middle school social sciences exploring teachers...

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



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


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.


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,


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


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


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


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


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






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


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


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


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









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


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.


Table 1.4

Queensland Curriculum Documents in Social Education – 1989-2000








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


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


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


2002 Qld – P Education and Training Reforms for the Future: A white paper (ETRF)







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


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,


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


2002 Qld – P Education and Training Reforms for the Future: A White Paper (ETRF)






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


(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


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




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)



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


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.


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.


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


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.


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



2009 National – C The Shape of the Australian Curriculum (2009 Shape Paper)


2010 National – C The Shape of the Australian Curriculum version 2.0 (2010 Shape Paper)



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”


(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


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


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,


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


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


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.


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.


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


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.


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.


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,


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.


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


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


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


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


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-


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


2002 Qld – P Education and Training Reforms for the Future: A White Paper (ETRF)






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


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.


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


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


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)


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


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


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


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)


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).


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


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


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).


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


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-


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).


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


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 &


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.


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


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


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


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.


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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).


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;


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


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”


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)


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


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


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


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)


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


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


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


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


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


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,


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.


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


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,


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


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


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:


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)


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.


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.


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


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)


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.


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


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.


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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-


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.


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


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


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


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.


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’


“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


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)


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.


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


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


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


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


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


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.


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


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.


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.


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/Sec State Co-ed 2


Middle/Sec Catholic Co-ed 5 1

Middle/Sec Independent Girls 2 1

Middle/Sec Independent Girls 2

Middle/Sec Independent Girls 1 1


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/


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


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


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


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.


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


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.


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


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


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,


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


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


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


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,


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


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


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


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


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


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.



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.


knowledge of the middle years learner.


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.


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


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


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


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.


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.


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.


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


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).


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:


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.


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:


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)


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)


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.


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)


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


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


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)


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


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


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.


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)


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)



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


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


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


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)


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:


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


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


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.


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


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)


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:


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)


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.


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.


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.


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)


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)


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


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:


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


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


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


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:


…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


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


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)


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:


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


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.


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


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


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,


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.


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


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)


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


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


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.


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….


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)


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


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.


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


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


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.


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


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.


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,


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:


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


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


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 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.


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.


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


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)


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


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


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


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


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.


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:


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.


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


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)


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


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’


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)


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”


(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)


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.


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


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


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.


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)


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


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,


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.


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


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


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


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


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).


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


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


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).


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


professional and personal identities of the SOSE teacher in their role as classroom-

based curriculum makers.


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)


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


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


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


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


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


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:


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


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)


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


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.


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).


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,


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


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,


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


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


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


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


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.


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.


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


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.


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


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.


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]


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


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


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


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


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


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.


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


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).


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.


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


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.


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,


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


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


(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


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


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


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


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.


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


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


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


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


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.


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


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


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


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


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


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


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.


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)


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),


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


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


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.


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,


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.


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


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


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


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


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.


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


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.


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.


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.


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.


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.


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.


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


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 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 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 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 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 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?