of consciousness. Pittsburgh, PA: Duquense University Press.
Habermas, J. (1971). Knowledge and human interests (J. Shapiro, Trans). Boston, MA: Beacon.
Harding, T. J. A. (2008). Parent home educators: Teaching children at home. Paper presented at The Australian Association for Research in Education International Educational Research Conference, December, Brisbane, QLD.
Hargreaves, A., Earl, L., Moore, S., & Manning, S. (2001). Learning to change: Teaching beyond subjects and standards. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass Publishers.
Harris, C., & Marsh, C. (2007). SOSE curriculum structures: Where to now? Paper presented at The ACSA Biennial Conference, 8-10 July, Melbourne, VIC.
Harris, L. (2008). A phenomenographic investigation of teacher conceptions of student engagement in learning. The Australian Educational Researcher, 35(1), 57-79.
Harris, L. (2011a). Secondary teachers’ conceptions of student engagement: Engagement in learning or in schooling? Teaching and Teacher Education, 27(2), 376-386.
326 Middle school social sciences: Exploring teachers’ conceptions of essential knowledge
Harris, L. (2011b). Phenomenographic perspectives on the structure of conceptions: The origins, purposes, strengths, and limitations of the what/how and referential/structural frameworks. Educational Research Review, 6(2), 109-124.
Hashweh, M. Z. (2005). Teacher pedagogical constructions: A reconfiguration of pedagogical content knowledge. Teachers and Teaching: Theory and Practice, 11(3), 273-292.
Hasselgren, B., & Beach, D. (1997). Phenomenography: A “good-for-nothing-brother” of phenomenology? Higher Education Research & Development, 16(2), 191-202.
Hempenstall, K. (2006). What does evidence-based practice in education mean? Australian Journal of Learning Disabilities, 11(2), 83-92.
Henderson, D. (2005). What is education for? Situating history, cultural understandings and studies of society and environment against neo-conservative critiques of curriculum reform. Australian Journal of Education, 49(3), 306-320.
Henze, I., van Driel, J. H., & Verloop, N. (2007). Science teachers’ knowledge about teaching models and modelling in the context of a new syllabus on Public Understanding of Science. Research in Science Education, 37(2), 99-122.
Hoepper, B. (2011). Critical inquiry into society and environment: The big picture. In R. Gilbert & B. Hoepper (Eds.), Teaching society and environment (4th ed.) (pp. 44-61). South Melbourne, VIC: Cengage Learning.
Hoepper, B., Henderson, D., Fien, J., Sim, C., Alexander, D., & Bond, P. (2000, September 16). Perspectives: Rigour for life. Queensland academics respond to the Studies of Society and Environment debate. The Courier Mail, p.19.
Hoepper, B., & McDonald, H. (2004). Critical inquiry in SOSE: The big picture. In R. Gilbert (Ed.), Studying society and environment: A guide for teachers (3rd ed.) (pp. 22-36). Southbank, VIC: Thompson Social Science Press.
Hofer, B. K., & Pintrich, P. R. (1997). The development of epistemological theories: Beliefs about knowledge and knowing their relation to learning. Review of Educational Research, 67(1), 88-140.
Hofer, M., & Swan, K. O. (2008). Technological pedagogical content knowledge in action: A case study of a middle school digital documentary project. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 41(2), 179-200.
Howe, N., & Strauss, W. (2000). Millenial’s rising: The next great generation. New York, NY: Vintage Books.
Irvin, L. (2005/2006). Using theories of awareness to strengthen phenomenographic analysis: An example of process. International Journal of Learning, 12(4), 285-292.
Jackson, A. W., & Davis, G. A. (2000). Turning points 2000: Educating adolescents in the 21st century. Columbus, OH: National Middle Schools Association.
References 327
Jacobs, H. H. (Ed.). (1989). Interdisciplinary curriculum: Design and implementation. Alexandra, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
Jacobs, H. H. (1997). Mapping the big picture: Integrating curriculum and assessment. Alexandria, VA: Association of Supervision and Curriculum Development.
Jimenez, S. (2001). The impact of benchmarks on teaching civics and citizenship education: Case studies of three secondary school history teachers (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). University of Sydney, Camperdown, NSW.
Johnston, R. (2007). Dominant discourses and teacher education: Current curriculum or curriculum remembered? Asia-Pacific Journal of Teacher Education, 35(4), 351-365.
