Disciplinary specificity in university teaching : Moving from conceptualisation to action

1. Disciplinary specificity in university teaching : Moving from conceptualisation to action Denis Berthiaume: Université de Lausanne Anna Jones:University of Melbourne Visiting Fellow, University of Gloucestershire Kerri-Lee Krause: Griffith University Mick Healey: University of Gloucestershire Kristine Mason O’Connor: University of Gloucestershire

2. The problem • Teaching has often been assumed to be generic (unlike research) • Yet disciplinary cultures are important (Henkel 2000, 2005; Becher & Trowler 2001) Ignoring context has a number of problems: • Separates teaching from scholarship, research practices • Denies local knowledge

3. Method • In-depth interviews with academic staff • 2 large research-intensive Australian universities • 5 disciplines (history, physics, economics, law, medicine) • 37 interviews • Additional use of subject outlines, assessment tasks, university and department lists of attributes • Emergent analysis

4. Epistemology The ways in which knowledge is understood has the potential to influence the ways it is taught • Macro level: fundamental assumptions that cross disciplinary boundaries eg positivism, constructivism • Meso level: disciplinary epistemology • Micro level: personal These levels are not discrete and can be intertwined and contradictory

5. Disciplinaryepistemology • Highly complex • Central to disciplinary culture but not static • Within each discipline or even each individual there can be a range of epistemologies • Dynamic, fluid, not monolithic BUT importance also of departmental, institutional culture

6. History • Importance of people, empathy, difference human nature, human motivation • What are the reasons behind actions? What could people have known, what are their fears, their fantasies? • What (if anything) can the past tell us about our own time? • Constructed nature of knowledge,multiple, contested, contextualised, the role of the historian • Importance of argumentation, writerliness • Thinking critically

7. Physics • The power of the physics worldview in shaping the modern understanding of reality • Complex, counter intuitive • Technical, mathematical skills • Vast body of knowledge • Problem solving, experimental technique and reasoning

8. Economics • Range from the highly mathematical, applied to more qualitative • Some see it as a science (analogous to either physics or biology) • Learn the ‘toolbox’ • Problem solving

9. Law • Human element, argumentation, use of language, examination of the world, the flexibility as a discipline • Impact of the law on the community, tool for change, philosophical questions, notions of justice • Professional responsibilities • Ethical responsibilities • Problem solving, understanding the ‘grammar of law’

10. Medicine • Epistemology has four strands - scientific, psychosocial, moral and professional. • ‘Science and art’ • Clinical reasoning • Communication • Thinking critically about evidence, context, professional and ethical responsibilities

11. Critical thinking

12. Problem solving

13. Communication

14. Summary • Historians – knowledge is contested and interpreted with no single replicable outcome. Teaching focused on argumentation • Physics – duality between certainty and uncertainty. Teaching is focused on mathematical and conceptual skills, problem solving • Economics – focus on learning the technical and conceptual skills, problem solving • Law – multiple epistemology (axiomatic, interpretive) focus on legal problem solving, professional issues, argument • Medicine – highly complex multiple epistemology, clinical reasoning, professional persona, outcomes focused.

15. Related factors • Personal, individual • Artefacts (eg pre-existing research, conceptual tools, teaching materials, physical spaces) • Communities (both research and teaching) • Division of labour, hierarchies • Rules (both tacit and overt) (Engeström, 2001)

16. The way forward • Importance of the contextual • Teaching is not a generic activity, nor a set of principles that can be applied regardless of practice • Ways in which teaching operates in disciplinary communities of practice (Lave & Wenger 1991, Wenger 1998). Disciplinary epistemology, traditions, research culture, university and departmental culture. • Boundary crossings (Engestrom, Blackler) trading zones (Mills & Taylor Huber 2005), critical interdisciplinarity (Rowland, 2006)

17. Discipline-specific pedagogical knowledgeWhat is it and how can it be developed? Denis Berthiaume Centre for Learning and Teaching University of Lausanne, Switzerland 8 December 2008

18. Outline of the presentation • Premises of the study • DPK model (components and dimensions) • Approaches to foster DPK development

19. Premises • University teaching seen as a complex cognitive activity • In many countries, university teachers receive limited pedagogical training • Not easy to relate new pedagogical knowledge to one’s discipline of instruction • Need to help university teachers develop discipline-specific pedagogical knowledge (DPK) • Need to know more about DPK and its development

20. What is discipline-specific pedagogical knowledge? DPK

21. What is discipline-specific pedagogical knowledge? Knowledge base for teaching DPK

22. What is discipline-specific pedagogical knowledge? Knowledge base for teaching Beliefs Knowl. DPK Goals

23. What is discipline-specific pedagogical knowledge? Knowledge base for teaching Disciplinary specificity Beliefs Knowl. DPK Goals

