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
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
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
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
Disciplinary epistemology
•
•
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
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
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
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
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’
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
Critical thinking
History
•Discussing complexities and ambiguities
•Awareness of political and ideological dimensions
•Questioning of received wisdom
•Examining evidence and context
Physics
•Examining rigour, accuracy, uncertainty, predictive powers
•Examining assumptions
•Discussions of areas of debate, uncertainty, frontiers of knowledge
Economics
•Same as problem solving – use of economic tools
Law
•Examination of argument, evidence, logic
•Examination of assumptions
•Awareness of social context
•Awareness of ethical issues
•Questioning of received wisdom
Medicine
•Clinical reasoning
•Evidence based medicine
•Ethical reasoning
•Psychosocial context
•Professional reflection
•Questioning of received wisdom
Problem solving
History
•Causality
•Management skills – time, groups, projects, research
Physics
•Closed and open-ended problems
•Hypothesis development and testing
•Use of mathematics as a tool of analysis
•Checking of accuracy and rigour
Economics
•Use of economic tools
•Application of theory to practical or policy issues
Law
•Closely related to critical thinking
•Responding to hypothetical or ‘real world’ problems
•Concerned with outcomes and application
•Some concern with professional skills – dealing with clients
Medicine
•Clinical reasoning
•Diagnostic and therapeutic skills
•Communication skills
•Contextual understanding
Communication
History
•Essays the central form of assessment but skills not always
overtly taught
•Some class discussion, presentations, debates, student
conferences
Physics
•Lab reports, posters, assignments
•Some presentations
Economics
•Some written assignments and essays
Law
•Written essays and assignments
•Spoken communication is considered important but is not
systematically included in teaching of assessment
Medicine
•Spoken communication central to assessment, clinical
skills, part of problem solving
•Clinical communication is overtly taught
•Written communication – assignments, essays, research
reports
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.
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)
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)
Discipline-specific
pedagogical knowledge
What is it and
how can it be developed?
Denis Berthiaume
Centre for Learning and Teaching
University of Lausanne, Switzerland
8 December 2008
Outline of the presentation
• Premises of the study
• DPK model (components and dimensions)
• Approaches to foster DPK development
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
What is discipline-specific
pedagogical knowledge?
DPK
What is discipline-specific
pedagogical knowledge?
Knowledge
base for
teaching
DPK
What is discipline-specific
pedagogical knowledge?
Knowledge
base for
teaching
Beliefs
Knowl.
Goals
DPK
What is discipline-specific
pedagogical knowledge?
Knowledge
base for
teaching
Disciplinary
specificity
Beliefs
Knowl.
Goals
DPK
What is discipline-specific
pedagogical knowledge?
Knowledge
base for
teaching
Disciplinary
specificity
Beliefs
Struct.
Knowl.
Goals
DPK
Culture
What is discipline-specific
pedagogical knowledge?
Knowledge
base for
teaching
Disciplinary
specificity
Beliefs
Struct.
Knowl.
Goals
DPK
Personal epistemology
Culture
What is discipline-specific
pedagogical knowledge?
Knowledge
base for
teaching
Disciplinary
specificity
Beliefs
Struct.
Knowl.
Goals
DPK
Knowl.
Know.
Knowl.
Constr.
Knowl.
Eval.
Personal epistemology
Culture
What is discipline-specific
pedagogical knowledge?
Knowledge
base for
teaching
Disciplinary
specificity
Beliefs
Struct.
Knowl.
Goals
DPK
Knowl.
Know.
Knowl.
Constr.
Knowl.
Eval.
Personal epistemology
Culture
What is discipline-specific
pedagogical knowledge?
Knowledge
base for
teaching
Disciplinary
specificity
Beliefs
4
Struct.
3
Knowl.
10
Goals
5
DPK
2
Knowl.
Know.
2
Knowl.
Constr.
2
Knowl.
Eval.
Personal epistemology
Culture
4
What is discipline-specific
pedagogical knowledge?
Knowledge
base for
teaching
Disciplinary
specificity
Beliefs
2
Culture
3
Knowl.
6
Goals
3
DPK
1
Knowl.
Know.
2
Knowl.
Constr.
1
Knowl.
Eval.
Personal epistemology
Struct.
1
What is discipline-specific
pedagogical knowledge?
Knowledge
base for
teaching
Disciplinary
specificity
Beliefs
2
Struct.
1
Knowl.
6
Goals
3
DPK
1
Knowl.
Know.
2
Knowl.
Constr.
1
Knowl.
Eval.
Personal epistemology
Culture
3
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
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
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
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?
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
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
A few words about methods
Main research question:
What is the nature of university professors’ disciplinespecific 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?
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
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?
Ideas
•
Ideas
•
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
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
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
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