Discipline specific pedagogy
Different contexts, different learners
TAFE NSW VET Pedagogy Project 2006 managed by Lynne Stallard, ICVET
Take home Messages
While the principles of pedagogy remain the same, discipline areas have different ways of teaching that work best for that discipline.
Discipline specific pedagogy is not the same as habits of teaching that grow up among groups of teachers in sections.
Teachers understand and develop discipline specific pedagogy best by talking to people outside their own discipline as well as those inside.
A debate that has emerged strongly in the United Kingdom in further education over the past few years has been the concept of ‘discipline specific pedagogy’ or ‘subject specific pedagogy’. This recognises that teaching may be different in different discipline, subject or industry areas. In the TAFE context this implies that pedagogical approaches may need to be quite different when teaching, for example, hospitality students to electrotechnology students. This may appear quite self evident, as every good teacher amends his or her teaching style when teaching different types of students; but the debate goes beyond adapting teaching to the learning styles of individual learners and groups.
Different Contexts: Different Learners
This is one of five articles bringing together themes and trends from the 2006 literature review of the TAFE NSW VET Pedagogy Project 2006. The findings highlight pedagogical challenges as distinct and lively areas for discussion by teachers while also making the information easily accessible online. The other published articles are:
If we define pedagogy as the principles and methods of instruction then we can begin to understand the concept of discipline-specific pedagogy. While the principles of teaching remain constant, the methods used may change. While every teacher wants to have a range of methods at his or her disposal, there may be some methods that apply more readily to some disciplines than others. Shulman (1987), speaking about education in general, maintains that all teachers need to have both general pedagogical knowledge and discipline-specific pedagogical knowledge.
The different nature of teaching in different discipline areas has been a subject of debate in university teaching for some time. Lenze (1996) for example points out that while central teaching-development units in universities tend to offer professional development programs that assume that teaching skills remain constant in all areas, academic staff ‘fall on the other side of the fence, claiming that teaching in their fields differs from teaching in other disciplines’ (Lenze, 1996: 1). It is reasonable to transfer this issue from the university to the VET sector.
According to Schulman (1986: 9-10) discipline-specific pedagogical knowledge can be explained in this way:
‘For the most regularly taught topics in one’s subject areas, the most useful forms of representations of those ideas, the most powerful analogies, illustrations, examples, explanations, and demonstrations – in a word, ways of representing and formulating the subject that make it comprehensible for others. Pedagogical content knowledge also includes an understanding of what makes the learning of specific topics easy or difficult.’
A report by the office for Standards in Education on FE teacher training, said that ‘the quality of trainees’ teaching is affected adversely by their limited knowledge of how to teach their subject’
OFSTED, 2003:6
In the UK the government has become interested in this issue since the turn of the century and the official view is that not enough discipline-specific pedagogy is going on. This is partly blamed on the diversification of VET teacher training, or Further Education (FE) teacher training as it is known in the UK. Up until around 1980, there were only four providers of FE teacher training in the UK and because each had large numbers of students, classes could be formed for teachers headed for a particular discipline area (ASSOCiate online, 2006). Now, as in Australia, there are many providers of VET teacher training and teachers from diverse discipline areas study together, both in ‘preservice’ courses and ‘in-service' courses. It is claimed that this has led to a decline in standards of discipline-specific pedagogy. A report by the office for Standards in Education on FE teacher training, said that ‘the quality of trainees’ teaching is affected adversely by their limited knowledge of how to teach their subject’ (OFSTED, 2003:6).
In the UK, developments to address this perceived problem are proceeding in the two post-compulsory sectors at the same time. In the university sector, the Higher Education Academy (see link below) is looking at lecturer development programs that are discipline-specific. Discipline-based support for university lecturers is provided through its Subject Network of 24 Subject Centres.
There have been a number of FE teacher development programs that are discipline-specific. The most well known is the Learning and Skills Development Agency’s Subject Learning Coaches program (see link below). This program currently prioritises business, construction, entry to employment and science with 2006 additions Health and Social Care, Land based Studies, ICT, and Mathematics. Funding is provided for networks and people apply to be trained as coaches.
It is important to think about why the concept of (discipline-specific pedagogy) has gained ground recently.
The other program ASSOCiateOnline is run by some of the universities providing FE teacher training and is aimed at teacher trainees rather than practitioners though it may also be accessed by FE practitioners. The program encourages groups of trainee teachers in different discipline areas to form online communities. The website also provides forums in different discipline areas (see link below).
It is important to think about why the concept has gained ground recently. In the UK there is increasing emphasis on standards, inspection and accountability in all sectors of education. One aspect of this is that the government concerns itself with the detail of teacher training (including FE teacher training) and has a particular interest in ensuring that new teachers perform effectively as soon as they arrive in colleges. So one aspect of the latter is placing teachers with mentors; in the FE sector it has been noted by Hankey (2004) that a mentor in the same discipline is generally felt to be important by FE teachers.
There is also a legitimate concern that while teachers may have discipline knowledge and qualifications, they do not necessarily have the breadth of knowledge across the discipline that is needed to teach in it (Ofsted, 2003: 26). They might be lacking therefore not only in pedagogical content knowledge but also in content knowledge, and so a systematic program of development is needed to address these two areas (Ofsted, 2003: 37) rather than relying on individuals’ professionalism to address deficiencies. There is also an undercurrent of British government policy with a thrust that work-based learning for FE teachers is better than institutional learning. Lucas (2005) argues against this, maintaining that individual FE colleges may be so variable that the workplace cannot be relied upon to deliver high quality training. To sum up, there are many agendas at play in the UK situation that use discipline-specific pedagogy as a political football.
There is also a need to remember that these days VET teachers are increasingly working across discipline boundaries as well as within them.
Lucas, 2005
So what is the difference between ‘true’ discipline-specific pedagogy and the teaching methods that are used out of habit in particular disciplines? Shulman’s view of discipline-specific pedagogy implies very clearly that disciplines or subjects may be taught most effectively in particular ways. However as Lucas (2005) maintains, these ways can sometimes reflect little more than particular communities of practice at a particular college. So the job of the effective and reflective teacher is to examine ways of teaching his or her discipline area and choose the most effective not the most commonly used or easiest. There is also a need to remember that these days VET teachers are increasingly working across discipline boundaries as well as within them (Lucas, 2005).
Discussion Points
- Looking at Shulman’s discussion of discipline-specific pedagogical knowledge, what ways of representing or formulating your subject make it most comprehensible?
- Look at the UK site ASSOCiateOnline and some of the postings in your own discipline area. Are there any ideas here that you can use in your own teaching and take back to colleagues?
- Consider differences between common teaching methods in your subject at your campus and another subject taught at your campus. Are these differences really discipline-specific or are they differences in custom and practice that don’t have a real basis in the nature of the discipline? If the latter, how can new ideas about teaching the subject be introduced to the teaching team?
See also
References - LITERATURE REVIEWS | TAFE NSW VET Pedagogy Project 2006
Younger Learners – Different Contexts, different learners VET Pedagogy Literature Review
VET PEDAGOGY (Research & Exemplars)
2006 TAFE NSW VET Pedagogy Project
