Teachers’ professional knowledge can be seen as Pedagogic Content Knowledge (PCK); that knowledge teachers develop from contact with the varying communities and cultures in which they work, and the reality of practice, enacted Pedagogic Content Knowledge.
In early articles Shulman (1986; 1987) defined the concept of PCK as:
‘…that special amalgam of content and pedagogy that is uniquely the province of teachers, their own special form of professional understanding’ (Shulman, 1987:8)
Thus PCK referred to knowledge derived from interaction between a teacher’s specialist subject experience and pedagogical beliefs in order to decide how a particular topic might be presented for optimal ‘learnability’ (Bucat, 2005). The teacher’s job was seen as ‘re-packaging and re-presenting’ (Bucat, 2005) her knowledge to ‘transform’ the subject-matter knowledge into forms ‘accessible’ to learners (Shulman, 1986). Banks et al (1999) argued this concept did not go far enough and differentiated between subject, pedagogical and ‘school’ knowledge. The latter, involving curricular knowledge, was defined as an understanding of the ways that subject knowledge was transformed within the school environment and established a relationship between teachers, learners and content. Thus teachers drew on personal subject constructions but also public subject interpretations contained in and shared through curriculum guidelines, schemes of work and textbooks (Loveless, 2007). McCaughtry (2004; 2005) went further arguing that teachers employ an emotional and social knowledge about their learners when making decisions about content, pedagogy or curriculum. Teachers he argued responded to the physical, emotional and social aspects of the immediate classroom experience. McCaughtry’s research (2004, 2005) had limitations, as it was small scale and specific, but it accords with arguments for the inter-personal nature of humans
(Bruner, 1998; Gorman, 2004) and the ethical dimension of teaching (Avis and Bathmaker, 2004; Winch, 2004). PCK in this context is dynamic. It requires teachers to actively shape, tailor, and transform knowledge to match perceptions of learners’ needs (Loveless, 2007). It is this transformation of knowledge, involving analysis of Tight’s (2002) individual (micro), community (meso) and national (macro) layers of the classroom experience, which characterises teachers.
This concept of ‘representational repertoire’ (Loveless, 2007) was reflected in Hashweh’s (2005) revisiting of PCK. He suggested that the term Teacher Pedagogical Constructs (TPCs) better conveyed the meaning and development of PCK. These constructs he envisaged as personal and private knowledge resulting mainly from planning, but also from the interactive and post-active phases of teaching. Such constructions were topic specific, interactive and drew on a range of knowledge bases for which Hashweh returned to Shulman’s (1987) seven interconnected categories of teacher knowledge: content knowledge, knowledge and beliefs about learners, pedagogical knowledge, knowledge of context, knowledge of resources, curricular knowledge, and beliefs about aims of education. This image of knowledge as classroom experience dependant suggests that experienced teachers have a richer PCK, than novice teachers (Cochran, 1997; Cochran et al., 1993; Veal & MaKinster, 1999). Shulman and Shulmans’ (2004) research suggested, however, that attitude as well as experience was important. They defined an accomplished teacher as
‘…a member of a professional community who is ready, willing, and able to teach and to learn from his or her teaching experience.’ (Shulman and Shulman 2004:259)
This element of ‘readiness’ and self mind-set appears to be missing from Hashweh’s description of PCK. Yet understanding of self and society can be seen as central to new professionalism (Sachs, 2003) and reflexive practitioner.
