Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Subject-Specific Demands of Teaching: Implications for Out-of-Field Teachers

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Examining the Phenomenon of “Teaching Out-of-field”

Abstract

This chapter provides a framework for thinking about the subject-specific nature of teaching in terms of the knowledge, modes of inquiry and discursive practices that delineate one subject from another in the traditional school curriculum. The chapter will explore how these disciplinary traits are translated into teaching as curriculum, knowledge and pedagogy, and how this subject-specificity of teaching is juxtaposed against the more generic aspects of teaching. The chapter explores the idea that if a teacher’s expertise can be situated within a field, then they can also be positioned out-of-field. Implications for teaching out-of-field are discussed in terms of the subject-specific knowledge, processes and skills, and the difficulties associated with teacher practice. English and Australian illustrations of teacher practices from in-field and out-of-field situations are provided, in particular highlighting the demands of moving across subject boundaries. Cross-fertilisation is especially evident when subjects are integrated, therefore, the issues associated with integrated curriculum are discussed where the traditional subject boundaries are being challenged as schools are reorganised to integrate subjects through, for example, STEM teaching, or holistic curriculum designs.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 99.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Hardcover Book
USD 129.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Airaksinen, T., Halinen, I., & Linturi, H. (2017). Futuribles of learning 2030—Delphi supports the reform of the core curricula in Finland. European Journal of Futures Research, 5(2), 1–14.

    Google Scholar 

  • Anderman, E. R., & Maehr, M. L. (1994). Motivation and schooling in the middle grades. Review of Educational Research, 64(2), 287–309.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Argyris, C., & Schön, D. (1974). Theory in practice: Increasing professional effectiveness. San Fransisco: Jossey-Bass.

    Google Scholar 

  • Arnold, R. (2000). Middle years literature review including list of references. Retrieved January 10, 2007, from http://www.boardofstudies.nsw.edu.au.

  • Australian Government. (2011). Research skills for an innovative future. Canberra: Australian Government.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ball, S., & Lacey, C. (1980). Subject disciplines as the opportunity for group action: A measured critique of subject sub-cultures. In P. Woods (Ed.), Teacher strategies: Explorations in the sociology of the school (pp. 149–177). London: Croom Helm.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ball, B., Coles, A., Hewitt, D., Wilson, D., Jacques, L., Cross, K., et al. (2005). Talking about subject-specific pedagogy. For the Learning of Mathematics, 25(3), 32–36.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ball, D. L., Thames, M., & Phelps, G. (2008). Content knowledge for teaching: What makes it special? Journal of Teacher Education, 59(5), 389–407. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022487108324554.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Banks, F., Leach, J., & Moon, B. (1999). New understandings of teachers’ pedagogic knowledge. In J. Leach & B. Moon (Eds.), Learners and pedagogy. London: Paul Chapman Publishing).

    Google Scholar 

  • Beane, J. (1990). A middle school curriculum: From rhetoric to reality. Ohio: National Middle School Association.

    Google Scholar 

  • Beane, J. (1995). Curriculum integration and the disciplines of knowledge. Phi Delta Kappan, 76(8), 616–622.

    Google Scholar 

  • Becher, T. (1989). Academic tribes and territories. Bristol: Open University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Beswick, K. (2007). Teachers’ beliefs that matter in secondary classrooms. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 65, 95–120.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bransform, Brown, Cocking. (Eds.). (2000). How people learn: brain, mind, experience, and school. Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Briggs, S. (2016). Traditional subjects: can we do without them? InformED. Retrieved May, 2017, from http://www.opencolleges.edu.au/informed/features/traditional-subjects-can-we-do-without-them/.

  • Crisan, C., & Rodd, M. (2011). Teachers of mathematics to mathematics teachers: A TDA mathematics development programme for teachers. British Society for Research into Learning Mathematics, 31(3), 29–34.

    Google Scholar 

  • Crisan, C., & Rodd, M. (2014). Talking the talk…but walking the walk? How do non-specialist mathematics teachers come to see themselves as mathematics teachers? In L. Hobbs, & G. Törner (Eds.), Taking an International Perspective on Out-Of-Field Teaching: Proceedings and Agenda for Research and Action, 1st TAS Collective Symposium, 30–31 August 2014.

    Google Scholar 

  • Crisan, C., & Rodd, M. (2017). Learning mathematics for teaching mathematics: Non-specialist teachers’ mathematics teacher identity. Mathematics Teacher Education and Development, 19(2), 104–122.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cuoco, A., Goldenburg, P., & Mark, J. (1996). Habits of mind: An organizing principle for mathematics curricula. Journal of Mathematical Behavior, 15, 375–402.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Darby, L. (2005). Science students’ perceptions of engaging pedagogy. Research in Science Education, 35, 425–445.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Darby, L. (2010). Characterising secondary school teacher imperatives as Subject (Signature) pedagogies: A pedagogy of support in mathematics and a pedagogy of engagement in science. In S. Howard (Eds.), AARE 2010 Conference Proceedings. http://www.aare.edu.au/10pap/2499Darby.pdf.

