Jonathan Savage

What’s in store for education over the next fifteen to twenty years? We were asked to consider this question – albeit put across in a more eloquent way – during our Division day at the Institute of Education yesterday.

As usual, it made me wonder about the nature of individual subjects, curriculum development and various recent political announcements. It prompted me to write the following which I shared on our Division wiki and repeat here for any of you out there who may be interested.
Read the rest of this entry »

My book has defined cross-curricular teaching and learning in the following way:

A cross-curricular approach to teaching is characterised by sensitivity towards, and a synthesis of, knowledge, skills and understandings from various subject areas. These inform an enriched pedagogy that promotes an approach to learning which embraces and explores this wider sensitivity through various methods.

I will justify this definition in two ways. Firstly, by considering some of the key words with the definition; secondly, by drawing together some of the themes from the previous four posts. Read the rest of this entry »

Who is responsible for developing approaches to cross-curricular teaching and learning? Is it the responsibility of the whole school through the implementation of a whole school policy or strategy? Or is it the responsibility of individual subject teachers and their relationships with other teachers or wider local networks that encompass other professionals? Read the rest of this entry »

The situation facing teachers today is one of considerable change. The recent introduction of a new National Curriculum at Key Stage 3 has, in one sense, learnt a lesson from history and is being implemented over a three-year period (2008-11). Key documents from the QCA have outlined the key changes in terms of function and design (QCA 2008a & b). Each subject has a new programme of study containing elements such as Key Concepts, Key Processes, Range of Study and Curriculum Opportunities. More generally, the ‘big picture’ of the curriculum (QCDA 2009a) illustrates the vast number of curriculum elements that need to be considered. Individual subjects are just one small part of this. Read the rest of this entry »

Courses and subjects that fail to reinvent themselves in the face of new circumstances are liable to decline or disappear. (Kirk et al, 1997)

School subject communities are neither harmonious nor homogeneous and members do not necessarily share particular values, subject definitions and interests. (Jephcote & Davies 2007, p.210)

The diverse memberships of school subject communities create conditions conducive to contest, conflict and tension, both within a subject and between it and other subjects where we need to understand the effects of interaction across a series of boundaries between subject subcultures. (Cooper 1983, p.208)

The main task here is to define the principles and purposes for cross-curricular teaching and learning. To do this effectively, it will be important to consider and learn from a range of broader research that has been undertaken. Read the rest of this entry »

I thought I would post a series of six posts on cross-curricular teaching and learning. This has been the topic of a book that I’ve put together for Routledge over the last few months (Cross-curricular Teaching and Learning in Secondary Education). Whilst I want you all to go and buy the book (!), these posts will be a summary of some of the opening ideas that I’ve been considering.

I’m starting today with a brief historical overview of issues relating to cross-curricular teaching and learning from a UK-perspective. It would be great to get feedback on these ideas, particularly from those of you reading outside the UK who have faced different sets of policy/circumstance than over here. So, here we go. Read the rest of this entry »

I’ve been exploring metaphors for cross-curricular teaching and learning over the last few days. I cam across this metaphor which builds on a textual fragment attributed to the Greek poet Archilochus in the 7^th century BC which inspired Isaiah Berlin’s to write his essay ‘The Hedgehog and the Fox’. Archilochus was believed to have written the following: ‘The fox knows many little things, but the hedgehog knows one big thing’. Using this as his starting point, the opening of Berlin’s essay contains the following passage:

Scholars have differed about the correct interpretation of these dark words, which may mean no more than that the fox, for all his cunning, is defeated by the hedgehog’s one defence. But, taken figuratively, the words can be made to yield a sense in which they mark one of the deepest differences which divide writers and thinkers, and, it may be, human beings in general.

For there exists a great chasm between those, on one side, who relate everything to a single central vision, one system, less or more coherent or articulate, in terms of which they understand, think and feel – a single, universal, organising principle in terms of which alone all that they are and say has significance – and, on the other side, those who pursue many ends, often unrelated and even contradictory, connected, if at all, only in some de facto way, for some psychological or physiological cause, related to no moral or aesthetic principle. These last lead lives, perform acts and entertain ideas that are centrifugal rather than centripetal; their thought is scattered or diffused, moving on many levels, seizing upon the essence of a vast variety of experiences and objects for what they are in themselves, without, consciously or unconsciously, seeking to fit them into, or exclude them from, any one unchanging, all-embracing, sometimes self-contradictory and incomplete, at times fanatical, unitary inner vision. The first kind of intellectual and artistic personality belongs to the hedgehogs, the second to the foxes. (Berlin 1953, pp.1-2)

So, put simply, Berlin’s application of Archilochus is that human beings can be categorised as either being ‘hedgehogs’ or ‘foxes’. Hedghogs’ lives are dominated by a single, central vision of reality through which they think and feel. Foxes, in contrast, live what might be called a centrifugal life, pursuing many divergent ends. Berlin goes on to give examples of each type. Famous hedgehogs that he cites include Plato, Proust and Nietzsche; famous foxes included Montaigne, Goethe and Shakespeare. The bottom line in Berlin’s use of the metaphor is that there are different ways of knowing or approaching reality, namely the far-ranging generalist or the concentrated specialist.

As a bit of light relief, do you think you are a hedgehog or a fox? Tetlock’s book (Tetlock 2005) contains this short quiz to help you find out. Answer all of the questions first by either agreeing or disagreeing with the following twelve statements and then check how to score your responses below.

1. Scholars are usually at greater risk of exaggerating how complex the world is than they are of underestimating how complex it is.

2. We are closer than many think to achieving parsimonious explanations of politics

3. I think politics is more cloud-like than clock-like (cloud-like meaning inherently unpredictable; ‘clock-like’ meaning perfectly predictable if we have adequate knowledge).

4. The more common error in decision making is to abandon good ideas too quickly, not to stick with bad ideas too long.

5. Having clear rules and order at work is essential for success.

6. Even after I have made up my mind about something, I am always eager to consider a different opinion.

7. I dislike questions that can be answered in many different ways.

8. I usually make important decisions quickly and confidently.

9. When considering most conflict situations, I can usually see how both sides could be right.

10. It is annoying to listen to someone who cannot seem to make up his or her mind.

11. I prefer interacting with people whose opinions are very different from my own.

12. When trying to solve a problem I often see so many options that it is confusing.

To score your responses, start at 0. If you agreed with any of the above statements apply the scores below; if you disagreed, apply the opposite score (i.e. -3 will become +3).

1. -3

2. -5

3. +4

4. -5

5. -2

6. +5

7. -6

8. -4

9. +5

10. -3

11. +4

12. +1

If you end up with a score of +7 or above, you are a fox; -7 or below, you are hedgehog. If you are somewhere in-between, you are a curious, new mammalian cross-breed (perhaps a fox-hog, or maybe a hedge-hox?). But do not take it too seriously!

How do you define pedagogy? The Oxford English Dictionary defines it as ‘the profession, science, or theory of teaching’. Other definitions of pedagogy extend this to cover the practice and process that underpin the activity of teaching. For example, Popkewitz develops a broad based definition of pedagogy:

Pedagogy is a practice of the social administration of the social individual. Since at least the 19th century pedagogical discourses about teaching, children, and learning in schools connected the scope and aspirations of public powers with the personal and subjective capabilities of individuals. This administration of the child embodies certain norms about their capabilities from which the child can become self-governing and self-reliant. (Popkewitz 1998, p.536)

Bernstein picks up on this notion of pedagogy as process, defining it as:

A sustained process whereby somebody(s) acquires new forms of develops existing forms of conduct, knowledge, practice and criteria, from somebody(s) or something deemed to be an appropriate provider and evaluator. Appropriate either from the point of view of the acquirer or by some other body(s) or both. (Bernstein 1999, p.259)

The key principle that can be drawn from these definitions is that pedagogy is both a ‘practice’ and a ‘process’ through which certain things can be acquired or through which certain capabilities can be developed. In both definitions, references are made to something ‘outside’ the obvious context of an educational exchange (i.e. a teacher and pupil). In Popkewitz definition, this is seen in the phrase ‘scope and aspirations of public powers; in Bernstein’s by ‘an appropriate provider or evaluator’.

This leads us to a second question. Where would one find ’pedagogy’? Is it something that one would find within a curriculum framework or associated guidelines? Or is it something that teachers, or pupils, possess? This is not a simple question to answer. But, by way of a partial answer and as a way of leading to our third key principle, consider the following quotation from another great educational thinker, Jerome Bruner:

In theorizing about the practice of education in the classroom (or any other setting, for that matter), you had better take into account the folk theories that those engaged in teaching and learning already have. For any innovations that you may wish to introduce will have to compete with, replace, or otherwise modify the folk theories that already guide both teachers and pupils. … So your introduction of an innovation in teaching will necessarily involve changing the folk psychological and folk pedagogical theories of teachers – and, to surprising extent, of pupils as well. (Bruner 1996, p.46)

Bruner’s argument about the importance of ‘folk pedagogies’ implies that pedagogy relates to a set of beliefs or values about teaching that individuals (including pupils) have and which can be challenged, change and develop over time. They can also collide together and conflict with each other within a teaching context if there is a lack of sensitivity on the part of the teacher or pupil.

The third key principle is that skillful teachers embody a skillful pedagogy. It places the onus of responsibility clearly within the teacher’s role. They are responsibility for its development and application. As part of this, to be sure, a consideration of the ‘folk pedagogies’ or alternative learning styles or contexts that pupils exhibit will need to be considered, maybe approved or perhaps rejected. But this is part of the overall skillful pedagogical approach that an effective teacher will bring to their classroom. This skillful pedagogy will need to have been developed at some point. In what follows, the ideas and practices of developing a pedagogical approach to cross-curricular teaching and learning may well, in Bruner’s terms, ‘compete with, replace, or otherwise modify’ your current pedagogical thinking and practice. But it is more than that. As Bruner points out, the pedagogies that we adopt as teachers will impact on our pupils as well.

