AUSTRALIAN ASSOCIATION FOR RESEARCH IN EDUCATION Annual Conference Fremantle, W.A. 22nd - 25th November,1993 PAPER PRESENTATION INVESTIGATING EFFECTIVE TEACHER EDUCATOR PRACTICE: FOCUS ON THE SUBJECT MATTER KNOWLEDGE FOR PRESERVICE SECONDARY TEACHERS Cheryl Sim School of Curriculum, Teaching and Policy Studies Griffith University, Queensland ABSTRACT Support for student centred, inquiry oriented teaching exists in many current secondary school History programmes, as well as in the National Statement for the Studies of Society and the Environment. This has important implications for teacher education courses in tertiary institutions. On observation of secondary social education classrooms, there appears to be limited evidence of application of this style of teaching. Why is it difficult to transform secondary school history classrooms from teacher dominated and text-book driven environments? One approach to this question is to analyse teacher education programmes. This paper reports on a particular aspect of action research into the issue of teacher education and its impact on practice. The focus is the subject matter subjects in a four year degree course for secondary teachers (B.Ed). The paper describes research through a case study of a subject matter subject for future History/Social Education teachers. The main purpose of the research is to investigate how such subjects might be conceptualised, planned and implemented in order to influence future classroom practice in that subject area in schools. The paper first suggests the contribution that this research can make to existing knowledge in this area. It then provides a brief overview of literature relating to this research, and describes the directions taken for this case study. The case is described in terms of the design and implementation of a semester subject in history content for all future secondary teachers of Social Education. This subject has been presented to two different groups of students over two years. Action research into this case subject is the methodology used. The paper describes the action research, and presents examples of the evidence collected. Finally, factors emerging from the action research of the case are summarised. 1.0 THE CONTRIBUTION OF THIS RESEARCH Content knowledge has a distinct contribution to make in the training of teachers (McNamara,1991; Marks,1990; Feiman-Nemser et al,1990; Shulman,1986). In conceptualising the tertiary subjects through which the content of social education might be provided, the researcher considers the principles of reflective inquiry in the context of critical theory, together with the principles of experiential learning. The teacher practices that are considered desirable focus on reflection and critical thinking. Although reflective inquiry has influenced social studies theory, it remains questionable whether this influence has been translated into educational practice (Ross & Hannay,1986:9). Kennedy (1991:3) emphasises that "the essence of good teaching is to be able to think pedagogically about the subject matter". It is important to incorporate pedagogical skills within the design of subject matter subjects. Traditional tertiary teaching methods in the humanities often do not do this. The skills of teaching are most often viewed as belonging to other courses that are "school" oriented. The lecture and seminar weekly format is not an uncommon design for the teaching of future teachers. Transmission to classrooms of the significant features of social education subjects (specifically critical thinking and active learning), tends not to occur where teachers have learnt their subject matter in the passive tertiary environment (Sirotnik,1983; Stevenson,1990). 2.0 OVERVIEW OF THE LITERATURE AND CONTEXT THAT DIRECTS THIS RESEARCH 2.1 Contributing Research A review of the literature in this area, provides four areas relevant to the conceptualisation of the subject matter learning by future teachers. These are related to a) the attitudes of tertiary students towards learning and knowledge resulting from their secondary schooling (Lanier et al,1986; Tamir,1988; Calderhead,1991; Comeaux,1991); b) teacher educators of specific content courses as models of desirable and transferable teaching practices ( Turney,1977; Nattiv et al,1991; Gorrel et al,1990); c) the careful facilitation of student interaction as an important factor in teacher education subjects (Common, 1982; Boomer, 1982; Boomer et al, 1992; Johnson et al, 1988; Korthagen,1988); d) the design and implementation of secondary teacher education subjects in subject content ( Ball et al,1989; Pearson, 1989; Grossman, 1989a & 1989b ; Shulman,1986; Wineburg et al,1988). This research investigates the possibility of Tamir's conclusion (1988:102): While teaching, most teachers draw heavily on their experiences as students. If we can provide learning experiences which emphasise the variety of perspectives of a particular subject matter area there is a higher probability that these students will apply these various perspectives later on in their teaching. 