Katrina Miller, School of Education, University of Brighton, Falmer, Brighton BN1 9PH

Paper presented at the British Educational Research Association Annual Conference, The QueenÕs University of Belfast, Northern Ireland, 27th - 30th August 1998

Katrina Miller, School of Education, University of Brighton, Falmer, Brighton BN1 9PH

Tel: 01273 - 643436 Fax: 01273 - 643555 Email:

Danger, doubt and distrust : an analysis of responses to new primary ITT curricula in primary science

Abstract:

This year has seen the distribution of a new curriculum for ITT in Primary Science. Enshrined in the document is the concept of ÔauditÕ and a de-contextualised notion of Ôsubject knowledgeÕ as a privileged characteristic of Ôeffective teachingÕ. The ASK project problematized the auditing of subject knowledge in an ideologically explicit, socio-cultural framework. A theoretical analysis of auditing and subject knowledge precedes a presentation of data on HE colleaguesÕ responses to the new curricula, interpreted in the light of the theoretical framework. Points of tension and contestation, as well as opportunities for interpretation are examined. Proposals for consideration recommend ways forward in the contestation of the autonomy of the present curriculum model and a recapturing of the education of, critically reflective teachers of primary science.

The context and the issue

The context for this paper is one of crises from the particular and local to the general and global. Locally, in education, we have a crisis in terms of governmentÕs perceived failure of the teaching of literacy and numeracy and to a lesser degree, science too. Although international league tables and national inspection evidence have provided government with evidence of this crisis (Keys, 1996; Reynolds & Fared, 1996; OFSTED, 1996), such comparisons in science education are relatively positive. However, as the third core subject, albeit now a Ôthird amongst equalsÕ, science teaching is still viewed as in need of improvement and this has been defined in the same epistemological and pedagogical terms as English and Maths. All this reflects the crisis of confidence in primary teachers. There is an underlying denial of professionalism manifested in this sense of failure and demonstrated in the invasion of state education by new managerialism. New management surveillance systems, the dominance of accountability and quality assurance are evidenced in the agency and missions of OFSTED and the TTA. The crisis in structures and systems in education are symptoms and reflections of the wider socio-cultural crises in social relations of power, in a continuing under-provision of an appropriately skilled workforce and high unemployment, particularly among the young. Our local interest is in science education; the more global is manifested in issues around the public understanding of science, in political revelations and public debate of ÔhotÕ scientific issues in environmental or human health which recur with worrying regularity. While these issues have not yet impacted on school science, their significance in science teacher training and education can no longer be ignored

Government response to these crises has been the introduction of a statutory national curriculum for the training and education of teachers (DfEE, 1998) along with quality control structures and systems to ensure its implementation. This is designed to ensure the Ôraising of standardsÕ in our state schools through ensuring the ÔqualityÕ or ÔstandardÕ of entrants to the teaching profession. It is defined by a tight, singular model of knowledge, of pedagogy, of power relations and ideology. In this paper I am exploring HE teacher education tutor responses to the demands of the national curriculum for ITT in Primary Science through a socio-cultural analysis of the implications of the notion of (i) 'subject knowledge' and the isolation of (ii) 'audit' now privileged in the dominant model of 'effective teacher', the identity of which teacher education courses are designed to form. These two concepts will be explored before an interpretation of responses to the new orders. I conclude with propositions for further consideration of ways to contest the autonomy of the present ITT curriculum and strategies to recapture developmental space for the university education of effective teachers of primary science.

