A growing body of research worldwide suggests that teacher knowledge and expertise are the most important factors affecting student achievement (Alton-Lee, 2003; Bransford, Darling-Hammond, & LePage, 2005; Calderhead & Shorrocks, 1997; Darling-Hammond, 2000a, 2000b; Hattie, 2002; Shulman & Shulman, 2004). A teacher’s professional knowledge base comes from a variety of sources. Professional knowledge embodies teachers’ general intellectual ability, their level of general knowledge and educational achievement, their memories of how they were taught themselves, their pre-service observation experiences in classrooms, their academic courses (in curriculum, pedagogy, learning theory, and assessment theory), and the cumulative knowledge gained from personal classroom teaching experience (Bullough, 2001; Darling-Hammond, 1999; Grossman, 1990; Hiebert, Gallimore, & Stigler, 2002; Turner-Bisset, 1999, 2001).
In order to make decisions about the content and structure of teacher education programmes, standards used to evaluate teachers, and systems for certifying professional competence, a clearly defined and continuously evolving knowledge base for teaching is essential (Hiebert, Gallimore, & Stigler, 2002; Turner-Bisset, 2001). In the past there have been numerous schools of thought about what constitutes an appropriate knowledge base for teaching. Until the late eighteenth century the academic tradition of education required only the possession of subject knowledge. From the nineteenth century, the elementary tradition of education required craft knowledge of how to manage large classes, academic subject knowledge, and what was considered to be an appropriate set of moral values. In the early twentieth century the child development tradition saw knowledge of child development as essential, particularly for primary school teachers (Turner-Bisset, 2001).
Shulman (1987) was the first to develop a theoretical framework for a knowledge base for teaching. Shulman’s knowledge base for teaching included the following seven categories:
• content knowledge
• general pedagogical knowledge (principles of classroom management and organisation)
• curriculum knowledge (materials and programmes)
• pedagogical content knowledge (amalgam of content and pedagogy)
• knowledge of learners and their characteristics
• knowledge of educational contexts (classrooms, schools, communities)
• knowledge of educational ends, purposes, and values
(Shulman, 1987, p. 8)
Since Shulman developed his model a number of other theoretical models have been produced (e.g., Turner-Bisset, 2001). In addition, a number of authorities (e.g., Clark, 2001; Hargreaves, 1998; Munby, Russell, & Martin, 2001; Olson & Bruner, 1996), recognising the difficulty of translating traditional research knowledge into forms that are useful to teachers, have explored the possibility of developing a “craft” knowledge base, which “is characterised more by its concreteness and contextual richness than its generalisability and context independence” (Hiebert, Gallimore, & Stigler, 2002, p.4).
In 1994 the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD), from a study of effective teaching, developed a holistic concept of teacher competencies across five key dimensions: knowledge of substantive curriculum areas and content; pedagogic skill, including the ability to use a repertoire of teaching strategies; reflection and the ability to be self-critical; empathy and commitment to the acknowledgement of the dignity of others; and managerial competence (OECD, 1994).
In recent years, teacher education and development programmes have placed an increasing emphasis on developing skills in reflective practice and the ability to work in communities of practice (discussed later in this chapter). Accordingly, Shulman and Shulman (2004, p. 259) have developed a conceptual framework of essential features of contemporary teacher preparation and professional development, which they believe should prepare teachers to be:
• Ready (possessing a vision of student learning and understanding)
• Willing (having motivation)
• Able (having pedagogical content knowledge and the capacity for intelligent and adaptive action)
• Reflective (conscious of understandings, performances, and dispositions, or capable of learning from experience)
• Communal (acting as a member of a professional community)
2.2.1 Subject content knowledge
A crucial element of an effective knowledge base for teaching is a comprehensive understanding of relevant subject content. Subject content knowledge is particularly important in enabling teachers to mediate students’ understanding. Contemporary teaching approaches, based on interaction, discussion, and problem-solving, require teachers to be able to present critical ideas in meaningful ways, and to organise learning processes that build on individual students’ prior knowledge. According to Jordan (2004), teachers must be able to engage effectively with children in the relevant body of knowledge in order to assess their understanding. They must also understand the progression of ideas within a topic and how students are likely to learn them (Bell & Cowie, 2001). This implies a need for highly educated teachers who have a deep understanding of subject matter.
However, teacher educators frequently express concern about the depth of subject content knowledge of many student teachers. According to Calderhead and Shorrocks (1997):
There is a long-standing dilemma in teacher education. Ideally we may wish to have teachers who are not only competent actors in the classroom but also who are practitioners capable of understanding what they are doing, why they are doing it, and how they might change their practice to suit changing curricula, contexts, or circumstances. This produces a tension between the need for teachers to understand teaching and the need to be able to perform teaching (p.195).