2.2 The Current Australian Context in the Secondary subject areas of Social Education The recent developments towards a national curriculum have led educators to re-examine the purpose of secondary school education. References to secondary schooling and the value of active, investigative learning; critical and creative thinking; and collaborative learning environments, have been expressed in recent policy and research documents in Australia (Australian Education Council [A.E.C.],1989,1993; S.E.A.A.,1990; Boomer et al,1992). A mapping exercise for the A.E.C. confirmed the existence of such factors in many of the current social education curriculum documents in various Australian states. The National Statement for The Studies of Society and the Environment support these factors (A.E.C.,1993). The emphasis is that the Social Education knowledge area in particular has the responsibility to provide school students with subjects that enable them to develop as socially critical and actively informed citizens. These expectations of Social Education subjects in schools cannot be ignored by universities who prepare teachers. The subject matter subject in teacher education should facilitate transfer to the classrooms. The "relevance" of what is learned in school is not simply a function of topic selection, but also the way topics are treated (Cherryholmes,1982). The researcher supports the principle that the university should provide a critical and interactive model of pedagogy in its subject matter subjects. In this way, the student teacher might learn the subject content through reflection on the knowledge, as well as on its implications to classroom practice and its relevance to secondary school students. This research investigates the impact that such an approach to the subject matter course design has on the practice of the teacher educator, on the student teacher's view of knowledge, and on the future impact on classrooms. It addresses the observation made by Rovegno (1991:69): It seems knowledge acquired within the learning culture of the university is not easily applied to the culture of the classrooms. 3.0 RESEARCH METHODOLOGY Gorrel et al(1990) support a methodology whereby the teacher educator shares with the students the nature of the decisions made within the running of the classes. They term it "cognitive modelling". The dialogue that results can provide the means for students to experience and identify with the successes or otherwise of particular strategies. Through these insights into teacher decisions and actions in a relatively "safe" setting, students should be able to make sense of and be more willing to consider applying those strategies. In the initial design of the subject, a format was shared with the students to provide a guide to understanding the intentions of the subject (Table One). Action research then contributed to the reconceptualisation of the subject matter subject as it progressed each semester. The interaction and reflection that action research requires involved the participants as co- researchers. They, together with the teacher educator/researcher, considered the rationality and justice of the studentfocused inquiry process. This is significant to their future practice in schools. For example, in Queensland, student inquiry is the emphasis in the syllabus in History (B.S.S.S.S,1987); and in the National Statement, the strand of Participation and Interaction is essential for the teaching approach (A.E.C.,1993). The participants become co-developers of the subject, as a result of the action research. They are kept informed of the processes used and are involved in the decisions made by the teacher educator during the subject. Action research provides a form of "reflection-in-action" for the participants (Elliott et al,1977). The researcher is thus involved in dialogue with the students not only in terms of the content of the subject but also about the processes used. 3.1 Action research of a single subject matter course in the area of social education. The subject on which this paper reports is a History based subject entitled The Modern World. It is a mandatory subject for all students whose first or second teaching area is Social Education. The action research project has covered two years, with two different groups of second year B.Ed. students (Diagram One). As participant-observer, the researcher recorded the progress of the course as it took place. This involved personal reflections on actual events and the effects of these on all participants in the research. The development of a critical approach to content was seen by the researcher to be an important factor to consider in the action research. The action research of the first year informed the design of the course for the second cycle. Participants in the case study consisted of 35 students in 1991, and 48 students in 1992. The subject was in the second semester of their second year. Diagram One: The Process of the Research. (After Perry & Zuber- Skerritt,1992:204) Diagram One indicates that the action research of the specific case is located within the larger research study. The reflection of the larger study is now occurring through the involvement of the volunteer students from the two groups of cohorts in the case study. A limited number of volunteers from each group have been involved in interviews. These interviews have been taped. The open structure of the interview was guided by the documentation from the action research into the subject. Students were asked to react to the comments of their peers provided in the evidence gathered (see 3.2). Currently, the research is continuing with these same volunteers. They are applying a profile to their classroom practice during field studies which is designed as a reflective instrument. This instrument is derived from the "thoughtful classrooms" empirical profile adapted from the work of Newmann (1990b). The 1992 group of volunteers (8 in all) have completed their third year. The 1991 group (7 in all) have just finished their B.Ed. 3.2The qualitative analysis instruments used in the action research of the case over the two years: 1. A summary of past experiences in school history of the two groups of cohorts. 