Paper presented at the ACSA Biennial Conference - PDF document

1 Paper presented at the ACSA Biennial Con
Paper presented at the ACSA Biennial Conference Melbourne July 8-10, 2007 SOSE curriculum structures: Where to now? Curtin University of Technology atically over the last few decades. Learning Areas [KLAs] as curriculum organisers across all Australian States and Territories. The traditionally separate disciplines of history, geography and economics were, in all States were, in all States ed into the Studies of Society and Environment [SOSE] KLA. Teachers who once taught history, geography and lines. Whilst KLAs were Taylor has described, considerable and purpose of KLAs (wrs for example, saw this as the death of their disciplines whilst others saw it as an opportunity to explore multidisciplinary teaching and learning. Regardless of opinion, many SOSE teachers and tertiary education students often ason - What am I And it is with this in current and possible SOSE curriculum Federalist paper 2: The Future of Schooling in Australia (2007). This paper pr 1 about the future of SOSE with some interpreting this report as the death of raditional’ disciplines of History, Geography and Economics (newSOSE scrapped in curriculum revamp). Whilst the introduction of the Victorian Essential Learning Standards (2005

2 ) hamove in Victoria, how other Australi
) hamove in Victoria, how other Australian States and Territories will respond to The Future of Schooling in Australiactures – disciplinary, multidisciplinary, inter-disciplinary and trans-disciplinary. These varied of SOSE in very different ways and provide some insight into the perennial SOSE question – political attempts toward a national cuthe second section we explore various curriculum frameworks (disciplinary, multidisciplinary, inter-disciplinary and trans-disciplinary) and evaluate their poteorganisers. In the final section, we tentatively discuss the potential imframeworks on the work of SOSE teachers and teacher education students. e not new although it is fair to say that such calls are generally conservative in nature and argue for the consolidation and/or revival of disciplinary curriculum. Indeed, the The Future of Schooling has reignited debate The Adelaide Declaration (1999). Part of the impetus for this report was 2 and quality of school curriculum. This concern is widespread with the Australian Prime Minister, Mr John Howard, calling for a that the school ed down (Tomazin, 2007). The Future of nsensus to develop a nationally The Future of Schooling in Australiap14) and suggest an ov

3 erhaul of the SOSE KLA: at what should b
erhaul of the SOSE KLA: at what should be studied under this label, are the disciplines of history, geography and economics… the future of schooling in Australia… these disciplines are made explicit unIt is worth noting that there tion about the Future of Schooling in Australia Report. Taylor claims that reportmely attempt to raise the national curriculum stakes arate disciplines” and “the The Future of Schooling in g the report as swathed in the rhetoric of It highlights the educational goals foto leave school ire intercultural understanding and new knowledge and skills that are taught through SOSE (2007,p3). for the teaching of SOSE as are outlined in the follo 3 SOSE: Some alternate curriculum frameworks Public debate over the future of SOSE on offer are dichotomous – disciplinary versus an attempt at multidisciplinary curriculum; but what do an for the teaching and learning of alternate frameworks – interdisciplinary ons offered by de Leo (2007). : Epistemologies, assumptions, knowledge, skills, methods within the boundaries of one discipline (eg. Physics, History). Multidisciplinary: Using the knowledge/understanding of more than one discipline (eg. Physics and History; Biolog

4 y and Architecture) Interdisciplinary: U
y and Architecture) Interdisciplinary: Using the epistemologies/methods of one discipline within another (eg. Biochemistry, Ecophilosophy, Astrophysics) Transdisciplinary: Focus on an issue such as pollution or hunger both within and beyond discipline boundaries with the possibility of new perspectives. ons is needed but Leo (2006) also offers the following figure to 4 Disciplinary curriculum frameworks: The case for separate Traditionally, the humanities encompaarate disciplines which in Australian school contexts ardisciplinary knowledge structures and their relationship to school subjects traditionally have greater status than otheuction of KLAs in status such as mathematics and English, whilst other disciplines such as history, geography and economics wereamorphous SOSE KLA. This had implications for the amount of time allocated disciplines of history, geography and economics as the SOSE KLA ndary level incorporates Aboriginal Studies, Asian SoReligion, and work education) now shared this time. In describing history, geography and economics as both schoacknowledging that history, geography to the tertiary academic disciplines of the same name. We are also acknowledging that within the SOSE KLAboriginal S

5 tudies). Proponents of a disciplinary ap
tudies). Proponents of a disciplinary approach to SOSE, of whom Tony Taylor is one, this has had on the status of SOSE and its related disciplines; “scant respect [is] given to SOSE in schools. In primary schools, everybody gets to be a 2007, p_). Whilst subject 2005), a bigger issue might be that a discr the teaching of Variation exists across Australian States and Territories. 5 history, geography and economics acknowledges the important role that subject matter knowledge (or content knowledge) plays in the teaching and Lidstone (2001) found that these geography teachers admitted they could not teach the non-geography topics geography teachers did not have the It may also be thpreparation of these particular teachers was disciplinary in nature and that socialised into geography teacher identities. ctures act to maintain diof academic rigour and splly, dominated western schooling but not new; indeed numerous SOSE (or equivalent) attemptsrials in the 1930's (Rugg, 1939), the the 1970s (education development discourses about the n. Advocates of integrated instructional elements will greatly benefit students because: they reduce the fragmentation of knowledge taught in separate 6 anning and probthey

