The Pedagogy of the Subject and Professional Development

Susan S. Goldsmith

December 9, 2002

From A Consumer's Guide to Teacher Quality: Opportunity and Challenge in the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001

Of all the variables we can control, teacher quality is the one that has the greatest effect on student learning (Sanders and Rivers, 1996; Sanders, Saxton, and Horn, 1997; Goldhaber, 2002). A focal point of the teacher quality strategies in the No Child Left Behind Act is teachers’ need to know the subjects they teach. In the listing of allowable uses of Title II funding, we find, for example:

• Teacher testing for subject matter knowledge [Title II, § 2113(c)(5)]
• Developing systems to measure the effectiveness of professional development programs to document gains in student academic achievement or increase in teacher mastery of the academic subjects the teachers teach [Title II, § 2113(c)(7)]
• [Increasing] the subject matter knowledge of math and science teachers [Title II, § 2201(a)(3)]
• Scholarships for teachers to pursue advanced course work in math, engineering, and science [Title II, § 2202(c)(4)(C)]

States and school districts would do well to make content mastery the foundation for their own plans to improve teacher quality.

Content, Content, Content

Much that is written on the conditions that constrain or promote good teaching is revealing to educators. The verifiable effects on learning of such matters as size of classrooms and schools or the diverse socioeconomic backgrounds of students are important for educators to know. But attention to such conditions is the “sharpening pencils” phase of teaching. Guiding students in the thorough study of subjects is the substance of teaching.

What vocabulary is to the English language, the organized lexicon of terms, topics, and significant questions is to a subject. Just as we are illiterate until we possess the vocabulary to understand the thoughts of others as well as express our own, we are ignorant of a subject until we acquire knowledge of relevant terms, topics, and questions. The study of any subject begins with learning its simple, and then its expanded and more complex, vocabulary, whether this consists of numbers, descriptions of phenomena, or accounts of human affairs—or the words and idiom of another language. Of itself, knowledge of subject vocabulary may seem inert, but it alone opens the subject to view, that is, to analysis and reflection, to understanding and use. As we gain facility with subject vocabulary, we may begin to understand the general ideas, principles, and concepts within the subject, and the issues or problems to which these typically apply. Knowledge and understanding of content, then, are the prerequisites for claims of connection with the subject, whether by the teacher, the scholar, the practitioner, or interested layman.

The Pedagogy Of The Subject

“A teacher, then, is a person who, by squaring his or her mind with that of the class, collectively or singly, removes ignorance on a subject fully mastered” (Barzun, 2002).

The basic activities of teaching a subject are critically informed by the teacher’s proficiency in its content. In contrast to the duties of scholars or practitioners who do not teach, the art of teaching lies in knowing how to introduce students to and increasingly connect them with a subject. Proficient teachers know how the subject is best presented to students at each stage of learning because they can envision the whole organization of the subject and the relations among its topics. Even where the subject is introduced to very young students, only genuine acquaintance with its vocabulary and ideas will afford teachers any confidence that their teaching will have staying power or lay a foundation for the beginnings of understanding.

Teachers who have a refined subject vocabulary and the ability to use it precisely can foresee how students are likely to misunderstand, make wrong connections, or fail to learn. Teachers who understand connections among ideas and concepts acquire the flexibility they need to re-present a topic to overcome misunderstandings, and address the particular difficulties students experience with that subject. Proficient teachers are also able to judge curricular materials, not in every fact and detail, of course, but in the treatment of those facts and details. They can thus choose those materials best suited to accomplishing their aims for student learning, materials allowing the variety of pedagogical approaches they will deploy in their classes.

Proficient teachers know that coherent curricula are not composed from what is merely interesting without regard to organized study of subject vocabulary. But they know, too, that interest in a subject builds as students begin to make connections that lead to understanding. Teachers’ content mastery, then, enables them to help students persevere and to cultivate within their students a genuine interest in the subject based on understanding. An important means toward these ends is the ability of teachers well-grounded in their subjects to adapt curricula to a variety of student learning levels, organizing selected topics into coherent lessons that prepare each student to take appropriate steps toward an effective grasp of the subject.

The coverage of subject matter prescribed for any grade may often exceed the time allotted for teaching it. This is especially true at the secondary level, but increasingly so in the elementary grades. The sometimes alarming demand for coverage overwhelms teachers without subject proficiency and results in shallow learning by students. The National Research Council recently released a report on Advanced Placement curricula, which suggests that AP curriculum coverage has reached a state of diminishing returns for real learning. Whatever the state of the AP program, the report reminds us of the crucial need for teachers with real competence in their subjects. Only through their own experience can teachers understand how deeper study of selected central topics will illuminate for students the way a subject’s vocabulary is formed into meaningful sentences, and how these sentences reveal patterns that give rise to its defining ideas and issues. Good judgments about the centrality of certain topics, to which more time and reflective study should be devoted, are becoming increasingly urgent pedagogical duties. Only teachers proficient in their subjects are prepared to make them.

In short, teachers who know their subject have the greatest effect on advancing student learning in that subject (Goldhaber and Brewer, 1994; Wenglinsky, 2000). Such teachers are able to connect with students and “remove ignorance” of the subject under study. Teachers without genuine subject-area competence are unable to conduct their daily pedagogical work in ways that consistently contribute to student learning. And teachers cannot acquire such competence merely by gathering information or collecting a set of facts, or by requiring students to collect this information. Teachers without the prerequisite proficiency in content are only clinging to textbooks or other resources; they are not teaching.