2. An open written response from students after week 4 of the subject. 3. Journals kept by the researcher/teacher educator for 1991 and 1992. 4. A formal questionnaire designed by the researcher/teacher educator. This was responded to on a voluntary basis. 5.Two focus groups formed by volunteers. Their purpose is to discuss the responses collated from (4). Sessions are taped for each group. 4.0 A SELECTION OF EXAMPLES OF EVIDENCE FROM THE ACTION RESEARCH OF THE CASE OVER TWO YEARS This section introduces the reader to some of the evidence now being collated by the researcher. In the spirit of qualitative research this material is not referred to as data. Its purpose is to provide insights into this single case. The development of of a conceptualisation of the subject matter subject in social education aimed for in this research will be informed in part from this case study. 4.1Comments on the course implementation This evidence is related to Item 4 on the list. After five weeks, the following comments were provided by the students 1. In my first four weeks I was confused, overwhelmed, and worried as I had never been in an environment similar to this... 2.learning process untraditional and unfamiliar... 3.little experience with this style of learning made me feel decidedly uncomfortable with the course.... 4.I was overwhelmed with this style of learning.. At the end of the course these same students wrote: 1.By the final week ... I had no concerns with class participation in small groups... 2.Self direction in reading analysis, not just regurgitation... 3.By the end of the course ... I was able to appreciate what I had learned, how I had communicated with others and how this style of teaching/learning works.. 4.I became motivated as the course progressed.... 4.2 The context for these comments from the researcher's journals of the action research: The researcher operates as a participant observer in the case study. Thus the researcher's journals during the progression of the course are also used as evidence for the research. These reflections were written following each session for both years. This occurred each time the subject was offered in Semester Two, for 1991, and 1992 (Item 3 on the list of instruments). The journal in the first cycle of the action research included the following: After the first four weeks: Students are still looking for confirmation from me that they are "right". One group in particular was trying to involve all their members by using their names when they reported to the whole group (32 students).. Some of this group seemed uncomfortable -- embarrassed -- by this. I have summarised the responses written by students to the processes we have been operating so far. A number of issues related to the exams particularly. Also the approach will now include, as a result of these responses, notes to be provided by me on topics they feel need some detail... Groups responded to the readings through questions that were rotated through each group. Groups were different to previous weeks. Feedback on the questions was interactive, with groups looking to analyse and to develop the previous groups responses as they passed around. The second year of the case study involved a different group of second year students. The first action research cycle (1991) informed the conceptualisation, design and implementation of the subject in 1992. The following comments were recorded in the journal. (The major change was the provision of a set of readings). The group was much bigger (48 students). This led to the class being divided to provide smaller groups for one of the three hour sessions. This was done to facilitate student interaction and discussion. (in the second week, I) became aware of certain factors that I need to have the groups react to eg : more than one member of each group speaking at one time; the dominance of some in discussion because they had greater past knowledge of history; the "foolish" aspects that some individuals displayed in the groups. The group was so large that I felt I was losing them. The arrangement of the room was definitely not helping.... The physical comfort of the students was obviously making a difference to their contribution and to the attention that they gave to others when they asked questions... I then emphasised the issue of knowledge in this course. This seemed necessary at this point, for some students were obviously becoming aware that some members had more "school history" than others. .... The emphasis was on interaction, the commitment to research for the assignment and the sharing of that research and other investigations with the group. The process also gave me a chance to move around and speak with the students too, and enabled them to feel comfortable with the topics they had chosen. During both cycles, the journal for the latter half of the subject tended to focus more on the students involvement. This seems an indication that the students were becoming more active in the learning, and that the presence of the lecturer was less relied on as "expert" in the content. The following is from Week 12 in Cycle One: For a two hour session I planned nine discussion topics related to different issues since 1945 that had emerged in the previous week. These were written on cards with a leader's name on the back. The leader and the topic then attracted work cohorts with no group larger than three. The grouping that resulted was unexpected eg Paul and Roger; Leanne, Tim and Jennifer. The experience and knowledge of members of the group was shared eg Roger chose to identify with the Space Race of the 1960's, a topic which we had yet to consider in our study of the Modern world, but his connection was well made and led to a lot of thoughts on Russian - US rivalry. In the second cycle at week 12 recorded comments included the following: Most were on task. Some tend to read more into the article than it provides thus sharing their previous knowledge. My concern with this is that those with little knowledge tend to "accept" this "self appointed expert" . The basis of their knowledge tends to be their Senior History, not their extended reading. 4.3Evidence from reflections on the course: Focus Group interviews Overall the open responses after the first month of the subject's implementation, together with the questionnaire responses in the last week, during both cycles of the action research, seem to concentrate on students wanting to have greater direction and structure provided by the lecturer. The comments from the interview of the first focus group is valuable in providing insights on these issues. Comments were made such as: .....It's difficult (the process) when you are doing three or four courses everything else is straight lecture and then you go to one like this ... to use the library, how to identify key areas for themselves to look for references and make that a normal part of the process. "process". To many people, I must admit I tended to do this myself in the beginning, that it was an end in itself, not as a means to the end of finding something out. Somehow you have to get everyone to see this process to be valid to them. an assessment is causing some grandstanding. 5.0 SUMMARY The subject matter setting of the teacher education degree represents an area of secondary teacher education research and practice that has been given emphasis in research since the late 1980's. The importance for preservice secondary teachers to acquire competence and confidence in their teaching subjects has not lessened. The developments in Australia in the Social Education curriculum area have important implications for the way in which we prepare the teachers for that teaching knowledge area. This paper has given an overview of a methodology of action research into a single case in order to give insights into the conceptualisation of a subject matter course in History. Through this case some factors are emerging about processes that involve student interaction and experiential learning. The reflection component that was within the action research became an element of success in the subject's design. The two became intertwined, due to the focus on experiential learning as a design concept. Action research in teacher education provides an opportunity for the involvement of future teachers as researchers. This case study approach highlights the difficulties for the teacher educator in creating an experiential learning environment in a subject matter subject. The environment is an important consideration for the conceptualisation of the subject. Tensions are created for the students through the implementation of aspects of experiential learning. This case study has indicated the significance to the development of trust and confidence of the limited time in a one semester subject. It is not an easy task for students to accept "different" styles of learning and teaching. Evidence from the research indicates that the reflective inquiry approach contributes to a conceptualisation of the subject matter subject that goes beyond the technical to the professional issues of teaching, such as ... should teachers have a monopoly on knowledge in the classrooms? what knowledge counts? how are decisions made on what is relevant to learning? At this stage, there are a number of important points that have emerged in the case study: 1.students in this case study of a subject matter subject in History, although in their final semester of second year university, still have a tendency to resist the idea of self regulated and inquiry based learning; 2.most students express a desire to be told what it is they need to know; 3.most students seem insecure in their own ability to develop ideas, to make decisions, and to present arguments; 4.there is a lack of commitment to the self regulation needed in inquiry based learning; 5.many students have limited understanding of the nature and problems associated with the development of critical thinking. For both the teacher and the learner, it may seem "safer" to have finite bits of knowledge that students accept from the teacher, rather than open the classroom to critical discussion through planned group processes that might lead to knowledge that may have no closure, or may contradict "established" views. Such points can be addressed by teacher education. This paper reports on research in a field where the literature provides support for the philosophies of critical pedagogy and reflective inquiry in education. They are strongly linked to the purpose of social education in secondary schools (Giroux,1988). However, the school experiences of many future secondary History teachers would indicate that the classrooms have yet to change. This places an important responsibility on the teacher education programmes to design their whole programmes in such a way to make inroads into the secondary education classrooms. The subject matter setting in these programmes continues to need closer examination in order to identify the essential elements that it could provide in the programme. These student teachers who were struggling in a subject which invited them to become more autonomous in their learning have provided some valuable insights for consideration in the conceptualisation of the subject matter subject. These include 1.The nature of the "knowledge base" necessary for discussion and reporting. 2.Adult personalities in interactive processes create different management situations for the teacher educator than with younger students. Possibly teacher educators have not considered the student teacher as an adult within the conceptualisation of the subject? 3.Autonomy in learning is something that needs to be nurtured slowly. 4.Confusion and doubt occurs when the individual is involved in situations whose full nature and significance have not yet been ascertained (Dewey,1939). To design a course whereby the teachers are "instructed in ways that will enable them to survive and thrive in existing school climates" and yet still be "stimulating prospective teachers to see their social worlds from a new perspective " (Adler,1991:77) is a complex requirement for teacher education. This paper has presented the action research study of a subject. It is the core element of research which is now in the stage of "reflection of the impact of the case" through a field studies investigation by the student teacher volunteers. REFERENCES Adler,S.(1991)."Forming a Critical Social Studies Methods Class: The Use of Imaginative Literature. In B.R.Tabachnick & K.M.Zeichner, Issues and Practices in Inquiry Oriented Teacher Education. Falmer Press:London.77-90. Australian Education Council (A.E.C.).(1989)."Common and Agreed National Goals for Schooling in Australia". Information Statement No.3.Melbourne. Australian Education Council (A.E.C.).(1993).Studies of Society and Environment :National Statement. Me,lbourne. Ball,D.L. & McDiarmid,G.W.(1989),"The Subject Matter Preparation of Teachers".In Houston,W.R.(ed).(1991),Handbook of Research on Teacher Education.MacMillan:New York.437-449 Barrett,R.(1977). A Conceptualisation of the Role of Participation in a Humanities Curriculum Design: The Queensland Humanities Project. Unpublished Masters Thesis. University of Qld. Board of Senior Secondary School Studies(BSSSS).(1987).Senior Syllabus in Modern History.Brisbane. Boomer,G.(1982)."Negotiating the Curriculum". In G. Boomer (ed).Negotiating the Curriculum.Ashton Scholastic:Sydney.123-133. Boomer,G.,Lester,N.,Onore,C.,Cook,J.(1992).Negotiating the Curriculum:Educating for the 21st Century.Falmer Press:London. Buchmann,M.(1982)."The flight away from the content in teacher education and teaching".Journal of Curriculum Studies,14,(1).61- 68. Calderhead,J.(1991)."The Nature and Growth of Knowledge in Student Teaching".Teacher and Teacher Education. Vol.7,No5/6. 531-535. Carter,K.(1990),"Teachers' Knowledge and Learning to Teach" .In Houston,W.R.(ed).(1991),Handbook of Research on Teacher Education.MacMillan:New York.291-310. Cherryholmes,C.H.(1982)."Discourse and criticism in the social studies classroom".Theory and Research in Social Education.Vol.9 No.4,Winter.57-73. Comeaux,M.(1991),"But is it Teaching?The Use of Collaborative Learning in Teacher Education".In Tabachnick,B.R. & Zeichner,K.M.(1991),Issues and Practices in Inquiry Oriented Teacher Education.Falmer Press: London.151-165. Common,D.L.(1982."Small Group Instruction in Social Studies and the Corruption of Critical Thought".In Theory and Research in Social Education. Winter,Vol X, No.4. 49-67. Dewey,J.(1939).Intelligence in the Modern World:John Dewey's Philosophy. Modern Library:New York. Elliott, J. & Adelman,C.(1973)."Reflecting where the action is." Education for Teaching.92,Autumn.8-19. Ennis,R.(1989)."Critical Thinking and Subject Specificity: Clarity and Needed Research".Educational Researcher,Vol.18,No.3,April.4-10. Feaster,J.(1992)."Public or Perish: Teaching, Learning and the Ideology of Socialisation". College Teaching. Vol.40,No.2,Spring.75-77. Feiman-Nemser,S & Parker, M.B.(1990),"Making subject matter part of the conversation in learning to teach". Journal of Teacher Education,41,(3).32-43. Giroux,H.A.(1988).Teachers as Intellectuals : Towards a Critical Pedagogy of Learning. Bergin & Garvey :Mass. Goodwin,L.(1988). "Student Learning in History". The Australian History Teacher.No 15. 21-38. Gorrel,J. & Capron,E.(1990),"Cognitive Modelling and Self Efficacy: Effects on Preservice Teachers' Learning of Teaching Strategies".Journal of Teacher Education.41,(4).15-22. Grossman,P.(1989a)."A study in contrast:sources of pedagogical content knowledge for secondary English".Journal of Teacher Education,40 (5),24-31. Grossman,P.(1989b),"Teachers of substance:subject matter knowledge in teaching".In Reynolds,M.C.(ed).(1989),Knowledge Base for the Beginning Teacher.Pergamon Press:Oxford.23-36. Holly,P.(1991)."From Action Research to Collaborative Enquiry:the processing of an innovation" in Ortrun Zuber Skerritt (ed) Action Research for Change and Development. Aldershot:Avesbury.36-56. Johnson,R.T & Johnson, D.W.(1985). "Student - Student Interaction: Ignored but Powerful". Journal of Teacher Education ,36.22-26. Kemmis,S & McTaggart,R.(1988). The Action Research Planner.Deakin University: Melbourne. Kennedy,K.(1991),"Teaching and Learning History -- Strategies for Facilitating the Professional Development of Novice History Teachers". The Australian History Teacher. No 18.1-8. Korthagen,J.(1988)."The Influence of Learning Orientations in the Development of Reflective Teaching".In J.Calderhead Teachers' Professional Learning".Falmer Press:London.35-50. Lanier,J. and Little,J.(1986)."Research on Teacher Education" In M.C.Wittrock (ed) Handbook of Research on Teaching.3rd ed.New York :MacMillan.527-569. McNamara,D.(1991),"Subject Knowledge and its application:problems and possibilities for teacher educators".Journal of Education for Teaching.Vol 17,No 2.113-128. Marks,R.(1990). "Pedagogical content and knowledge.From mathematical case to modified conception". Journal of Teacher Education.Vol 41,No 3.3-11. Morine-Dershimer,G.(1989),"Preservice teachers' conceptions of content in pedagogy:Measuring growth in reflective,pedagogical decision making".Journal of Teacher Education.30,(5).46-52. Nattiv,A.,Winitzky,N.,& Drickey,R.(1991),"Using Co-Operative Learning with PreService Elementary and Secondary Education Students".Journal of Teacher Education.42,(3).216-225 Newmann,F.M.(1990a)."Higher Order Thinking in teaching social studies: a rationale for the assessment of classroom thoughtfulness".Journal of Curriculum Studies.Vol 22,No 1, 41-56. Newmann,F.M.(1990b)."Qualities of thoughtful social studies classes: an empirical profile".Journal of Curriculum Studies.Vol 22,No 3. 253-275. Nias,J.(1987).Seeing anew: teachers' theories of action.Melbourne: Deakin University Press. Pearson,A.T.(1989).The Teacher:Theory and Practice in Teacher Education. Routledge:New York. Perry,C. and Zuber Skerritt,O.(1992)."Action Research in Graduate Management Research Programs". Higher Education.23.195-208. Queensland Department of Education (1989).P-10 Social Education Framework.Brisbane. Queensland Department of Education (1991).Social Education Years 8 to 10 Draft Syllabus. Brisbane. Ross,E.W. & Hannay,L.M.(1986),"Towards a Critical Theory of Reflective Inquiry".Journal of Teacher Education.July-August.9- 15. Rovegno,I.(1992)."Learning to Teach in a Field Based Methods Course:The Development of Pedagogical Knowledge.Teaching and Teacher Education,Vol.8,No.1.69-92. Rudduck,J. (1976). Dissemination of an Innovation: The Humanities Curriculum Project. Methuen:London. Schwab,J.(1964)."Structure of the Disciplines:Meanings and Significances" in G.W. Ford & L. Pugno.The Structure of Knowledge and the Curriculum.Chicago:Rand McNally. Shulman,L.(1986)."Paradigms and Research Programs in the Study of Teaching : A Contemporary Perspective."In M. Wittrock (ed). Handbook of Research on Teaching(3rd Ed). MacMillan: New York. 33-36. Sirotnik,K.A.(1983)."What you see is what you get -- consistency, persistency and mediocrity in classrooms".Harvard Educational Review.Vol.53,No.1,Feb.16-31. Social Education Assoc. of Australia.(SEAA).(1990). Social Education in the Nineties. SEAA:Melbourne. Sosniak, L.A. & Perlman, C.L.(1990)."Secondary education by the book".Journal of Curriculum Studies. 22,(5).427-442. Stenhouse, L.(1968)."The Humanities Curriculum Project". Journal of Curriculum Studies.1.26-33. Stenhouse,L.(1970). The Humanities Curriculum Project: An Introduction.Heinemann: London. Stevenson,R.B. (1990)."Engagement and cognitive challenge in thoughtful social studies classes: a study of student perspectives" Journal of Curriculum Studies. Vol.22,No.4. 329- 341. Studies Directorate.(1993) Active and Informed Citizenship : Information for Teachers.Dept of Education,Qld:Brisbane. Tamir,P.(1988)."Subject Matter and Related Pedagogical Knowledge in Teacher Education".Teacher and Teacher Education.Vol 4,No 2.99-110. Turney,C.(1977). Innovation in Teacher Education. Sydney University Press:Sydney. Wilson,S., Shulman,L.S. & Richert,A.E.(1987)."150 Different Ways of Knowing : Representations of Knowledge in Teaching". In J. Calderhead. Exploring Teachers' Thinking. 104-124. Cassell:London. Wineberg,S.S. & Wilson,S.M.(1988). "Models of Wisdom in the Teaching of History." Phi Delta Kappan.Sept.,Vol.70,No.1.50-58. Wilson,S. & Wineburg,S.(1988),"Peering at History through different lenses:The role of disciplinary perspectives in teaching history".Teachers College Record.89,(4).525-539. Woolcock,P.G.(1989)."Forms of Knowledge,Teacher Education and the Manipulation of Beliefs".Australian Journal of Teacher Education.Vol 14,No.1.22-29 Zuber-Skerritt,O.(1991)."Action Research as a Model of Professional Development" in Ortrun Zuber Skerritt(ed). Action Research for Change and Development.Aldershot: Avesbury.10-35.