6 place the emphasis upon skills developme
place the emphasis upon skills development rather than the coverage of subject matter; for patterns in, and connections between, ideas; and lving students in the curriculum tend to be process as opposed to product driven) have historically faced an uphill battle to secure legitimacy (Tcontends that the upon standards will make it very difficult for integrated approaches to get accepted. possibilities for SOSE. Whilst we acknowledge that integrated curriculum and pedagogical elemthis paper is an exploration of how ‘knowledge organisers’ and what thMulti-disciplinary curriculum frameworks: The promise of Key Arguably, the implementation of th an under conceptualised one under-estimated the strong disciplinary cultures of schools. Whether the SOSE KLA was intended as a multidisciplinary curriculum structure, an interdisciplinary curriculum t at a multidisciplinary curriculum students. Geisler explains that the model of disciplinary teaching and learning 7 on which western education is based, resembles the model of the modern industrial organisation. Education, she argues: Was to prepare workers to participate in ... a rationalized work process, lists to fulfil their duties in relatively narrow domains

7 in which their spd be brought to bear Ge
in which their spd be brought to bear Geisler continues and contends that: Multidisciplinarity challenges this tenant of autonomous action by suggesting that real social, technical and scientific challenges cannot be met through the sequential application of disciplinary techniques. Conceived of in this sense multidiscipotential to engage students in deliberative action; specialised disciplinary techniques to generate proposals and then utilise a conceptualisation of multidisciplinarity is however, constructed within a hool subjects (such as history, geography and economics) aracademic disciplines so this understanding of multidisciplinary teaching and learning needs to be contextualised within a school curricula setting. Having said this, Geisler mandates three essential criteria for multidisciplinary A multidisciplinary curriculum must be a public curriculum; it must provide students with opportunities to cross disciplinary boundaries. A multidisciplinary curriculum must be productive; it must engage ltural value, to help them to do, not just to know, apprA multidisciplinary curriculum must be concurrent. It disciplines, placing theiom education in other disciplines Whilst there are undeniably possibilitKLA in t

8 erms of multidisciplinarity, these possi
erms of multidisciplinarity, these possibilities unfulfilled in the teaching and learning of SOSE within Australian schools. This is because the development and implementation of KLAs 8 under theorised and whilst the SOSE KLA can be seen as an attempt at SOSE teachers does not match this s for this, many of which are founded teachers has continued to be discipline rather than KLA based anSOSE teachers continue to include Faculty of Arts Courses (many of wh in nature) as the source of teacher education curriculum organisers widifferential. Some schools have implemented KLA departments and staffrooms and KLA coordinators whilst others continue to rely on subject departments and single subject Head Teachers (such as the History Head Teacher etc). the SOSE KLA across many schools has had a negative impact on the status of the disciplines, subjects and issues it hers, as measured by timetabling essional development for teacher rms of how to teach with a multidisciplinary focus anto product) oriented ways. of appropriate multidisciplinary pedagogies (including appropriate assessment practices). ltidisciplinary curribecause they often assume that they advocate generalist teaching as opposed to specialist teaching (a

9 nd to refer to a well-worn metaphor sugg
nd to refer to a well-worn metaphor suggest that teachers become a Jack/Jill of all trades but a master of none). teachers to cross the well-established intellectual divisions (disciplines) and social and institutional boundaries - but this is a 9 very tall order (Bullough,er the possibilities of two alternate integrated curriculum structures, those of interdisciplinary and transdisciplinary frameworks below. Interdisciplinary and trans-disciplinary curriculum structures Interdisciplinary curriculum ltidisciplinary frameworks g from a disciplinary base teachers and students ne, borrowing the techniques, values or mandates of a nearby discipline in order to address pressing questions (or social issues)” (Geisler, 2002, p10). Inundergoes a process of renewal as it is through such ‘borrowings’ that disciplines remake themselves. Interdisciagainst excessive knowledge specialisatiounderstanding of a problem that is too complex or wide ranging (i.e. AIDS pandemic, global warming) to be dealt with using the knowledge and methodology of one discipAn interdisciplinary curriculum structure would however need to be founded on the periphery of one discipline and (history, geography, economics) would be utili

10 sed as the parent discipline in the teac
sed as the parent discipline in the teaching of these school subjects. It might be that SOSE teachers commit to an interdisciplinary approach to the teaching of SOSE issues and utilise varied disciplinary bases to examine issues from an interdisciplinary angle. In transdisciplinary curridissolved and teachers and students woIn this sense history, geography and distinct disciplines or d learning SOSE would become problematised and students would engage with addressing problems such as isation and diversity for example. Whilst a 10 transdisciplinary approach to the teachialluring how such an approach mioperationalised is unclear and sits at odds with teaching practice. There is also a sense that claims of transdiscialone and/or are vague and unclear. Foof Education define transdisciplinary learning as: Complex, active learning based on or problems, each delivering a range of learning outcomes deriving from several key learning areas; methodologies from several disciplines. (http://www.ltag.education.tas.gov.au/glossary.htm#transdisc) This definition whilst encouraging in terms of scope, is diffuse and teachers may have trouble operationalising transdisciplinary learning. This is a significant issue given that t

