Pedagogy characterising academic and non-academic subjects

Get Complete Project Material File(s) Now! »

Jill Level 2 Chemistry teacher at state school, student population:

>1500 Jill teaches Level 2 and Level 3 Chemistry at a large state school. She has a confident and approachable personality. Jill is achievement focussed and talking with her I get the impression that her pedagogy has been shaped by her years of extracurricular coaching experience. She knows her subject is difficult for students to grasp and expends much energy on encouraging, praising and goal setting. This strategy depends on her having plenty of formative assessment data so that she can provide personalised feedback and feed forward to students. I suppose the most important thing is to be encouraging, giving lots of praise. Knowing where each student is, seeing if someone’s struggling and going and asking what can I do to help? Do you want to come back at lunchtime or do you need more of these types of questions to practise?” Jill uses anecdotal stories such as methanol poisoning, and the failed contraceptive pill that caused facial hair growth, to spark students’ interest.

James Level 2 Physics teacher at state school, student population >

1500 James is an experienced physics teacher whose enthusiasm for his subject is palpable. Throughout our interview he is constantly prompting me with questions about the physical environment “Why did you hear that car out the window?” “Why would you rather I throw this softball to you than this rock?” And so I have direct evidence of James’ beliefs that students come to the classroom armed with an array of experience and intuition upon which the teacher can draw. Physics is what’s out there… They [students] have a huge amount of knowledge. It’s important not to overcomplicate it. Most of the concepts are very simple but the concepts have to be linked together… Everybody has their own preconceived ideas of how things are linked. Either you’re right or you will have to modify your concepts as you go. I subconsciously teach it this way– bringing out students internal knowledge…redirecting and linking their knowledge.

Methodology

The methodology takes into account the aim of the case study which was to contribute to what Bernstein (2000) has identified as the main problem in the sociology of education. This is how institutions such as schools manage to reproduce sociocultural inequalities. The case study provided an empirical illustration of Bernstein’s idea that the way knowledge is structured and taught is related to socio-economic class allocation. According to Bernstein, this is how institutions such as schools manage to reproduce sociocultural inequalities. Specifically he drew attention to how pedagogic practices “directly or indirectly relay the distribution of power and principles of control” (Bernstein, 2000, p. xxi). The empirical data from the interviews was analysed using a conceptual methodology that recognises the ‘real’ nature of concepts and their subsequent power to explain events and processes observed empirically, such as the teachers’ interpretation of their pedagogies and curriculum choices in my case study (Popper, 1978). This realist methodology connects the empirical data to the theoretical meaning. The data is analysed in terms of its ‘best fit’ to the concepts, and acknowledged as a ‘provisional truth’ used to clarify and crystalise concepts. In this case the concepts are Bernstein’s types of knowledge classifications and pedagogical framing. From the concepts a typology (Table 2, p. 39) was developed, which was used firstly to produce the semi-structured research questions (Appendix A) and secondly, to analyse and explain the data.

READ Two-Level Hybrid Channel Allocation Approach for Mobile Cellu-lar Networks

Knowledge Classification

According to Bernstein academic subjects will be characterised by strong classification and strong framing. If school subjects are not sufficiently insulated from ‘others’ they experience a ‘pollution’. Bernstein (1971) states “Any attempt to weaken or change classification strength (or even frame strength) may be felt as a threat to one’s identity and may be experienced as a pollution endangering the sacred” (as cited in Beck 2002, p.619). Insulation endows the subject with a ‘sacredness’ that subsequently can inspire subject loyalty and identity. The chemistry and physics teachers in my case study could clearly describe the concepts taught in the course. Those teachers acknowledged that sequential development of concepts is desirable which indicates that the knowledge is vertically structured in these subjects. As Jill explained a good understanding of the subject, as evidenced by an endorsement grade, is only possible when links between the concepts are developed by the student.

Pedagogical Framing

Hoadley & Muller (2009) explain how knowledge structures influence instructional framing. “The verticality of a particular knowledge structure places limits on its progression, sequencing and pace. This is the link to pedagogy: the more hierarchical a particular discipline, the more restriction on these dimensions of framing” (p. 76). The teacher is unable to slow the pace in an academic course because any concepts that are left out may jeopardise the student’s achievement further into their study. This is confirmed by the case study data, as all of the academic courses had the internal assessment and benchmark exam dates set before the year started. Thus teachers and students have very limited control over the content, sequence, pacing or evaluation of any part of the course. The exception is an 43 internal physics assessment that requires students to produce a portfolio of investigations. James is able to set up four or five independent research opportunities in the year and students can choose which three to complete with a full lab write-up.

Contents :

Introduction
Chapter 1: Restructuring of the New Zealand curriculum
- Intentions
- Curriculum Restructuring
- Unexpected consequences, the New Zealand Center for Educational Research studies
Chapter 2: Background sociology and research questions
- Knowledge types characterised by academic and non-academic courses
- Pedagogy characterising academic and non-academic subjects
- Future opportunities characterising academic and non-academic subjects
- Research Questions
Chapter 3: Case study
- Jill Level 2 Chemistry teacher at state school, student population: >
- James Level 2 Physics teacher at state school, student population >
- Jessica Level 2 Chemistry teacher at state school, student population >
- Jack Level 2 General Science teacher at state school, student population >
- John Level 2 Horticulture teacher at state school, student population >
Chapter 4: Methodology
Chapter 5: Analysis of Interviews
- Knowledge Classification
- Pedagogical Framing
Chapter 6: Concluding the Analysis
- Knowledge in Level 2 science courses
- Pedagogy in Level 2 science courses
Chapter 7: Conclusions
- Appendix A
- Bibliography