Opportunities and challenges of school

subject departments for beginning teachers

steven.puttick@bishopg.ac.uk

Dr Steven Puttick

• Departments ‘invisible’ to research? (Siskin 1994; Ball & Lacey 1984)

• Research ‘focuses principally on cultures at whole school level rather than within the smaller unit of secondary school subject departments’ (Childs et al. 2013, p.38)

Forging Links: Effective Schools and Effective Departments

(Sammons et al. 1997)

Exploring whole school versus subject department improvement…

(Ko et al. 2015)

Recent example from Hong Kong(Ko et al. 2015)

• 47 schools over 3 years and across 3 cohorts

• Comparison of value added results (‘Stanines’) between schools and departments

‘Performance trajectories of individual departments is a poor predictor of school-wide improvement’ (p.233)

‘There can be effective departments in ineffective schools, though more effective departments tend to be found in more effective schools’ (p.234)

‘department cultures tend to be more influential than the culture of the school as a whole’ (p.234)

What is a department?

• Physical space• Subgroup of teachers• Staffing organisational unit• Collection of social relations• Subculture (shared beliefs and

values)• Virtual shared space

Typology of school subject departments

1. Federate (multiple, cognate subjects)

2. Confederate (multiple, dissimilar subjects)

3. Unitary (single subject, many teachers)

4. Impacted (single subject, few teachers)

5. Diffuse (single subject, diffuse)

(Busher and Harris, 1999)

Geography teachers’ subject knowledge: an ethnographic study

of three secondary school geography departments

Federate: Town Comprehensive

Unitary: City Academy

Impacted: Beach Academy

Opportunities & challenges:

• Physical spaces• Responses to technology• Constructing the curriculum• Implicit rules and expectations

Phys

ical

spa

ces

Phys

ical

spa

ces

Phys

ical

spa

ces

Phys

ical

spa

ces

Resp

onse

s to

tech

nolo

gy

Resp

onse

s to

tech

nolo

gy Pam tentatively asks Hugh (HoD) if it would be ‘ok’ to use paper atlases with the students, rather than using google earth on the iPads. ‘I’m not going to be frowned on for not using technology, am I?’

(Pam, fieldnotes 15/1/2013)

Resp

onse

s to

tech

nolo

gy Tim: I tend to use PowerPoints…sometimes as like a starting point to thinking about things…my teaching at the start of the year heavily relied on PowerPoints

Hugh (HoD): So is it a crutch for you, or is it

Tim: yeah, I think it was – and then I took it away, and so I just use bits now, rather than everything

(Beach Academy department interview:79-82)

Cons

truc

ting

the

curr

icul

um I: How do you decide what you’re going to teach in a lesson?

Pam: You mean after I’ve looked at the scheme of work?

(Pam, interview 1:56-57)

Cons

truc

ting

the

curr

icul

um KS3: National Curriculum plays a weak role in defining what is taught (greater teacher autonomy)

KS4 & 5: Examination Specifications play a strong role in defining what is taught (less teacher autonomy, greater emphasis on particularities of individual specifications)

(See Puttick 2015 for further discussion)

Cons

truc

ting

the

curr

icul

um

Cons

truc

ting

the

curr

icul

um ‘at the grammar school there was quite a lot of textbook work…[whereas at] this school they don't; I've hardly seen one lesson that's been based on [a] textbook, whereas when I was at school and on my first placement they had shelves of different textbooks that you could pick and choose from and work from, so that's quite a contrast’.

(George, interview 1:62)

Impl

icit

rule

s &

exp

ecta

tions

The trainee teachers ‘sacrificed asking questions…because they feared that it might make them seem incompetent or otherwise negatively affect their evaluation’.

(Sirna et al. 2008 p.296)

Impl

icit

rule

s &

exp

ecta

tions

The student teachers ‘acknowledged the stress of trying to pick up signals and engage in various tasks to fit with the office community, particularly given the pressure of the suitability rating they would receive at the conclusion of the practicum’

(Sirna et al. 2008 p.295)

Impl

icit

rule

s &

exp

ecta

tions

Impl

icit

rule

s &

exp

ecta

tions ‘do I need to put a sign on the

door? I don’t just walk into the MFL faculty room and just start having a conversation…They shouldn’t use the guillotine – we bought it, and offered to share, but no-one wanted to, so it’s just ours. It’s getting out of control the people coming in here’.

(HoD, Town Comprehensive, fieldnotes 26/4/13)

• The importance of departments for beginning teachers’ developing expertise

•Opportunities and challenges:• Physical spaces• Constructing the curriculum• Implicit rules & expectations

•How can we develop our understandings of departments?

•How can universities work with departments?

•How can beginning teachers be prepared for, and supported in experiences in departments?

ReferencesBall, S. & Lacey, C. 1984. Subject disciplines as the opportunity for group action: a measured critique of subject sub-cultures. In A. Hargreaves & P. Woods, eds. Classrooms and staffrooms. Milton Keynes: Open University Press, p. 149.

Busher, H. & Harris, A. 1999. Leadership of School Subject Areas: Tensions and dimensions of managing in the middle. School Leadership & Management, 19(3), pp.305–317.

Childs, A., Burn, K. & McNicholl, J. 2013. What influences the learning cultures of subject departments in secondary schools? A study of four subject departments in England. Teacher Development, 17(1), pp.35–54.

Hargreaves, A. & Macmillan, R. 1995. The Balkanization of Secondary School Teaching. In L. S. Siskin & J. W. Little, eds. The Subjects in Question: Departmental Organization and the High School. New York, NY: Teachers College Press, pp. 141–171.

Ko, J., Hallinger, P. & Walker A. 2015 Exploring whole school versus subject department improvement in Hong Kong secondary schools, School Effectiveness and School Improvement, 26(2), pp.215-239.

Melville, W. & Wallace, J., 2007. Subject, Relationships and Identity: The Role of a Science Department in the Professional Learning of a Non-University Science Educated Teacher. Research in Science Education, 37, pp.155–169.

Puttick, S. 2015 Chief Examiners as Prophet and Priest: relations between examination boards and school subjects, and possible implications for knowledge, The Curriculum Journal, 26(3), pp.468-487.

Siskin, L.S. 1994. Realms of Knowledge: Academic Departments in Secondary Schools, London: The Falmer Press.

Sirna, K., Tinning, R. & Rossi, T. 2008. The social tasks of learning to become a physical education teacher: considering the HPE subject department as a community of practice. Sport, Education and Society, 13(3), pp.285–300.