Kennedy, K. (2005). Theoretical perspectives for understanding Studies of Society and Environment. In C. Marsh (Ed.), Teaching studies of society and environment (4th ed.) (pp. 2-17). Frenchs Forest, NSW: Pearson Education Australia.
Kennedy, K. (2008a). Theoretical perspectives for understanding Studies of Society and Environment. In C. Marsh (Ed.), Studies of Society and Environment: Exploring the possibilities (5th ed.) (pp. 2-18). Frenchs Forest, NSW: Pearson Education Australia.
Kennedy, K. (2008b). Civics and citizenship education. In C. Marsh (Ed.), Studies of Society and Environment: Exploring the possibilities (5th ed.) (pp. 389-407). Frenchs Forest, NSW: Pearson Education Australia.
Kennedy, K., Jimenez, S., Mayer, D., Mellor, S., & Smith, J. (2003). Teachers talking civics: Current constructions of civics and citizenship education in Australian schools. Deakin, ACT: Australian Curriculum Studies Association.
Kennedy, M. M. (1990). A survey of recent literature on teachers’ subject matter knowledge (Issue Paper No. 90-3). Retrieved December 2, 2007, from http://ncrtl.msu.edu/http/papers/html/ip903.htm
Kennedy, M. M. (1998). Education reform and subject matter knowledge. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 35(3), 249-263.
Kirkwood, T. (2001). Our global age requires global education: Clarifying definitional ambiguities. Social Studies, 92(1), 1-16.
Krathwohl, D. R. (2002). A revision of Bloom’s taxonomy: An overview. Theory into Practice, 41(4), 212-218.
Kvale, S. (1996). InterViews: An introduction to qualitative research interviewing. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Lam, C., & Lidstone, J. (2001). The implementation of a new integrated social science syllabus: Case studies from Brisbane secondary schools. Education Journal, 29(2), 61-83.
328 Middle school social sciences: Exploring teachers’ conceptions of essential knowledge
Lane, R. (2009). Articulating the pedagogical content knowledge of accomplished geography teachers. Geographical Education, 22, 30-50.
Lawless, J. (2003). Are you supervising teachers without a history background? The importance of teacher subject knowledge. Teaching History, 37(1), 49-51.
Leach, J., & Moon, N. (2000). Pedagogy, information and communications technology and teachers’ professional knowledge. The Curriculum Journal, 11(3), 385-404.
Lee Manning, M. (2002). Developmentally appropriate middle level schools. Olney, MD: Association for Childhood Education International.
Leonardo, Z. (2004). Theme issues: Disciplinary knowledge and quality education: Editor’s introduction. Educational Researcher, 33(5), 3-5.
Lincoln, Y. S., & Guba, E. G. (2000). Paradigmatic controversies, contradictions, and emerging confluences. In N. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), Handbook of qualitative research (2nd ed.) (pp. 163-188). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Lindblad, S. (1995). Lararna-samhallet och skolans utveckling [Teachers – Society and the development of schooling]. Stockholm, Sweden: HLS Forlag.
Loughran, J., Berry, A., & Mulhall, P. (2006). Understanding and developing science teachers’ pedagogical content knowledge. Rotterdam: Sense Publishers.
Loughran, J., Mitchell, I., & Mitchell, J. (2003). Attempting to document teachers’ professional knowledge. International Journal of Qualitative Studies in Education, 16(6), 853-873.
Luke, A., Elkins, J., Weir, K., Land, R., Carrington, V., Dole, S., et al. (2003). Beyond the middle: A report about literacy and numeracy development of target group students in the middle years of schooling (Volume 1). Retrieved April 8, 2011, from http://www.dest.gov.au/NR/rdonlyres/E06AD41C-5FC9-4F59-A45D-0DF1A7806D4C/19072/BeyondtheMiddleMainReport1.pdf
Luke, A., Weir, K., & Woods, A. (2008). Development of a set of principles to guide a P-12 syllabus framework: A report to the Queensland Studies Authority, Queensland, Australia. Retrieved August 12, 2011, from http://www.qsa.qld.edu.au/downloads/publications/qsa_p-12_principles_dev_ppr.pdf
Lybeck, L. (1981). Arkimedes I klassen. En En amnespedagogisk berattelse [Archimedes in the classroom. A subject-didactic narrative]. Goteborg: Acta Universitatis Gothoburgensis.
MacKay, T. (2011, February 10). Teachers make the difference. The Australian [Online]. Retrieved February 10, 2011, from http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/opinion/teachers-make-the-difference/story-e6frg6zo-1226003214615
References 329
Marks, H. M. (2000). Student engagement in instructional activity: Patterns in the elementary, middle and high school years. American Educational Research Journal 37(1), 153-184.