The theoretical application

Teaching and learning in science education, as in other disciplines in the curriculum, have been theorised in psychological terms by constructivism and the pedagogical implications of constructivism. Primary science teacher education remains under theorised and certainly has not been analysed from a socio-cultural perspective. This perspective takes the view that knowledge is socially constructed, historically sited and that learning is a social practice rather than the acquisition of mechanistic, technical skills and the transmission of a given, incontestable body of knowledge. Recent work in literacy and numeracy theory (Baker & Street, 1994), for example, has developed a socio-cultural model which conceives of literacy and numeracy as social practices. Street (1995) terms the mechanistic, technical model as ÔautonomousÕ and the socio-cultural as ÔideologicalÕ. Baker (1996) applied this socio-cultural model to a theorisation of numeracy as social practice. Colin Lankshear differentiates this socio-cultural approach by emphasising its privileging of,

Òmeaning over mechanical skills, with ÔmeaningÕ seen much more in terms of sociocultural processes than as private internal cognitive states or events. Within this frame, questions of power and the role of literacies as social practices within social productions and distributions of power have often been foregrounded.Ó

(Lankshear, 1997:3)

In substituting knowledge, understanding and skills in science for literacy studies, we can begin to theorise science education from a perspective where knowledge is socially constructed, ideological and value laden. Scientific ideas and explanations are therefore contextualised in their historical, cultural and social setting to make explicit the consequences of this way of knowing the world. This theoretical understanding impacts not only on the relationship between the knowledge, the student teacher and her developing pedagogy but also on her identity as science teacher. In other words, it changes the nature of the ÔdiscourseÕ which James Gee has written about as, Ò ways of being in the worldÓ. (Gee, 1990) Discourse refers to the ways in which areas of knowledge are structured, the ways in which social practices are legitimated, the ways in which social reality is constructed (Miller, 1996). We can add here, the ways in which teacher identity is formulated, or more particularly, the ways in which we construct effective- teacher -of -primary- science identity. Bell & Gilbert have summarised this formation of identity thus;

ÒThe development of self-identity as a teacher of science is a part of teacher development. What it means to be a teacher of science is socially constructed and a part of the culture of science teaching. During teacher development, this culture and socially constructed knowledge will be renegotiated and reconstructed. An individual teacher will be constructing for himself or herself a self-identity as a teacher and be positioned within this culture.Ó

(Bell & Gilbert 1996: 68)

Although Bell & GilbertÕs project focused on post-experience professional development, their acknowledgement that teacher development is personal and social as well as professional (Bell & Gilbert, 1996) in the formation of teacher identity is relevant to initial training and education too. The way in which science is conceived and presented in the ITT curriculum, the ways in which we as providers relate to the aims, the content and the teaching, learning and assessment of the curriculum will impact on the identity formation of our students. Thus, a socio-cultural analysis of responses to the ITT national curriculum may reveal significances about its impact..

Features of the new curriculum (4/98)

The new curriculum for providers of teacher training in primary science appears as Annex E in Circular Number 4/98 which presents the criteria forming the standards which all trainees must achieve to be awarded QTS by their HEI. (DfEE, 4/98) This curriculum presents a cultural transmission model of epistemology and pedagogy. The curriculum is presented in three separate sections which reveal this:

Ò SECTION A

Pedagogical knowledge and understanding required to secure pupilsÕ progress in science

SECTION B

Effective teaching and assessment methods

SECTION C

TraineesÕ knowledge and understanding of science Ò

(DfEE, 4/98 : p66)

The underpinning belief seems to be that certain pedagogical skills and competencies can and have been identified as optimum to ensure all pupilsÕ progression towards understanding the accepted, autonomous canon of scientific ideas which are themselves presented as a list in Section C. Although caveat statements appear to state that this curriculum should not be read as a syllabus and that, Ò it is expected that providers of ITT will include ... other aspects of science, not specified in this curriculumÓ, the danger remains that courses will, in the light of inspection frameworks, not only privilege these aspects over others, but lead to a separation in course delivery too.

I have selected two requirements from Annex E for particular exploration as they seem to me representative of the culture and knowledge transmission model as well as having deeply significant implications for the Discourse of teacher education. These are:

the notion of Ôthe subject knowledgeÕ (DfEE, 4/98, Annex E p66 and p77, C13)

and

the notion of ÔauditÕ (DfEE, 4/98, Annex E p66 and p77, C11)

We must remember of equal significance are the requirements of the new OFSTED quality assurance framework within which providers are now operating and which constrain opportunities for alternative frameworks to epistemologies, pedagogies and curricula in a way never before seen in UK universities. A discussion of these remains outside the scope of this paper.