The policies of standards-based education reform have added new dimensions to basic pedagogical duties. The best of the standards and frameworks documents contain content standards that give schools, curriculum planners, and teachers some guidance about the sequencing of courses and selection of topics that comprise their learning expectations. But even these are often expressed generally, so that the particular topics to teach, in what order and relation, with what materials, remain open questions. These questions cannot be answered productively, unless, first, the teachers who lead implementation in schools and districts have the subject competence to make good pedagogical decisions about course and topic order for the progressive study of the subject across the K-12 grade span. (In cases where standards and frameworks documents are not well-designed, teachers must be able to recognize deficiencies and to improve as they apply the documents.) Second, classroom teachers possess the subject competence to refine or design new curricula with meaningful topic emphases and connections. Finally, teachers have the subject proficiency that allows them to maintain an awareness of standardized tests while teaching beyond these tests, in the same way the driver looks far ahead but still sees the car in front.

Education reform cannot succeed unless teachers proficient in their subjects exercise leadership in meeting the challenge of effective implementation of standards. In particular, they must demonstrate in their own schools and districts how to organize a proper study of the subject required by curricular standards and frameworks. The effect of state standards intended to improve curriculum and instruction will depend not only on the quality of the standards, but even more on teachers’ pedagogical decisions in their implementation. The results will be disappointing unless teachers accomplished in their subjects lead implementation of the standards. Not even the tests can drive school improvement without teachers properly grounded in content knowledge and understanding. Unfortunately, many teachers are not so prepared (Collias, Pajak, and Rigden, 2000).

Professional Development

What, then, are teachers to do to strengthen or keep alive their knowledge and understanding of subjects they teach? How should professional development be deployed to these purposes? Given the different responsibilities of elementary and secondary teachers—of elementary teachers for the introduction of students to subjects, of secondary teachers for more systematic learning that prepares students for further educational steps or for independent life—the answers to these questions differ according to their particulars.

The Professional Development of Secondary Teachers

On the assumption that secondary teachers are likely to have majored or minored in the subject they teach, the following are basic professional development steps:

• Take advanced college/university courses or seminars in particular areas of subject responsibility and in related subject areas.
• Attend summer institutes with college/university subject scholars.
• Organize and attend colloquia with colleagues in subject-centered professional organizations.
• Through these and other organizations, initiate with university teacher-scholars joint institutes or colloquia devoted to the ordinary difficulties of teaching the subject.
• Within districts, organize subject matter colloquia with elementary teachers for mutual understanding of the K–12 sequencing of the subject, in particular the matter of how the subject is born in the elementary grades

The Professional Development of Elementary Teachers

Elementary teachers may or may not have majored in one of the subjects they teach, but they should have elected general education sequences in all those subjects (for example, two courses in American history). The following are basic professional development steps for elementary teachers:

• Complete general education sequences, where necessary, in history, science, English, and math (the same for arts and languages where these responsibilities exist).
• Attend summer institutes whose subject scholars employ a broad or survey format or treat topics central to the subject.
• Unless building on a college major, avoid specialized institutes narrowly directed to a specific topic; these experiences do little to build a more comprehensive view of the knowledge needed for competent topic selection and emphasis; eclectic choices add up to no more than a bit of this and that.
• Call upon, as a district, the subject proficiency of district secondary teachers: some will be qualified—perhaps by advanced degree—to offer mini-courses.
• Utilize, as a district, the subject proficiency of district secondary teachers by engaging with them in workshops and colloquia to discuss the sequence and progress of learning in the subject across the K–12 grade span; discuss mutual expectations and responsibilities for implementation of standards-based study.
• Reserve professional development time for reading, writing, and learning with subject scholars, learning necessary for proper selection and organization of topics and choice of materials. Avoid routine or standardized activities such as lesson planning.

In another pithy reflection on teaching, Jacques Barzun keeps us sharply focused on the genuine purposes of professional development. “The best guarantee of a good lesson remains mastery of the subject coupled with easy handling of any unexpected difficulty” (Barzun, 2002). It is not surprising to find the same theme emerge in a recent major research study: the students of science teachers who participate in professional development that includes laboratory exercises perform better on objective assessments of scientific understanding (Wenglinsky, 2000). Teachers’ deep engagement in their subjects is the key to student success.

Susan S. Goldsmith is Director of the Center for School Improvement, School of Education, Boston University.

REFERENCES

Jacques Barzun (2002). “What is a School?” American Outlook, p. 23.

K.Collias, E. Pajak, and D. Rigden (2000). One Cannot Teach What One Does Not Know: Training Teachers in the United States Who Know Their Subjects and Know How to Teach Their Subjects.

Dan D. Goldhaber (2002). “The Mystery of Good Teaching,” Education Next 2.1, pp. 50–55.

Dan D. Goldhaber and Dominic Brewer (1994). “Do School and Teacher Characteristics Matter? Evidence from High School and Beyond,” Economics of Education Review 13.1, pp. 1–17.

William L. Sanders and June C. Rivers (1996). Cumulative and residual effects of teachers on future student academic achievement. Research Progress Report. Knoxville: University of Tennessee Value-Added Research and Assessment Center.

W.L. Sanders, A.M. Saxton, and S.P. Horn (1997). “The Tennessee Value-Added Assessment Systems (TVAAS): A quantitative, outcome-based approach to educational assessment” in J. Millman (ed.), Grading Teachers, Grading Schools. Is Student Achievement a Valid Evaluation Measure? Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.

Harold Wenglinsky (2000). How Teaching Matters: Bringing the Classroom Back Into Discussions of Teacher Quality. Princeton: Educational Testing Service.