Marsh, C. (2008a). Inquiry, project and service learning approaches. In C. Marsh (Ed.), Studies of society and environment: Exploring the possibilities (5th ed.) (pp. 193-219). Frenchs Forest, NSW: Pearson Education Australia.
Marsh, C. (2008b). Studies of society and environment: Carving out a legitimate existence? In C. Marsh (Ed.), Studies of society and environment: Exploring the possibilities (5th ed.) (pp. 246-267). Frenchs Forest, NSW: Pearson Education Australia.
Marsh, C. (2010). Studies of society and environment (SOSE): Does it have a future? The Social Educator, 28(1), 4-9.
Marsh, C., & Hart, C. (2011). Exploring the importance and relevance of the social sciences and humanities to student learning in the 21st century. In C. Marsh & C. Hart (Eds), Teaching the social sciences and humanities in an Australian curriculum (6th ed.) (pp. 1-27). Frenchs Forest, NSW: Pearson Australia.
Marsh, C. J. (1994). Producing a national curriculum: Plans and paranoia. Sydney, NSW: Allen & Unwin.
Marton, F. (1975). On non-verbatim learning: Level of processing and level of outcome. Scandinavian Journal of Education, 16(1), 273-279.
Marton, F. (1981). Phenomenography: Describing conceptions of the world around us. Instructional Science, 10(2), 177-220.
Marton, F. (1986). Phenomenography: A research approach to investigating different understandings of reality. Journal of Thought, 21(3), 28-49.
Marton, F. (1988). Phenomenography: Exploring different concepts of reality. In D. Fetterman (Ed.), Qualitative approaches to evaluation in education (pp. 176-205). New York, NY: Praeger.
Marton, F. (1995). Cognesco ergosum: Reflections of reflections. Nordisk Pedagogik, 15(3), 165-180.
Marton, F. (2000). The structure of awareness. In J. Bowden & E. Walsh (Eds.), Phenomenography (pp. 102-116). Melbourne, VIC: RMIT University Press.
Marton, F., & Booth, S. (1997). Learning and awareness. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Inc.
Marton, F., & Neuman, D. (1989). Constructivism and constitutionalism: Some implications for elementary mathematics education. Scandinavian Journal of Educational Research, 33(1), 35-46.
Marton, F., & Pang, M. F. (2008). The idea of phenomenography and the pedagogy of conceptual change. In S. Vosniadou (Ed.), International handbook of research on conceptual change (pp. 533-559). New York, NY: Routledge.
330 Middle school social sciences: Exploring teachers’ conceptions of essential knowledge
Marton, F., & Pong, W.Y. (2005). On the unit of description in phenomenography. Higher Education Research & Development, 24(4), 335-348.
Marton, F., Runnesson, U., & Tsui, A. (2004). The space of learning. In F. Marton & A. Tsui (Eds.), Classroom discourse and the space of learning (pp. 3-40). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Marton, F., & Saljo, R. (1976). On qualitative differences in learning: 1 – Outcome and process. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 46(1), 4-11.
Marzano, R. J., & Pickering, D. J. (2006). Dimensions of learning: Teacher's manual. Heatherton, Vic: Hawker Brownlow Education.
Mayer, D. (2006). The changing face of the Australian teaching profession: New generations and new ways of working and learning. Asia-Pacific Journal of Teacher Education, 34(1), 57-71.
Mayer, R. E. (2004). Should there be a three-strikes rule against pure discovery learning? The case for guided methods of instruction. American Psychologist, 59(1), 14-19.
McDiarmid, G. W., Ball, D. L., & Anderson, C. W. (1989). Why staying one chapter ahead doesn’t really work: Subject-specific pedagogy. In M. Reynolds (Ed.), The knowledge base for beginning teachers (pp. 193-204). Elmsford, NY: Pergamon.
McMeniman, M., Cumming, J., Stevenson, J., Wilson, J., & Sim, C. (2000). Teacher knowledge in action. In Department of Education Training and Youth Affairs (Ed.), The impact of educational research (pp. 375-550). Canberra, ACT: Commonwealth of Australia.
Ministerial Council on Education, Employment, Training and Youth Affairs (MCEETYA). (1999). The Adelaide declaration on national goals for schooling in the twenty-first century. Canberra, ACT: DETYA.
Ministerial Council on Education, Employment, Training and Youth Affairs (MCEETYA). (2008). Melbourne declaration on educational goals of schooling for young Australians. Melbourne, VIC: MCEETYA.