11 he Tasmanian Essential Learnings Curricu
he Tasmanian Essential Learnings Curriculum (Tasmaniwas initially shaped around ‘personal futures’ and ‘social responsibility’ and ation, the new Tasmanian curriculum framework retains only some of the inte‘communication’, and ‘world and perspartment of Education, 2007). This sdisciplinary approaand it undoubtedly reflectbetween the intended and Tasmania is not alone, in advocating an integrated New Basics is an attempt at a transdisNew Basics is on ‘life pathways and social futures’; ‘Multiliteracies and p’; ‘Environments and Technologies’. Whilst significant support was offered to teachers in terms of pedagogy and assessment the New Basics have been 11 Learning Standards [VELS] which inclcurricular strands (Personal and Social Learning, Disciplinary Learning and Interdisciplinary ary strand incorporates ‘communication’, ‘Thinking’ and ‘Information Communication Technology’. Whilst many contend that VELS think how they plan for inexample, Murdoch, 2007), this hybrid curriculum structure has implications for the practice of SOSE teachers. On reinstated). On the other hand, SOSE teachers must also teach across the d Soc

12 ial learning domains). This has implicat
ial learning domains). This has implicatWhilst many schools have retained SOretained SOSE teachers (who teach acnot really reflect the intentions of VELS th the findings of The Future of Schooling in Australia. Importantly, integrated curriculum nisers, they have philosophical and pedagogical implications some of which we have touched on in this paper. Where to now? SOSE teachers currently find themselves at a cross-road (or perhaps it is (as detailed above) indicate that state and territory systemto come up with an alternative to the disciplinarya result of extensive consultation with teachers, principals and parents, haneeds. However, it woulct of various integrated, inter- disciplinary, multi- disciplinary and trans-disciplinary approaall that promising. 12 Adelaide Declaration Review Steering Committee (2007). Federalist Paper 2: The Future of Schooling in Australia. A report by the States and Territories. Department of Education: Victoria. Bullough, R.V. (2006) Developing interdisciplinary researchers: Whatever happened to the humanities in education? Educational Researcher, 35(8), pp 3 -10. De Leo, J. (2006). International Education and Intercultural Learning for Sustainable Development: Beyond the Fo

13 ur Pillars - Wisdom for Transformation t
ur Pillars - Wisdom for Transformation towards December 6-8 Bangkok Thailand. Education Development Centre (1964) Man: A Course of Study, Boston, EDC Frazer, B. & Rudnitschki, W. (1995). Integrated Teaching Methods. New York: Geisler, C. (2002). Multidisciplinary: The renewal of the university and its curriculum. Paper presented at the NEH Dialogues between Two Cultures Conference, University of Colorado at Boulder, December 2002. Harris, C. (2005). The Key Learning Area movement: A force for pedagogical change or a façade for continued conservatism? The case of Human Society and Its Environment (HSIE) and History in NSW. ? In C. Harris & C. Marsh (Eds) (2005). Curriculum Developments in Australia: Promising Initiatives, Impasses and Dead-. Open Books: Adelaide Lam, C. & Lidstone, J. (2001). The implementation of a new integrated social science syllabus: case studies from Brisbane secondary schools. Education Journalpp61-83. Lopes, A. C. & de Macedo E. (2006) An analysis of disciplinarity on the organisation of school knowledge. Paper presented at the Biennial World Curriculum conference, Tampere, Finland. Marsh, C. & Harris, C. (2007 in press). Curriculum Frameworks: Who (or what) is framing whom? Journal o

14 f Curriculum and Teaching, September 200
f Curriculum and Teaching, September 2007. towards integrative curriculum. Curriculum 27(1),pp 67-70. Oliver, D. W., Newman F. M. (1967) The Public Issue Series/Harvard Social Studies Columbus: American Education publications Rugg, H. O. (1939) Curriculum design in the social studies: What I believe. In J. Michener (Ed). The Future of the Social Studies. Cambridge: NCSS. Tambyah, M. (2006). What do SOSE teachers know? The significance of subject content knowledge among middle school teachers and teachers’ professional identity. Paper presented at the Australian Association For Research in Education Annual 13 Conference, Adelaide, December 6-10, 2006. Tasmanian Department , Hobart, Department of Education Taylor, T. (2007). Too many cooks spoil the SOSE. , May 7, 2007. Tomazin, F. (2007). Back to basics: Studies scrapped in curriculum revamp. April 24, 2007. Tudbull, L. (2007). In the ‘Future of schooling’, SOSE will be stronger than ever. , 15(2). Wikipedia (2007). Accessed at http://en.wikipedia.org Wicklein, R. C. & Schell, J.W. (1995). Case Studies of Multidisciplinary Approaches to Integrating Mathematics, Science and Technology Education. Journal of Technology Education Vol. 6(2) pp59