The possibility of 'subject knowledge'

That a teacher of primary science, to be effective, will have secure knowledge and understanding of, and skills in, the ideas and processes of science is not in question. (Alexander, Rose & Woodhead, 1992; Wragg in Pollard & Bourne, 1995) Teacher knowledge, or knowledges, have been widely modelled. Shulman (1987) for one names seven categories of teacher knowledge, one of which is what he terms Òcontent knowledgeÓ. This is,

Ò ... the accepted truths in a domain ... also ... 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.Ó

(Shulman in Pollard & Bourne, 1994:85)

Importantly, he bases this knowledge in Òscholarship in content disciplinesÓ so equates to the Ôsubject knowledgeÕ of Section C. Shulman then identifies Ôpedagogical content knowledgeÕ as,

Ò that special amalgam of content and pedagogy that is uniquely the province of teachers, their own form of professional understanding ... It represents the blending of content and pedagogy into an understanding of how particular topics, problems or issues are organised, represented, and adapted to the diverse interests and abilities of learners, and presented for instruction.Ó

(Shulman, 1987: 8)

Much academic writing about teacher learning and development uses ShulmanÕs model. However useful this taxonomy may be, and it is not without its critics, it makes no claims in the relationship of subject knowledge and pedagogical content knowledge in the context of teacherÕs developing scholarship in a discipline (learning some science). We can agree then that a teacher of primary science will need to understand, and feel secure in that understanding, of the conventional, given, scientific explanations that underpin the science she is required to teach in her primary classroom. What remains contentious is the possibility and efficacy of separation of this Ôsubject knowledgeÕ from pedagogical content knowledge. One could argue, in the light of situated cognition theory (Lave, 1995), that to separate, and more importantly to then separately audit, this scientific understanding removed from the site of the student teacherÔs developing pedagogical understandings and practices, is less than efficacious and counter-productive to the aim of promoting confidence and security. Indeed, such a decontextualisation of knowledge carries a negative Ôdeficit modelÕ message to the developing identity of primary science teacher in relation to knowledge itself and reinforces the identity of the teacher as a passive, dependent, ÔdelivererÕ of knowledge, a curriculum technician. It also reinforces the autonomy of the epistemological model of science as an objective, value free, incontestable body of knowledge (Baker & Miller, 1997). This creates barriers to the learning of science.

The introductory paragraphs of Annex E specify, " ... the essential core of knowledge, understanding and skills which all trainees ... must be taught and be able to use in their teaching. " In a list of key concepts, this 'subject knowledge' is referred to as a necessity for effective teaching in, " a clear specification of the subject knowledge needed to underpin effective teachingÓ. This knowledge is presented as ÔautonomousÕ, as objective, value free, universal and with no acknowledgement of relations of power (Baker & Street, op.cit.; Baker, Clay & Fox, 1996)The necessity for secure subject knowledge for effective teaching is uncontested; it is the epistemological model of that science that is to be challenged. The commodification of that content knowledge as distinct from pedagogical content knowledge, as we shall see, may be the construction of the prerequisite conditions for the possibility of ÔauditÕ.

The possibility of 'audit'

In the introductory paragraphs to Annex E, Section C of 4/98 we are instructed,

Ò ... to audit trainees' existing subject knowledge against the specification and to ensure that trainees gain the necessary knowledge and understanding before the end of the course." (DfEE, 1998: 66)

The use of the word, 'audit' is a measure of the depth and breadth of the successful invasion of higher education of the discourse and practices of new managerialism. Part of the new public management ethos and model is the requirement for quality assurance management systems to develop. Auditing is one such instrument of new public management practices. The managerial assumptions, models and values underpinning these new strategies need to be explored and made explicit. For example, an audit is based, on the one hand, on the need to root out fraud, and on the other, to ensure, Òvalue for moneyÓ and public accountability. It is embedded in mistrust, on doubt and is used where there is the danger of system failure. Audit originated in US higher education, was hijacked by accountancy and finance and arrives in education by way of applications in the management of public health services and the environment. Auditing is an instrument of new management, a process or system designed to check up on the efficiency and value, the efficacy and honesty of a system. The purposes and intentions of its use in ITT are more the production of the reassurance, security and self-confidence of managers in the face of increasing control and surveillance by central government of a perceived failure in teacher training than the production of reasoned, research-based development of excellence in teacher education. Power talks about the production of Òassurance and comfortÓ and says that,