Mintrop, H. (2004). Fostering constructivist communities of learners in the amalgamated multi-discipline of social studies. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 36(2), 142-158.
Mishra, P., & Koehler, M. J. (2006). Technological pedagogical content knowledge: A new framework for teacher knowledge. Teachers College Record, 108(6), 1017-1054.
Murdoch, K. (2007). Journeying towards integrative curriculum. Curriculum Perspectives, 27(1), 67-70.
National Curriculum Board (NCB). (2009). The shape of the Australian curriculum (pp. 1-16). Canberra, ACT: Commonwealth of Australia. Retrieved from http://www.acara.edu.au/verve/_resources/Shape_of_the_Australian_Curriculum.pdf
References 331
Nespor, J. (1987). The role of beliefs in the practice of teaching. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 19(4), 317-328.
Neuman, D. (1987). The origin of arithmetic skills. A phenomenographic approach. Gothenburg, Sweden: Acta Universitatis Gothoburgensis.
Newman, F., & Associates (1996). Authentic achievement: Restructuring schools for intellectual quality. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Nias, J. (1989). Primary teachers talking. London, UK: Routledge & Kegan Paul.
Nias, J. (1996). Thinking about feeling: The emotions in teaching. Cambridge Journal of Education, 26(3), 293-306.
Noddings, N. (1998). Philosophy of education. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.
O’Brien, K. (Anchor). (2007, February 28). Bishop, Smith debate education. The 7.30 Report [Interview]. Retrieved April 25, 2007, from http://www.abc.net.au/7.30/content/2007/s1859834.htm
Ohn, J. D., & Wade, R. (2009). Community service-learning as a group inquiry project: Elementary and middle school CiviConnections teachers’ practices of integrating historical inquiry in community service-learning. Social Studies, 100(5), 200-211.
Paechter, C., & Head, J. (1996). Gender, identity, status and the body: Life in a marginal subject. Gender and Education, 8(1), 21-29.
Pajares, F. M. (1992). Teachers’ beliefs and educational research: Cleaning up a messy construct. Review of Educational Research, 62(3), 307-332.
Pang, M. F. (2003). Two faces of variation: On continuity in the phenomenographic movement. Scandinavian Journal of Educational Research, 47(2), 145-156.
Park, S., & Oliver, J. S. (2008). Revisiting the conceptualisation of pedagogical content knowledge (PCK): PCK as a conceptual tool to understand teachers as professionals. Research in Science Education, 38(3), 261-284.
Patton, M. Q. (2002). Qualitative research and evaluation methods (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications Inc.
Pendergast, D. (2005). The emergence of middle schooling. In D. Pendergast & N. Bahr (Eds.), Teaching middle years: Rethinking curriculum, pedagogy and assessment (pp. 3-20). Crows Nest, NSW: Allen & Unwin.
Pendergast, D. (2007a). The MilGen and society. In N. Bahr & D. Pendergast (Eds.), The millennial adolescent (pp. 23-40). Camberwell, VIC: ACER.
Pendergast, D. (2007b). Middle years schooling. In N. Bahr & D. Pendergast (Eds.), The millennial adolescent (pp. 204-228). Camberwell, VIC: ACER.
Pendergast, D., & Bahr, N. (Eds.). (2005). Teaching middle years: Rethinking curriculum, pedagogy and assessment. Crows Nest, NSW: Allen & Unwin.
332 Middle school social sciences: Exploring teachers’ conceptions of essential knowledge
Pendergast, D., & Bahr, N. (Eds.). (2010). Teaching middle years: Rethinking curriculum, pedagogy and assessment (2nd ed.). Crows Nest, NSW: Allen & Unwin.
Pendergast, D., Whitehead, K., de Jong, T., Newhouse-Maiden, L., & Bahr, N. (2007). Middle years teacher education: New programs and research directions. Australian Educational Researcher, 34(2), 73-90.
Pike, G., & Selby, D. (1988). Global teacher, global learner. London, UK: Hodder & Stoughton.
Poulson, L. (2001). Paradigm lost? Subject knowledge, primary teachers and education policy. British Journal of Education Studies, 49(1), 40-55.
Pramling, I. (1983). The child’s conception of learning. Gotegorg: Acta Universitatsis Gothoburgensis.
Pramling, I. (1995). Phenomenography and practice. New Zealand Journal of Educational Studies, 30(2), 135-148.