Every aspect of a teacher’s work involves a personal dimension (Coldron and Smith, 1999). At the micro level improving practice involves assessment of own strengths, weaknesses and beliefs (Bottery and Barnett, 1996). While at the macro level teachers require understanding of their place in the wider landscape (Beijaard et al, 2004, Bottery and Barnett, 1996) and the effects of legislation or managerial influences to be able to make choices about how to respond to the socially ‘given’ (Coldron and Smith, 1999). It has been argued that without a sense of self in context teachers could become disinterested in the wider picture (Bottery and Wright, 2000), or undervalue their personal understanding of learners and context (Dadds, 1997) and look to outside experts, like awarding bodies or OFSTED, to provide answers. This acquiescence Nias (1997) suggested made them authority-dependent and unquestioning of practice rational. To counter this Dadds (1997) called for more opportunities for teachers to reflect on practice and develop their ‘inner wisdom’. But the nature of that reflection can differ (Antonek et al, 1997; Mansvelder- Longauroux et al, 2007) and Turner-Bisset (1997) concluded that knowledge of self was an important requisite for higher level thinking and thus reflective ability. Antonek et al (1997) went further by defining reflection as a key component of the concept of self. For them there was no self without reflection. Self knowledge was, thus, the fabric of identity (Nias, 1989) and the self as teacher evolved through reflection of personal and social histories and making sense of the self in context (Coldron and Smith, 1999). Self knowledge thus can be seen as essential to developing, interpreting and utilising PCK and as such is required within a PCK model.
Shulman’s (1987) and thus Hashweh’s (2005), knowledge bases have further limitations in that the category labels did not clearly differentiate practical, theoretical and reflexive forms of knowledge. There were areas of overlap (Turner-Bisset, 1999). For example content knowledge encapsulated three different types of subject knowledge: a) ‘substantive’ knowledge, which Turner- Bisset (1999) described as the facts, concepts and organizational frameworks of a discipline, b) ‘syntactical’ knowledge concerned with processes for
application and generation of knowledge or ideas, and c) beliefs about the subject developed from literature, engagement and concepts of what is important to know. For Turner-Bisset (1999) these knowledge bases should be seen separately. Similarly Hashweh did not distinguish between the beliefs and understandings about pedagogy and practical classroom management. The former might be defined as theoretical understandings of learners’ drawn from formal training and the latter as ‘Professional Craft Knowledge’ (Brown and McIntyre, 1993) or ‘General pedagogical knowledge’ (Turner-Bisset, 1999). That is
‘…. that part of their professional knowledge which teachers acquire primarily through their practical experience in the classroom rather than their formal training, which guides their day-to-day actions in classrooms, which is for the most part not articulated in words and which is brought to bear spontaneously, routinely and sometimes unconsciously on their teaching.’ (Brown & McIntyre, 1993:17)
For teachers of adults, perhaps with limited educational training, this type of practical knowledge could be particularly significant. Reliance on performance expertise, however, could create problems in terms of reflexive practice. Firstly, its spontaneous, intuitive nature can make it difficult for teachers to articulate (Dreyfus and Dreyfus, 1986, 2005). Practical knowledge can become so much a part of practice that teachers may no longer be able to rationalise how they know what they know. They simply react to situations, responding and adapting to context, or individual learners, without conscious thought. Secondly, novice teachers’ early classroom experiences may involve misunderstanding of classroom needs (Atkinson, 2004) due to the need to control situations, the diversity of teacher/learner interactions, or the degree of influence of contributing contextual factors. These misinterpretations could become part of their personal constructs and shape their future practice. Atkinson concluded that images of ‘good teaching’ could be superseded by the reality of teaching leading to what he termed ‘imaginary identity’. Teaching practices could thus fall
short of the individual’s theorised image of a teacher or perceptions of own practice. This means that what teachers say or believe about teaching may not always be reflected in what they do.
Twelve categories of personal teacher knowledge bases can be identified: including the 3 elements of content knowledge, curricular and resources knowledge, beliefs and models of teaching, social and cognitive knowledge about learners, general pedagogical knowledge, knowledge of self and context, and aims purposes and philosophy of education [Figure 2.3]. For this research concerned with teachers’ professional knowledge, defined as PCK and enacted PCK, these personal interpretations of knowledge are insufficient. They form only one layer of the classroom experience. Community or social influences may also impact on teachers’ knowledge.