  • Darby-Hobbs, L. (2013). Responding to a relevance imperative in school science and mathematics: Humanising the curriculum through story. Research in Science Education, 43(1), 77–97.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dorfler, W., & McLone, R. R. (1986). Mathematics as a school subject. In B. Christianson, A. G. Howson, & M. Otte (Eds.), Perspectives on mathematics education (pp. 49–97). Dordrecht: D. Riedel Publishing Co.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Du Plessis, A. E., Carroll, A., & Gillies, R. M. (2015). Understanding the lived experiences of novice out-of-field teachers in relation to school leadership practices. Asia-Pacific Journal of Teacher Education, 43(1), 4–21. https://doi.org/10.1080/1359866X.2014.937393.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gardner, H. (2001). An education for the future: The foundation of science and values. Retrieved June 22, 2004, from www.pz.harvard.edu/PIs/Ha_Amsterdam.htm.

  • Gardner, H. (2004). Discipline, understanding, and community. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 36(2), 233–236.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Goodson, I. (1993). School subjects and curriculum change (3rd ed.). Bristol: The Falmer Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Grossman, P. L., Stodolsky, S. S., & Knapp, M. S. (2004). Making subject matter part of the equation: The intersection of policy and content. Washington: Centre for the Study of Teaching and Policy.

    Google Scholar 

  • Grundy, S. (1994). Reconstructing the curriculum of Australia’s schools: Cross curricular issues and practices. Occasional Paper No. 4. Belconnen: Australian Curriculum Students Association Inc.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hargreaves, A. (1994). Changing teachers, changing times: Teachers’ work and culture in the postmodern age. London: Cassell.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hill, P. W., Holmes-Smith, P., & Rowe, K. J. (1993). School and teacher effectiveness in Victoria: Keyfindings from Phase 1 of the Victorian Quality Schools Project. Centre for Applied Educational Research: The University of Melbourne Institute of Education.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hobbs, L. (2012). Examining the aesthetic dimensions of teaching: Relationships between teacher knowledge, identity and passion. Teaching and Teacher Education, 28, 718–727.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hobbs, L. (2013). Teaching ’out-of-field’ as a boundary-crossing event: Factors shaping teacher identity. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 11(2), 271–297.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ingvarson, L., Beavis, A., Bishop, A., Peck, R., & Elsworth, G. (2004). Investigation of effective mathematics teaching and learning in Australian secondary schools. Canberra: Australian Council for Educational Research.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jones, G. (2004). The impact of 20 years of research. In B. Perry, G. Anthony, & C. Diezmann (Eds.), Research in mathematics education in Australasia (pp. 2000–2003). Flaxton, Qld: Post Pressed.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kipperman, D., & Sanders, M. (2007). Mind not the gap… take a risk: Interdisciplinary approaches to the science, technology, engineering & mathematics education agenda. In D. Barlex (Ed.), Design & technology for the next generation: A collection of provocative pieces. Whitchurch: Cliffeco Communications.

    Google Scholar 

  • LaPorte, J., & Sanders, M. (1995). Technology, science, mathematics integration. In E. Martin (Ed.), Foundations of technology education: Yearbook #44 of the council on technology teacher education. Peoria, IL: Glencoe/McGraw-Hill.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lemke, J. L. (2002). Science and experience. In C. S. Wallace & W. Louden (Eds.), Dilemmas of science teaching: Perspectives on problems of practice (pp. 30–33). London: RoutledgeFalmer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Little, J. W. (1993). Professional community in comprehensive high schools: The two worlds of academic and vocational teachers. In J. W. Little & M. W. McLaughlin (Eds.), Teachers’ work: Individuals, colleagues, and contexts (pp. 137–163). New York: Teachers College Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Luft, J. (2008). The impact of subject-specific induction programs: The example of science induction programs. Paper presented at the Annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, New York, NY, March 24–28, 2008.

    Google Scholar 

  • MacNamara, D. (1991). Subject knowledge and its application: Problems and possibilities for teacher educators. Journal of Education for Teaching, 17(2), 113–128.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Matters, G. (2001). The relationship between assessment and curriculum in improving teaching and learning. Paper presented at the Annual Conference for Australasian Curriculum Assessment and Certification Authorities, Sydney, July 2001.

    Google Scholar 

  • McGarr, O., & Lynch, R. (2015). Monopolising the STEM agenda in second-level schools: Exploring power relations and subject subcultures. International Journal of Technology Design Education. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10798-015-9333-0.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mousa, R. M. (2016). Mathematics teachers’ readiness and attitudes toward implementing integrated STEM education in Saudi Arabia: A mixed methods study. Unpublished Doctoral thesis, Southern Illinois University at Carbondale, Ann Arbour.

    Google Scholar 

  • National Council of Teachers of Mathematics. (2000). Principles and standards for school mathematics. Reston, VA: NCTM.

    Google Scholar 

  • National Curriculum Board. (2008). National mathematics curriculum: Framing paper. Retrieved November 30, 2008, from http://www.ncb.org.au/our_work/preparing_for_2009.html.