Prensky, M. (2005/2006). Listen to the natives. Educational Leadership, 63(4), 8-13.
Prosser, B. (2008a). Unfinished but not yet exhausted: A review of Australian middle schooling. Australian Journal of Education, 52(2), 151-167.
Prosser, B. (2008b). The role of the personal domain in middle years teachers’ work. Australian Journal of Middle Schooling, 8(2), 11-16.
Prosser, B., McCallum, F., Milroy, P., Comber, B., & Nixon, H. (2008). “I am smart and I am not joking”: Aiming high in the middle years of schooling. The Australian Educational Researcher, 35(2), 15-35.
Queensland Government, Department of Education and Training (DETA). (2004). The New Basics Research Report. Retrieved November 25, 2009, from http://education.qld.gov.au/corporate/newbasics/html/library.html#resreport
Queensland Government, Department of Education and Traning (DETA). (2008). Scope and sequence Year 1-9. Retrieved November 25, 2009, from http://education.qld.gov.au/qcar/scope.html
Queensland Government, Department of Education and Training (DETA). (2011). A flying start for Queensland children: Queensland government education white paper. Retrieved October 1, 2011, from http://deta.qld.gov.au/initiatives/flyingstart/pdfs/white-paper.pdf
Queensland School Curriculum Council (QSCC). (2000). Studies of Society and Environment: Years 1 to 10 syllabus. Brisbane, QLD: The State of Queensland.
Queensland School Curriculum Council (QSCC). (2001). Studies of Society and Environment: Years 1 to 10 sourcebook guidelines. Brisbane, QLD: The State of Queensland.
Queensland Studies Authority. (2007a). Queensland curriculum assessment and reporting framework (QCARF). Retrieved December 5, 2007, from http://www.qsa.qld.edu.au/qcar/
References 333
Queensland Studies Authority. (2007b). Studies of Society & Environment (SOSE): Essential learnings by the end of Year 7. Retrieved December 5, 2007, from http://www.qsa.qld.edu.au/assets/downloads/assessment/qcar_el_sose_yr7.pdf
Queensland Studies Authority. (2007c). Studies of Society & Environment (SOSE): Essential learnings by the end of Year 9. Retrieved December 5, 2007, from http://www.qsa.qld.edu.au/assets/downloads/assessment/qcar_el_sose_yr9.pdf
Queensland Studies Authority. (2007d). Essential learnings: Information statement. Retrieved February 15, 2011, from http://www.qsa.qld.edu.au/downloads/early_middle/qcar_is_essential_learnings.pdf
Queensland Studies Authority. (2010). Australian curriculum K(P)-10 trial: Feedback from Queensland schools. Retrieved October 1, 2011, from http://www.qsa.qld.edu.au/downloads/approach/aus_curriculum_qld_feedback.pdf
Queensland Studies Authority. (2011). Time allocations and entitlement: Implementing the Australian Curriculum F(P)-10. Retrieved October 1, 2011, from http://www.qsa.qld.edu.au/downloads/early_middle/ac_time_alloc_entitlement_report.pdf
Queensland University of Technology. (2008). Research involving human participation. Retrieved October 1, 2011, from http://www.mopp.qut.edu.au/D/D_06_02.jsp
Reid, A. (2009). Is this a revolution? A critical analysis of the Rudd government’s national education agenda. Paper presented at The 2009 ACSA National Biennial Conference: Curriculum: A national conversation, 2-4 October, Canberra, ACT. Retrieved December 1, 2010, from http://www.acsa.edu.au/pages/images/ACSA%20Boomer%20address.pdf
Reitano, P. (2004). From preservice to inservice teaching: A study of conceptual change and knowledge in action. (Unpublished Doctor of Education thesis). Griffith University, Brisbane, QLD.
Reitano, P., & Bourke, G. (2009). Promoting, developing and sustaining good history learning and teaching. Teaching History, 43(3), 25-28.
Reynolds, R. (2009). SEAA response to the national curriculum framing paper on the History curriculum. The Social Educator, 27(1), 4-6.
Rice, F. P., & Dolgin, K. G. (2005). The adolescent: Development, relationships, and culture (11th ed.). Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon.
Richardson, J. T. E. (1999). The concepts and methods of phenomenographic research. Review of Educational Research, 69(1), 53-82.
Rogers, B. (1997). Informing the shape of the curriculum: New views of knowledge and its representation in schooling. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 29(6), 683-710.