Gudmundsdottir (1991) emphasized the value-laden nature of PCK. This suggests that as future teachers learn their subject matter they also acquire its value structure; the subject sub-culture. But teachers work within multiple- community environments (Wenger, 1998) and competing frameworks, each with its own sub-culture, beliefs and values which may, implicitly or explicitly, shape PCK. Professional knowledge is a product of all facets of the teacher’s life (Heimlich and Norland, 1994) leading to the notion of multiple selves (Roberts, 2000). For example teachers simultaneously draw on knowledge of a) the classroom community, formed by the members in the classroom and their beliefs and expectations of learning (McCaughtry, 2005); b) the community of the college or institution where learning is taking place and the learning ethos it promotes, or the curriculum (Ecclestone and Pryor, 2003) and management systems (Hammond and Mumtaz, 2001) it adopts; c) the community of ICT users defined by subject-culture, what it is to be an ICT user (Hamilton, 1993; Hammond & Mumtaz, 2001; John & Baggott La Velle, 2004); d) the community of ICT users skills teachers, what it is to be an ICT user skills teacher (Olson, 1988; Shulman, 1987); e) the local geographical and/or cultural community of the learners, which may not be the teacher’s own, meaning that there may be
Figure 2.3: Theoretical model of ICT Teacher Professional Knowledge Teacher knowledge bases Substantive subject knowledge Syntactical subject knowledge Beliefs about nature of subject Curricular knowledge Knowledge of resources Beliefs and models of teaching Social knowledge about learners Cognitive knowledge of learners Knowledge of self Knowledge of context Aims, purposes and philosophy General pedagogical knowledge Functional skills Subject sub-culture Institutional management Views of knowledge Purpose of use Institutional strategy Syllabus Society Biography Micro Meso Training Classroom Community context Macro
duality to community values; and finally f) the wider community of the society in which the learning takes place (Broadfoot et al, 1988). This latter knowledge moves beyond the immediate experiences of teachers and learners to wider, sometimes nebulous, notions of the role of education, teacher professionalism, technological needs and governmental policy. Thus teachers’ professional knowledge is not just about their personal pedagogical constructs, derived from their own beliefs and experiences but will also be influenced by the institutions in which they work and by the society in which they live. What Zembylas (2007) termed the ‘knowledge ecology’. A model for teachers’ professional knowledge can therefore be envisaged as triad layers of contextualised, interrelated knowledge bases.
The danger of presenting a model with labelled categories is that it might be presumed to be static (Turner-Bisset, 1999). Zembylas (2007) envisaged the ‘knowledge ecology’ as a symbiotic relationship between the various knowledge elements and agents, videlicet teachers, learners, classrooms, resources, employers, community. Hashweh (2005) similarly defined TPCs as interconnected and Shulman and Shulman (2004) envisaged teachers as changing with experience. The knowledge elements in this model should similarly be viewed as interdependent and interactive. A change to any of the elements has the potential to change any other elements. Thus a change in government’s policy on adults’ teachers’ professional training has the potential to change the teacher’s knowledge about her learners’ cognitive development, leading to a review of epistemological understandings, thus impacting on beliefs and models about teaching and so on. This changing and dynamic nature does not just apply to changing elements. Assuming an emotional and contextual nature to knowledge means that the same teacher could respond to and interpret knowledge differently in differing circumstances for example whether she was working in a community or work based environment, with examination or non-examination curriculums, or younger or older learners. Thus how the teacher interprets the wants or needs of the differing agents in a given context could impact on their decisions for teaching practice.
Thus a range of personal, organizational and community interactions, perceptions and beliefs may impact on teachers and define teaching practices. Teachers’ professional knowledge is, or should be, ongoing and active (Zembylas, 2007) constantly changing with the ebb and flow of the teacher’s growing personal experiences and changing contexts. By actively reflecting on the many influences on practice teachers can design teaching that best fits their learners’ needs. Teachers’ professional identities are manifested in their classroom practice (Coldron and Smith, 1999) making style the match between teaching beliefs and behaviours (Heimlich and Norland, 1994; 2002). The next two sections explore how PCK might be enacted; beginning with possible interpretations of the teaching and learning process, then examining how perceptions of adult learners might influence teaching decisions in relation to user ICT as a subject. These sections are concerned with how the kind of activities and beliefs that may underpin ICT teachers’ view of teaching and learning with adults might impact on outcomes.