Research across a variety of subject areas has revealed that lack of content knowledge can affect teachers’ ability to present accurate information in coherent ways. A number of studies have investigated the subject content knowledge of secondary school teachers and student teachers. Gregg (2001) analysed the content of pre-
service geography teachers’ lessons on rivers, and found that the teachers presented inaccurate information and allowed students’ misconceptions to stand unchallenged. Their lessons lacked coherence because they covered peripheral rather than central concepts, and they misunderstood or ignored many important ideas. Soares and Prestage (2000), in a study of student teachers’ ability to use graphical representations in science, found that most had developed routines that had led to automated learning behaviour in which mechanical procedures were being followed without understanding. Sanders and Morris (2000) tested student teachers’ mathematical content knowledge and found that the majority of those who achieved poor results rationalised their failure. Only forty percent acknowledged that they had a problem and attempted to do something about it. Conversely, in a separate study of teachers’ mathematical subject knowledge, Prestage and Perks (2000) found that strong content knowledge allowed teachers to answer questions correctly, and to develop connections and routes for students through the requisite knowledge.
Alexandersson (1994) conducted an investigation into twelve teachers’ “consciousness” of their teaching. He discovered that the consciousness of seven of the teachers was directed towards what the pupils were to do in their lessons, rather than what they were to learn. The consciousness of four of the teachers was focused on general aims, such as the level of activity and developing relationships. The consciousness of only one teacher of the twelve was directed at developing understanding of specific content. Alexandersson (1994) believes that it is important that researchers investigate the different ways that teachers think and reflect about their own practice, in order to develop a more comprehensive understanding of teachers’ professional knowledge and thinking.
International research findings suggest that the needs of learners are more likely to be met when teachers’ subject content knowledge is sufficiently developed to allow them to critically engage with the subject material. However, Bullough (2001) claims that the emergence to prominence of constructivism in educational thought has led to a weakening of disciplinary truth and knowledge claims. He believes that teachers need assistance to think about their practice in more complex ways, in particular to reflect upon their role in the process of learning and the emphasis that they give to formal academic knowledge in their interactions with learners.
In New Zealand there have been very few investigations into the extent of teachers’ subject content knowledge, or into their beliefs about its importance, particularly at the primary school level. Because of the need for New Zealand primary school teachers to cover all curriculum areas, accurate information concerning the depth and use of teachers’ content knowledge would be particularly helpful to teacher educators and policymakers, especially those involved in making decisions regarding the length and content of teacher education programmes.
2.2.2 Pedagogical content knowledge
Central to most theoretical models of essential teacher knowledge is pedagogical content knowledge. Shulman (1987) was the first to use the term pedagogical content knowledge to identify the distinctive body of knowledge underpinning effective teaching. Pedagogical content knowledge is the blend of content, curriculum, and understanding of learning theory needed to communicate knowledge to learners. Within it, content and pedagogy are amalgamated into an understanding of how particular topics, problems, or issues may be organised, represented, and adapted by the teacher to suit the diverse interests and abilities of learners (Darling-Hammond, 1998, 2000a, 2000b; Shulman, 1987; Shulman & Shulman, 2004; Turner-Bisset, 1999, 2001; Wilson, Shulman, & Richert, 1987). Pedagogical content knowledge enables teachers to understand relationships and patterns, and to transform subject matter into a form that is comprehensible to learners, by representing ideas as metaphors, analogies, illustrations, examples, and demonstrations. Strong subject content knowledge and a sound understanding of the processes involved in learning are vital to this process (Borko, 2004; Jordan, 2004; Shulman, 1987; Shulman & Shulman, 2004; Turner-Bisset, 1999, 2001).
Hattie (2002), in a synthesis of over 500,000 studies of influences on student achievement, identified sixteen attributes of expert teachers, one of which is that “expert teachers have deeper representations about teaching and learning” (p. 5). Hattie claims that one of the ways in which expert teachers differ from others is in the way that they organise and use their knowledge. According to Hattie, expert teachers’ knowledge is more integrated, they combine new subject content knowledge with
prior knowledge, can relate current lesson content to other subjects in the curriculum, and can adapt lessons to their students’ needs and their own goals. Hattie contends that expert teachers have a greater ability to focus on significant information and to predict the types of errors students are likely to make when solving problems.
According to Shulman (1987) pedagogical reasoning and action involve a cycle of comprehension, transformation, instruction, evaluation, reflection, and new comprehension. The teacher firstly must comprehend the content to be taught, and subsequently be able to transform it into pedagogically powerful forms adapted to the needs of the learners. Effective instruction involves the use of flexible and interactive teaching techniques including giving clear explanations and vivid descriptions, interacting effectively with students, assessing work, questioning and probing, answering and reacting, and praising and correcting. Evaluation refers to the process of checking for understanding and misunderstanding that the teacher employs while teaching interactively. Reflection involves looking back on teaching and learning to analyse it in relation to specified ends or planned learning outcomes. From this the teacher arrives at a new level of comprehension of the purposes, the subject, the students, and the pedagogy employed. These processes do not represent fixed stages. They may occur in different order, and some may not occur at all during some acts of teaching. However, because they are central to effective teaching and learning, Shulman believed that all teachers should demonstrate the capacity to engage in them when required. Many of these processes are integral to effective learning conversations and consequently are of particular interest in the present study.