Ò Auditing has the character of a certain kind of organizational script whose dramaturgical essence is the production of comfort.Ó

(Power, 1997: 123)

and further,

Ò The question is ... whether audit provides deluded visions of control and transparency which satisfy the self-image of managers, regulators and politicians but which are neither as effective nor as neutral as commonly imagined.Ó

(Power, 1997: 143)

In requiring our students to produce ÔevidenceÕ not only of successful use of audit instruments (checklists, diagnostic tasks, completed examination papers and so on) but also of remedial study to Ôfill gapsÕ (portfolios of notes, workshop generated tasks and notes, photocopies of text book pages and articles, for example), we seem to be producing rituals of control for our own comfort production in the face of surveillance rather than effective teacher identity and development.

Auditing is only possible where there are measurable commodities and auditable systems. In financial accounting, there are auditable accounts of profit and loss, expenditure and income and well developed book keeping systems and structures. Likewise, the concept has been applied to the environmental damage accountability of commercial interests and industries where there is a statutory framework for control of environmental degradation and a requirement for explicit public accounting of these control systems. Science and technology have provided the wherewithal, through sophisticated instrumentation and analytical techniques, to commodify the environmental consequences, pollution output levels and so on of industrial and commercial activity as well as the knowledge and understanding that legitimate public safety standards against which these can be judged. Commodification is a prerequisite of audit. In the public health sector, new health improvement programmes are being set up with systems to measure outcomes against defined health improvement, another form of auditing. It is an attempt to create a currency commodifying quality of health. The understandable management concern to achieve value for money impacts on, indeed colonises, the form and outcomes of the system itself . In education, we see similar approaches taking hold in the explicit commodification of competencies-based training systems and courses. For example, Section C in Annex E comprises a listing of the scientific ideas which are held to underpin the schoolsÕ science curriculum at KS1 and 2. As soon as this body of knowledge appears in this form it constitutes an ÔisolatedÕ auditing instrument. Power(1997) describes this as,

" the drift towards delivery philosophies of teaching, supported by hard managerial assumptions, ... transforming teaching from a relationship into a transaction which can be made auditable in isolation."

(Power, 1997: 103)

This ÒdeliveryÓ and ÒtransactionÓ can clearly be seen in Annex E (DfEE, 1998). The deliberate use of 'audit' in isolation is suspicious precisely because of the association with dangerous distrust and suspicion of failure. What is required here is a self examination, an assessment or a diagnosis of the depth and security of, and confidence in, certain scientific concepts, and understandings of the connections between those concepts, as understood by an individual student, understanding which is sited in pedagogical practices, and therefore best evidenced by the studentÕs classroom performances and practices. The counter-productivity of the isolation of auditing of scientific ideas becomes evident. As local illustration, a significant number of students, when faced with an audit experience, regressed into GCSE revision mode to self assess and attempted to fill gaps in their knowledge. The outcome was at worst an unacceptable level of induced anxiety and stress, at best shallow knowledge of revisited concepts from secondary school science experience.

Power (1997) develops two consequences of auditing which have implications for its application in teacher education. Firstly, he talks about the danger of "de-coupling" where auditing becomes, "compartmentalised in such a way in that it is remote from the very organisational processes which give it its point" What he is saying here is that there is a danger that the process of audit itself may not measure what is appropriate and of significance about the project or system. An illustration of this would be our separate auditing module which attempted to measure and remediate scientific understanding removed from the context of primary teacher development. Secondly, he introduces the notion of "colonisation" where,