334 Middle school social sciences: Exploring teachers’ conceptions of essential knowledge
Rynne, E., & Lambert, D. (1997). The continuing mismatch between students’ undergraduate experiences and the teaching demands of the geography classroom: Experience of pre-service secondary geography teachers. Journal of Geography in Higher Education, 21(1), 65-78.
Sandberg, J. (1997). Are phenomenographic results reliable? Higher Education Research & Development, 16(1), 203-212.
Sandberg, J. (2000). Understanding human competence at work: An interpretative approach. Academy of Management Journal, 43(1), 9-25.
Schraw, G. J., & Olafson, L. J. (2008). Assessing teachers’ epistemological and ontological worldviews. In M. S. Khine (Ed.), Knowing, knowledge and beliefs: Epistemological studies across diverse cultures (pp. 25-44). London: Springer.
Schwab, J. J. (1978). Science, curriculum and liberal education: Selected essays. (I. Westbury & N. J. Wilkoff, Eds.). Chicago: University of California Press.
Schwab, J. J. (1983). The practical 4: Something for curriculum professors to do. Curriculum Inquiry, 13(4), 239-265.
Sexias, P. (2001). Review of research on social studies. In V. Richardson (Ed.), Handbook of research on teaching (4th ed.) (pp. 545-565). Washington, DC: American Educational Research Association.
Shriner, M., Schlee, B. M., & Libler, R. (2010). Teachers’ perceptions, attitudes and beliefs regarding curriculum integration. The Australian Educational Researcher, 37(1), 51-62.
Shulman, L. S. (1986). Those who understand: Knowledge growth in teaching. Educational Researcher, 15(2), 4-14.
Shulman, L. S. (1987). Knowledge and teaching: Foundations of the new reform. Harvard Educational Review, 57(1), 1-22.
Shulman, L. S., & Quinlan, K. M. (1996). The comparative psychology of school subjects. In D. C. Berliner & R. C. Calfee (Eds.), Handbook of educational psychology (pp. 399-422). New York, NY: Simon & Schuster Macmillan.
Shulman, L. S., & Sherin, M. G. (2004). Fostering communities of teachers as learners: Disciplinary perspectives. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 36(2), 135-40.
Shulman, L. S., & Shulman, J. H. (2004). How and what teachers learn: A shifting perspective. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 36(2), 257-271.
Silverman, D. (2005). Doing qualitative research: A practical handbook. London, UK: Sage.
Sim, C. (2001). Transforming the subject: A case study of subject matter preparation in teacher education. Queensland Journal of Educational Research, 17(1), 29-47.
Sim, C. (2010). A professional transition: Implications for curriculum leadership. Curriculum Perspectives, 30(3), 1-8.
References 335
Sjöström, B., & Dahlgren, L. O. (2002). Nursing theory and concept development or analysis: Applying phenomenography in nursing research. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 40(3), 339-345.
So, H-J., & Kim, B. (2009). Learning about problem based learning: Student teachers integrating technology, pedagogy and content knowledge. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 25(1), 101-116.
Sockett, H. T. (1987). Has Shulman got the strategy right? Harvard Educational Review, 57(2), 208-219.
Spillane, J. P. (2000). Constructing ambitious pedagogy in the fifth grade: The mathematics and literacy divide. Elementary School Journal, 100(4), 307-330.
Stake, R. (2000). Case studies. In N. Denzin & Y. Lincoln (Eds.), Handbook of qualitative research (2nd ed.) (pp. 435-454). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Stengel, B. S. (1997). ‘Academic discipline’ and ‘school subject’: Contestable curricular concepts. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 29(5), 585-602.
Stodolsky, S. S. (1988). The subject matters: Classroom activity in math and social studies. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
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(2), 227-249.
Stronach, I., Corbin, B., McNamara, O., Stark, S., & Warne, T. (2002). Towards an uncertain politics of professionalism: Teacher and nurse identities in flux. Journal of Education Policy, 17(1), 109-138.
Svensson, L. (1997). Theoretical foundations of phenomenography. Higher Education Research & Development, 16(2), 159-171.
Tambyah, M. M. (2010). Teachers’ conceptions of essential knowledge for integrated social education: A middle years of schooling perspective from Australia. Paper presented at The British Educational Research Association Annual Conference, 1-4 September, University of Warwick, Coventry, UK.
Tambyah, M. M. (in press). Teachers’ knowledge for social education: Perspectives from the middle years of schooling. Curriculum Perspectives.
Taylor, T. (2000). The future of the past. Executive summary of the report of the national inquiry into school history. Canberra, ACT: Department of Education, Science and Training.
Taylor, T. (2007, May 7). Too many cooks spoil the SOSE. The Age, p. 16.
Teaching Australia. (2007). Teaching and leading for quality Australian schools. A review and synthesis of research-based knowledge. Retrieved April 20, 2007, from http://www.teachingaustralia.edu.au/ta/webdav/site/tasite/shared/Teaching%20and%20Leading%20for%20Quality%20Australian%20Schools
336 Middle school social sciences: Exploring teachers’ conceptions of essential knowledge
Topsfield, J. (2008). Gillard puts geography on the map. The Age [Online]. Retrieved December 1, 2011, from http://www.theage.com.au/news/national/gillard-puts-geography-on-the-map/2008/04/07/1207420303646.html
Trigwell, K. (2000). A phenomenographic interview on phenomenography. In J. A. Bowden & E. Walsh (Eds.), Phenomenography (pp. 47-61). Melbourne, VIC: RMIT University Press.
Triolo, R. (2001). Not all graduates are the same. Agora, 36(1), 6-10.
Tudball, L. (2009). The shifting sands of civics and citizenship education in Australia: What principles, policies and practices should be enacted in the times ahead? Ethos, 17(2), 9-13.
Turner-Bissett, R. (1999). The knowledge of the expert teacher. British Educational Research Journal, 25(1), 39-55.
Turner-Bisset, R. (2001). Expert teaching: Knowledge and pedagogy to lead the profession. London, UK: David Fulton.
Turning Points. (2004). At the Turning Point: The young adolescent learner. Retrieved on 2 November, 2004, from www.turningpts.org. Cited in D. Pendergast & N. Bahr (Eds.), 2005. Teaching middle years: Rethinking curriculum, pedagogy and assessment (pp. 3-20). Crows Nest, NSW: Allen & Unwin.
Tyler, R. (1949/1969). Basic principles of curriculum and instruction. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
Van Mannen, M. (1990). Researching lived experience: Human science for an action sensitive pedagogy. New York, NY: State University of New York.
Venville, G., Wallace, J., Rennie, L., & Malone, J. (2000). Bridging the boundaries of compartmentalised knowledge: Student learning in an integrated environment. Research in Science and Technological Education, 18(1), 23-35.
Venville, G. J., Wallace, J., Rennie, L. J., & Malone, J. A. (2002). Curriculum integration: Eroding the high ground of science as a school subject? Studies in Science Education, 37(1), 43-83.
Wallace, J., Rennie, L., Malone, J., & Venville, G. (2001). The rocket project: An interdisciplinary activity for low achievers. The Australian Mathematics Teacher, 57(1), 6-11.
Wallace, J., Sheffield, R., Rennie, L., & Venville, G. (2007). Looking back, looking forward: Re-searching the conditions for curriculum integration in the middle years of schooling. The Australian Educational Researcher, 34(2), 29-49.
Wallace, J., Venville, G., & Rennie, L. J. (2005). Integrating the curriculum. In D. Pendergast & N. Bahr (Eds.), Teaching middle years: Rethinking curriculum, pedagogy and assessment (pp. 149-163). Crows Nest, NSW: Allen & Unwin.
Wallace, J., Venville, G., & Rennie, L. J. (2010). Integrated curriculum. In D. Pendergast & N. Bahr (Eds.), Teaching middle years: Rethinking curriculum,
References 337
pedagogy and assessment (2nd ed.) (pp.188-204). Crows Nest, NSW: Allen & Unwin.
Watson, C. (2006). Narratives of practice and the construction of identity in teaching. Teachers and Teaching: Theory and practice, 12(5), 509–526.
Weilbacher, G. (2001). Is curriculum integration an endangered species? Middle School Journal, 33(2), 18-27.
Whitehead, K., Lewis, F., & Rossetto, M. (2007). Bridging past and present in the negotiation of prospective middle school teachers’ identities. Australian Journal of Middle Schooling, 7(1), 25-29.
Wilson, S. M. (1992). A case concerning content: Using case studies to teach about subject matter. In J. H. Shulman (Ed.), Case methods in teacher education (pp. 64-89). New York: Teachers College Press.
Wilson, S. M., Floden, R. E., & Ferrini-Mundy, J. (2001). Teacher preparation research: Current knowledge, gaps, and recommendations: A research report prepared for the U.S. Department of Education. Seattle, WA: Center for the Study of Teaching and Policy.