  • OfStEd. (2008) Mathematics: Understanding the score. Retrieved May 10, 2017, from http://www.ofsted.gov.uk/resources/mathematics-understanding-score.

  • Reys, R. E. (2001). Curricular controversy in the math wars: A battle without winners. Phi Delta Kappan, 255–258.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schein, E. (1992). Organizational culture and leadership (2nd ed.). San Fransisco: Jossey-Bass.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schoenfeld, A. H. (2004). Multiple learning communities: Students, teachers, instructional designers, and researchers. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 36(2), 237–255.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schwab, J. J. (1969). College curricula and student protest. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sherin, M. G., Mendez, E. P., & Louis, D. A. (2004). A discipline apart: The challenge of ‘Fostering a Community of Learners’ in mathematics classrooms. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 36(2), 207–232.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shulman, L. S. (1986). Those who understand: Knowledge growth in teaching. Educational Researcher, 15(2), 4–14.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shulman, L. (1987). Knowledge and teaching: Foundations of the new reform. Harvard Educational Review, 57(1), 1–22.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shulman, L. S., & Quinlan, K. (1996). The comparative psychology of school subjects. In D. C. Berliner & R. C. Calfee (Eds.), Handbook of educational psychology (pp. 399–422). New York: Macmillan Pub.

    Google Scholar 

  • Shulman, L. S., & Sherin, M. G. (2004). Fostering communities of teachers as learners: Disciplinary perspectives. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 62(2), 135–140.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Siskin, L. S. (1994). Realms of knowledge: Academic departments in secondary schools. London: The Falmer Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sizer, T. (1994). Horace’s hope: What works for the American high school. Boston: Houghton Miffin.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stacey, K. (2003). The need to increase attention to mathematical reasoning. In H. Hollingsworth, J. Lokan, & B. McCrae (Eds.), Teaching mathematics in Australia: Results from the TIMSS 1999 Video Study (pp. 119–122). Camberwell, Vic.: Australian Council of Educational Research.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stanley, W. B., & Brickhouse, N. W. (2001). Teaching sciences: The multicultural question revisited. Science Education, 85(1), 35–49.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stodolsky, S. S. (1988). The subject matters: Classroom activity in mathematics and social studies. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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, 227–249.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sullivan, P. (2003). Knowledge for teaching mathematics: An introduction. In P. Sullivan & T. Wood (Eds.), Knowledge and beliefs in mathematics teaching and teaching development (pp. 1–9). Rotterdam: Sense Publishers.

    Google Scholar 

  • Teacher Development Agency. (2011). Join the free Return to Teaching (RTT) Programme. Retrieved December 3, 2011, from http://www.tda.gov.uk/teacher/returning-to-teaching/ske-for-returners.aspx.

  • Tytler, R., Smith, R., Grover, P., & Brown, S. (1999). A comparison of professional development models for teachers of primary mathematics and science. Asia Pacific Journal of Teacher Education, 27(3), 193–214.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tytler, R., Malcolm, C., Symington, D., Kirkwood, V., & Darby, L. (2008). SiMERR Victoria research report: Professional development provision for teachers of science and mathematics in rural and regional Victoria. Geelong: Deakin University.

    Google Scholar 

  • van Manen, M. (1982). Phenomenological pedagogy. Curriculum Inquiry, 12(3), 283–299.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • West, M. (2012). STEM Education and the workforce. Office of the Chief Scientist, Occasional Series. Canberra: Australian Government.

    Google Scholar 

  • Williams, G. (2005). Improving intellectual and affective quality in mathematics lessons: How autonomy and spontaneity enable creative and insightful thinking. Unpublished Doctoral thesis, University of Melbourne, Melbourne.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wilson, M. S., Shulman, L. S., & Richert, A. E. (1987). 150 Different ways’ of knowing: Representations of knowledge in teaching. In J. Calderhead (Ed.), Exploring teachers’ thinking (pp. 104–124). London: Cassell Educational Limited.

    Google Scholar 

  • Yager, R. E. (1996). Science/Technology/Society as reform in science education. Albany: SUNY Press.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. University College London, London, England, UK

    Cosette Crisan

  2. Deakin University, Waurn Ponds, Australia

    Linda Hobbs

Authors
  1. Cosette Crisan
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Linda Hobbs
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Cosette Crisan .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Deakin University , Waurn Ponds, VIC, Australia

    Linda Hobbs

  2. University of Duisburg-Essen , Duisburg, Germany

    Günter Törner

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2019 Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd.

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

Crisan, C., Hobbs, L. (2019). Subject-Specific Demands of Teaching: Implications for Out-of-Field Teachers. In: Hobbs, L., Törner, G. (eds) Examining the Phenomenon of “Teaching Out-of-field”. Springer, Singapore. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-13-3366-8_6

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-13-3366-8_6

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Singapore

  • Print ISBN: 978-981-13-3365-1

  • Online ISBN: 978-981-13-3366-8

  • eBook Packages: EducationEducation (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation