Linda Hobbs
Assoc. Prof. Linda Hobbs (formerly Linda Darby) from Deakin University has lectured in primary and secondary science education and education generally for the past 12 years. Linda publishes in the areas of pedagogical theory, partnerships, STEM education, and teacher development, identity and experiences, mainly within the contexts of mathematics and science teaching. Her latest research focuses on the issues around teaching out-of-field in maths and science, specifically issues relating to teacher identity and support.
Phone: Ph: (+613) 5227 2661
Address: Faculty of Arts and Education
Deakin University
Pigdons Rd
Waurn Ponds VIC 3216
Phone: Ph: (+613) 5227 2661
Address: Faculty of Arts and Education
Deakin University
Pigdons Rd
Waurn Ponds VIC 3216
less
Related Authors
InterestsView All (15)
Uploads
Books by Linda Hobbs
While the STEPS project focused on partnerships in primary science teacher education, a key strength of the partnership model (the STEPS Interpretive Framework) developed and explored in this book is its applicability for cross-case, national, international, and inter-state analyses of partnership practices. This is shown through a number of case studies where the STEPS Interpretive Framework is applied and evaluated in the context of other school- or learning-related partnerships. These broad-ranging analyses illustrate the relevance of the model to a range of settings, both within and outside of education.
A key action of the TAS Collective has been the decision to ‘meet’. The 1st TAS Collective emerged as an opportunity for face to face sharing of research and practice. Represented at the Symposium were 15 representatives from Australia, Germany, South Africa, Ireland, England and South Korea. The Symposium consisted of presentations relating to the themes of:
• The current state around the world
• Responding to the issue
• Exploring the complexity of out-of-field teaching
• Developing a research agenda
In addition, a number of working sessions enabled focused attention on developing a group response to the issue. This group response has contributed to the “Agenda for Research and Practice” at the end of this volume.
This is an open and inviting group of people. The email list began as two, and now contains 30 members (as of December 2014). We have a website that is currently being developed. At the very least it contains the list of members on the list, and advertises activities of the Collective, and a list of references relating to TAS.
How – and why – do things move? How do we describe how they move? This chapter looks at ideas and activities concerning movement and force. It deals with two major issues: firstly, ideas children have about motion and the strategies for teaching about motion in the primary school program. This will include some discussion of the different contexts in which movement and force can be studied. Secondly, it looks at the wider context of studying movement and force, linking it with technology and science as a human endeavour.
Background to the chapter
Two of the authors (Russell and Suzanne) were involved in a longitudinal study of children’s science learning and, as part of that, have explored, through activities and interviews, ideas about movement and force and air and flight. Some of the material in this chapter relates to the insights generated from this exploration. Another specific input into the chapter comes from work that Linda has been undertaking with her science teacher education students around literacy and unit design based on the Primary Connections 5E framework. Other activities, in particular the unit sequence, derive from work that Suzanne conducted with her own years 3 to 4 class. Some of the wheels and language activities are based on the ideas of Tom Radford, who was an earlier contributor to this chapter.
Six teachers from two secondary schools were interviewed and their classroom practice observed over a period of eighteen months. The research involved observing and video recording teachers’ mathematics and science lessons, then interviewing them about their practice, their views of school mathematics and science, and how they see themselves in relation to these subjects.
Four themes emerged which highlight similarities and differences between the subject cultures of mathematics and science: the nature of curriculum organisation across the two subjects; the role of learning experientially through hands-on experiences; the translation of “relevance” as a school culture imperative into teachers’ conceptions of, and practices in, the subject; and the role of aesthetic understanding in how teachers experience, situate themselves within, and negotiate boundaries between the two subject cultures.
Significant cultural and individual differences were found in what teachers considered to be at the core of their subject teaching. Cultural differences make the subject identifiably mathematics or science. In mathematics, supporting students to move through sequentially organised curriculum content, and the importance placed on mathematics in the school curriculum, led to a Pedagogy of Support. In science, the more topic-based curriculum, and an imperative to foster student interest in science, led to a Pedagogy of Engagement. A school culture imperative to link the subject matter to students’ lives was translated differently in mathematics and science.
Individual differences between teachers resulted in a diversity of practices across and within the two schools, particularly with respect to how teachers related practical work to theory. The two schools’ different approaches to open-ended problem solving resulted in varying degrees of latitude for teachers to move away from traditional teaching modes. In addition, whether or not teachers had stories to tell that related the subject matter to students’ lives influenced their approach to making the subject relevant. Teachers’ passions, coherence in their understanding of content and pedagogy, and their identity, were shown to be integral to the way they
ix
positioned themselves in relation to the subject, and in shaping their confidence and competence.
Teachers experienced different traditions within the subject cultures. Some traditions perpetuated practices that might be considered “outdated”. Emerging traditions challenged current practices through innovation and new ways of thinking about teaching and learning. Local traditions developed within the school as expectations for practice. Teachers experienced these different traditions in the process of moving forward from basic assumptions that they saw as characterising the subject, while translating school culture imperatives, and as they developed a sense of self in relation to the subject.
The significance of this research lies in its contribution to improved understanding of the demands associated with subject teaching. Findings relating to the demands associated with negotiating subject boundaries have implications for the support of teachers who are teaching “out-of-field”. In addition, teachers’ experiences of the demands associated with translating school culture imperatives into their subject teaching raise questions about the usefulness of generic descriptions of pedagogy. These findings indicate that teacher and school change processes can be informed by describing subject and individual pedagogies.
This research gains insight into relationships between subject culture and pedagogy by examining both teaching practice in the classroom and interrogating teachers’ constructions of what it means to teach and learn mathematics and science. Teachers’ level of confidence with, and commitment to, both the discipline’s subject matter and the pedagogical practices required to present that subject matter is juxtaposed with their views of themselves as teachers operating within different subject cultures. Six teachers from two secondary schools were interviewed and observed over a period of eighteen months. The research involved observing and videoing the teachers’ mathematics and/or science lessons, then interviewing them about their practice and views about school mathematics and science.
The focus of this chapter is on the role of the aesthetic, specifically “aesthetic understanding,” in the ways science and mathematics teachers experience, situate themselves within, and negotiate boundaries between the subject cultures of mathematics and science. The chapter outlines teachers’ commitments to the discipline, subject and teaching by exploring three elements of aesthetic understanding: the compelling and dramatic nature of understanding (teachers’ motivations and passions); understanding that brings unification or coherence (relationships between disciplinary commitments and knowing how to teach); and perceived transformation of the person (teacher identity and positioning). This research has shown that problems arise for teachers when they lack such aesthetic understanding, and this has implications for teachers who teach subjects for which they have limited background and training.
Papers by Linda Hobbs
While the STEPS project focused on partnerships in primary science teacher education, a key strength of the partnership model (the STEPS Interpretive Framework) developed and explored in this book is its applicability for cross-case, national, international, and inter-state analyses of partnership practices. This is shown through a number of case studies where the STEPS Interpretive Framework is applied and evaluated in the context of other school- or learning-related partnerships. These broad-ranging analyses illustrate the relevance of the model to a range of settings, both within and outside of education.
A key action of the TAS Collective has been the decision to ‘meet’. The 1st TAS Collective emerged as an opportunity for face to face sharing of research and practice. Represented at the Symposium were 15 representatives from Australia, Germany, South Africa, Ireland, England and South Korea. The Symposium consisted of presentations relating to the themes of:
• The current state around the world
• Responding to the issue
• Exploring the complexity of out-of-field teaching
• Developing a research agenda
In addition, a number of working sessions enabled focused attention on developing a group response to the issue. This group response has contributed to the “Agenda for Research and Practice” at the end of this volume.
This is an open and inviting group of people. The email list began as two, and now contains 30 members (as of December 2014). We have a website that is currently being developed. At the very least it contains the list of members on the list, and advertises activities of the Collective, and a list of references relating to TAS.
How – and why – do things move? How do we describe how they move? This chapter looks at ideas and activities concerning movement and force. It deals with two major issues: firstly, ideas children have about motion and the strategies for teaching about motion in the primary school program. This will include some discussion of the different contexts in which movement and force can be studied. Secondly, it looks at the wider context of studying movement and force, linking it with technology and science as a human endeavour.
Background to the chapter
Two of the authors (Russell and Suzanne) were involved in a longitudinal study of children’s science learning and, as part of that, have explored, through activities and interviews, ideas about movement and force and air and flight. Some of the material in this chapter relates to the insights generated from this exploration. Another specific input into the chapter comes from work that Linda has been undertaking with her science teacher education students around literacy and unit design based on the Primary Connections 5E framework. Other activities, in particular the unit sequence, derive from work that Suzanne conducted with her own years 3 to 4 class. Some of the wheels and language activities are based on the ideas of Tom Radford, who was an earlier contributor to this chapter.
Six teachers from two secondary schools were interviewed and their classroom practice observed over a period of eighteen months. The research involved observing and video recording teachers’ mathematics and science lessons, then interviewing them about their practice, their views of school mathematics and science, and how they see themselves in relation to these subjects.
Four themes emerged which highlight similarities and differences between the subject cultures of mathematics and science: the nature of curriculum organisation across the two subjects; the role of learning experientially through hands-on experiences; the translation of “relevance” as a school culture imperative into teachers’ conceptions of, and practices in, the subject; and the role of aesthetic understanding in how teachers experience, situate themselves within, and negotiate boundaries between the two subject cultures.
Significant cultural and individual differences were found in what teachers considered to be at the core of their subject teaching. Cultural differences make the subject identifiably mathematics or science. In mathematics, supporting students to move through sequentially organised curriculum content, and the importance placed on mathematics in the school curriculum, led to a Pedagogy of Support. In science, the more topic-based curriculum, and an imperative to foster student interest in science, led to a Pedagogy of Engagement. A school culture imperative to link the subject matter to students’ lives was translated differently in mathematics and science.
Individual differences between teachers resulted in a diversity of practices across and within the two schools, particularly with respect to how teachers related practical work to theory. The two schools’ different approaches to open-ended problem solving resulted in varying degrees of latitude for teachers to move away from traditional teaching modes. In addition, whether or not teachers had stories to tell that related the subject matter to students’ lives influenced their approach to making the subject relevant. Teachers’ passions, coherence in their understanding of content and pedagogy, and their identity, were shown to be integral to the way they
ix
positioned themselves in relation to the subject, and in shaping their confidence and competence.
Teachers experienced different traditions within the subject cultures. Some traditions perpetuated practices that might be considered “outdated”. Emerging traditions challenged current practices through innovation and new ways of thinking about teaching and learning. Local traditions developed within the school as expectations for practice. Teachers experienced these different traditions in the process of moving forward from basic assumptions that they saw as characterising the subject, while translating school culture imperatives, and as they developed a sense of self in relation to the subject.
The significance of this research lies in its contribution to improved understanding of the demands associated with subject teaching. Findings relating to the demands associated with negotiating subject boundaries have implications for the support of teachers who are teaching “out-of-field”. In addition, teachers’ experiences of the demands associated with translating school culture imperatives into their subject teaching raise questions about the usefulness of generic descriptions of pedagogy. These findings indicate that teacher and school change processes can be informed by describing subject and individual pedagogies.
This research gains insight into relationships between subject culture and pedagogy by examining both teaching practice in the classroom and interrogating teachers’ constructions of what it means to teach and learn mathematics and science. Teachers’ level of confidence with, and commitment to, both the discipline’s subject matter and the pedagogical practices required to present that subject matter is juxtaposed with their views of themselves as teachers operating within different subject cultures. Six teachers from two secondary schools were interviewed and observed over a period of eighteen months. The research involved observing and videoing the teachers’ mathematics and/or science lessons, then interviewing them about their practice and views about school mathematics and science.
The focus of this chapter is on the role of the aesthetic, specifically “aesthetic understanding,” in the ways science and mathematics teachers experience, situate themselves within, and negotiate boundaries between the subject cultures of mathematics and science. The chapter outlines teachers’ commitments to the discipline, subject and teaching by exploring three elements of aesthetic understanding: the compelling and dramatic nature of understanding (teachers’ motivations and passions); understanding that brings unification or coherence (relationships between disciplinary commitments and knowing how to teach); and perceived transformation of the person (teacher identity and positioning). This research has shown that problems arise for teachers when they lack such aesthetic understanding, and this has implications for teachers who teach subjects for which they have limited background and training.