24. What is discipline-specific pedagogical knowledge? Knowledge base for teaching Disciplinary specificity Beliefs Struct. Knowl. DPK Culture Goals

25. What is discipline-specific pedagogical knowledge? Knowledge base for teaching Disciplinary specificity Beliefs Struct. Knowl. DPK Culture Goals Personal epistemology

26. What is discipline-specific pedagogical knowledge? Knowledge base for teaching Disciplinary specificity Beliefs Struct. Knowl. DPK Culture Goals Knowl. Know. Knowl. Constr. Knowl. Eval. Personal epistemology

27. What is discipline-specific pedagogical knowledge? Knowledge base for teaching Disciplinary specificity Beliefs Struct. Knowl. DPK Culture Goals Knowl. Know. Knowl. Constr. Knowl. Eval. Personal epistemology

28. What is discipline-specific pedagogical knowledge? Knowledge base for teaching Disciplinary specificity Beliefs Struct. 4 3 Knowl. 10 DPK Culture Goals 4 5 2 2 2 Knowl. Know. Knowl. Constr. Knowl. Eval. Personal epistemology

29. What is discipline-specific pedagogical knowledge? Knowledge base for teaching Disciplinary specificity Beliefs Culture 2 3 Knowl. 6 DPK Struct. Goals 1 3 1 1 2 Knowl. Know. Knowl. Constr. Knowl. Eval. Personal epistemology

30. What is discipline-specific pedagogical knowledge? Knowledge base for teaching Disciplinary specificity Beliefs Struct. 2 1 Knowl. 6 DPK Culture Goals 3 3 1 1 2 Knowl. Know. Knowl. Constr. Knowl. Eval. Personal epistemology

31. What is discipline-specific pedagogical knowledge? • A form of knowledge that is complex, changing, drawn from a variety of sources • Not uniform to all teachers from a given discipline because of the role played by one’s personal epistemology • Much more based on socio-cultural characteristics than epistemological structure • Common elements to teachers coming from different disciplines

32. How can DPK be developed? • Conscious effort on the part of the teacher to document the various components of DPK from the three sources • Knowledge base for teaching • Disciplinary specificity • Personal epistemology • Conscious effort on the part of the teacher to document the various relationships between components of DPK

33. How can DPK be developed? Various approaches can be used to develop DPK Individual approaches: - reflective practice - literature-based research - empirical research Collegial approaches: - mentoring - communities of practice - workshops

35. Individual exercise(5-10 minutes) What research findings that were just presented do you think you can integrate into your practice? How do you plan on integrating these findings into your practice (what do you see yourself do)? How much of that can be done in collaboration with colleagues holding similar posts?

36. Group exercise(15-20 minutes) Share with your colleagues how you plan on integrating findings on disciplinary specificity into your practice Make sure to spend enough time discussing the potential for collaboration in order to integrate findings on disciplinary specificity into your practice

38. A few words about methods Objectives of the study • Clarify the empirical nature of discipline-specific pedagogical knowledge (DPK) • Develop a framework for capturing, describing, and analyzing DPK

39. A few words about methods Main research question: What is the nature of university professors’ discipline-specific pedagogical knowledge (DPK)? Sub-questions: • What are the dimensions/characteristics associated with components of the DPK framework? • What relationships exist between components of the DPK framework?

40. A few words about methods • Inductive analysis / instrumental multicase study • Four participants from four different disciplines (Mathematics, Civil Engineering, Philosophy, Social Work) • Five semi-structured interviews per participant (total = 20) • Interviews during planning, implementation and reflection related to specific courses • Focus on both perceptions and actions

41. Focus Questions • What is the ‘one thing’ that is most important in your discipline? (or the staff you work with) • What are the attributes you most want graduates to have attained? • How is this best achieved through teaching?

42. Ideas

43. Ideas

44. Ideas (arising from workshop discussion) • Students changing, generic attributes • Reflective model based on DPK to be used for staff development (develop own and group model), ongoing staff development • Engage new starters contextualise, refreshment for people who have been teaching for some time, use as starting point

45. Ideas • How staff help students develop their own understanding, disciplinary expectations • Look at the process for students, link with employability • Students given many mixed messages about disciplines • Impact of the quality processes • Interdisciplinary inquiry modules, point of departure for discussion

46. Ideas • Use the model in the context of certificates, academic development activities • Role of professionals coming into university teaching, building new dimensions into the model (other profiles) • Integrate notion of disciplinary epistemologies in the development of a Master’s degree, tools for the job

47. Ideas • New ways of thinking in relation to the design of degree programmes • Learners’ perspective in particular in the context of interdisciplinary degrees • Talking tool to get people to explicit what they think of other people’s discipline • What is a discipline? • Learner perspective very important • Tension between the teaching and research roles