Wilson, S. M., Shulman, L. S., & Richert, A. E. (1987). ‘150 different ways’ of knowing: Representation of knowledge in teaching. In J. Calderhead (Ed.), Exploring teachers’ thinking (pp. 104-124). London, UK: Cassell.
Wilson, S. M., & Wineburg, S. S. (1988). Peering at American history through different lenses: The role of disciplinary perspective in teaching history. Teachers College Record, 89(4), 525-539.
Wineburg, S. S. (1991). On the reading of historical texts: Notes on the breach between school and academy. American Educational Research Journal, 28(3), 495-519.
Wineburg, S. S., & Wilson, S. M. (1991a). Models of wisdom in the teaching of history. The History Teacher, 24(4), 395-412.
Wineburg, S. S., & Wilson, S. M. (1991b). Subject-matter knowledge in the teaching of history. In J. Brophy (Ed.), Advances in research on teaching (Volume 2) (pp. 305-348). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.
Yates, L., & Collins, C. (2010). The absence of knowledge in Australian curriculum reforms. European Journal of Education, 45(1), 89-102.
Yilmaz, K. (2008). Social studies teachers’ conceptions of history: Calling on historiography. Journal of Educational Research, 10(3), 158-176.
Young, R. A., & Collin, A. (2004). Introduction: Constructivism and social constructionism in the career field. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 64(3), 373-388.
Zembylas, M. (2003). Emotions and teacher identity: A poststructural perspective. Teachers and Teaching, 9(3), 213-238.
Appendices 339
Appendices
Appendix A Interview questions – Set A
Context statement:
There has been a lot of research about middle years of schooling and what
knowledge teachers need to teach the curriculum in the middle years. I am doing a
study to find out what middle years SOSE teachers think is important for their
teaching of SOSE. I want you to describe your experience of teaching SOSE and I’m
interested in exploring your ideas and experiences. I’m really interested in
hearing about what you think is important or essential in teaching SOSE in the
middle school. Is that OK?
INTRO: Tell me about a time when you felt really knowledgeable about
teaching a SOSE unit.
Can you help me understand that better?
Can you tell me more?
Can you think of an example of……?
Q: Tell me about a good teaching experience…..
Can you tell me more?
Can you think of a time when you experienced it (or thought of it) differently?
Q: Tell me about a time when you think your students were really
learning something…..
Can you give me another example?
Q: Tell me about a time when you think your students did not
learn……
Can you tell me more?
Can you help me understand that better?
340 Middle school social sciences: Exploring teachers’ conceptions of essential knowledge
Can you explain how this experience was different to a good teaching
experience in SOSE?
Q: Think of a time when you planned and taught a quality SOSE
unit. What made it successful?
Can you explain how this time was different to a less successful SOSE unit?
Q: In your experience can you describe what makes a good SOSE
teacher?
What more can you tell me about….
FINAL: Can you tell me what you think is essential for a teacher to know
to be a good SOSE teacher?
Appendices 341
Appendix B Interview questions – Set B
Context statement:
There has been a lot of research about middle years of schooling and what
knowledge teachers need to teach the curriculum in the middle years. I am doing a
study to find out what middle years SOSE teachers think is important for their
teaching of SOSE. I want you to describe your experience of teaching SOSE and I’m
interested in exploring your ideas and experiences. I’m really interested in
hearing about what you think is important or essential in teaching SOSE in the
middle school. Is that OK?
INTRO: Let’s start by you reflecting on the SOSE units you have taught,
and which year levels you have taught.
Q: Tell me about a time when you felt really knowledgeable about
teaching a SOSE unit.
Can you help me understand that better?
Can you tell me more?
Can you think of an example of……?
Q: What knowledge do you bring to your role as a SOSE teacher?
Q: What knowledge do you need to teach SOSE?
Q: Tell me about a good teaching experience…..
Can you tell me more?
Can you think of a time when you experienced it (or thought of it) differently?
Q: Tell me about a time when you think your students were really
learning something…..
Can you give me another example?
Q: Tell me about a time when you think your students did not
learn……
Can you tell me more?
342 Middle school social sciences: Exploring teachers’ conceptions of essential knowledge
Can you help me understand that better?
Can you explain how this experience was different to a good teaching
experience in SOSE?
Q: Think of a time when you planned and taught a quality SOSE unit.
What made it successful?
Can you explain how this time was different to a less successful SOSE unit?
Q: In your experience can you describe what makes a good SOSE
teacher?
FINAL: Can you tell me what you think is essential for a teacher to know
to be a good SOSE teacher?
Top Related