Here’s the second key principle drawn from my tentative introductory thoughts about cross-curricular teaching and learning. I’ve found Alan Peshkin’s work to be very influential in my teaching and research activities:

Peshkin’s work on subjectivity is important for anyone engaged in research activities (Peshkin 1988). As the second key principle for teaching, the above phrase is drawn from the following paragraph of his seminal paper on the topic of subjectivity and its influence on the research process:

Subjectivity is not a badge of honor, something earned like a merit badge and paraded around on special occasions for all to see. Whatever the substance of one’s persuasions at a given point, one’s subjectivity is like a garment that cannot be removed. It is insistently present in both the research and nonresearch aspects of our life. … By remaining conventional wisdom, our subjectivity lies inert, unexamined when it counts, that is, beyond our control while actively engaged in the research process. (Peshkin 1988, p.17)

For our discussion, subjectivity can have a double meaning. In the sense that Peshkin is talking about, it refers to our personal qualities that affect the results of our work. It could include aspects related to our values, knowledge and understanding about a whole range of issues (both educational or, probably, more generally).

But there is another meaning that can be drawn. This relates to our ‘subjects’ values, knowledge and understanding and how these have shaped our individual and collective consciousness about how they should be presented in classrooms, taught and learnt about. Either way, Peshkin’s key point is that this subjectivity cannot be removed. It shapes or mediates our thinking and action in a whole range of ways. Therefore, it needs to be understood through a systematic process of reflection and self-interrogation. This process is most helpful in helping us define our key principles for cross-curricular teaching and learning. These will stem from our understanding about the centrality of teachers as the key informant to curriculum development, but also, importantly, from teachers’ own conceptions of themselves and, what might be called, their ‘subjects’ sensitivities’. These will affect how they seek to extend the opportunities for teaching and learning across traditional subject boundaries and engage in meaningful collaborations with teachers (i.e. representatives of other subject areas).

It will be important that teachers assert control over this process. To paraphrase and apply Peshkin’s comments about research, ‘subjectivity is insistently present in both the teaching and non-teaching aspects of our life’; by leaving it unexamined, it remains ‘beyond our control while actively engaged in the teaching process’ (ibid). This is an undesirable state of affairs and one that would not be conducive to meaningful and constructive curricula collaborations.

I’m writing a book on cross curricular approaches to teaching and learning at the moment. It is part of a series for Routledge, with seven other books being written by other authors. My book is a generic title for the series.

I completed the introductory chapter recently. As part of this I thought about what my key principles for teaching would be. I tried to reflect on key statements that have been important to me in my development as a teacher over the last 14 years or so. I thought I’d share some of my ideas for key principles here over the next few days. Please let me know what you think (or what key principles of your own you would have?).

Key Principle 1: No curriculum development without teacher development

Fifty years ago, the Crowther Report stated that ‘everything in education depends ultimately on the teacher’ (Central Advisory Council for Education, 1959). It is a sentiment that one of the greatest educational thinkers of recent decades, Lawrence Stenhouse, would have undoubtedly agreed with. Stenhouse was a firm advocate for the teacher. It was fitting that the teachers with whom he worked across East Anglia contributed a plaque in his memory. On it, they inscribed Stenhouse’s own words: ‘It is the teachers who in the end will change the world of the school by understanding it’ (Stenhouse 1975, p.208).

Stenhouse was well known for his belief that teachers could enhance their professional understanding by engaging in processes of educational research. His notion of the ‘teacher as researcher’ has done much to shape current thinking about professional development, reflective practice and action research. He was an outspoken critic of what he saw as the deprofessionalisation of the teacher through ‘objective’ based curriculum models. These, he said:

Rest on an acceptance of the teacher as a kind of intellectually navvy.  An objectives based curriculum is like a site-plan, simplified so that people know exactly where to dig their trenches without having to know why. (Stenhouse 1980b, p.85)

For Stenhouse, such curriculum models were a symbol of distrust of the teacher. He worked hard to challenge such approaches. More than that, he developed alternative ideas which reasserted the teachers’ role in curriculum planning and development. If, as he wrote, ‘it seems odd to minimise the use of the most expensive resource in the school’ (Stenhouse 1975, p.24), it would be better to ‘reinvest in the teacher and to construct the curriculum in ways that would enhance teachers’ understanding and capability’ (Ruddock 1995, p.5).

It is this background that led Stenhouse to make one of his most famous statements, ‘No curriculum development without teacher development’. As Silbeck comments:

His theory of education is essentially a theory of teacher professionalism, autonomy and development. … It is the teacher, purposive and free, informed by knowledge and understanding, with clearly articulated values, and a repertoire of practical skills, that he [Stenhouse] saw as the central agent in the educational enterprise. (Silbeck1983, p.12)

These are powerful arguments that have much resonance with current thinking about curriculum design and development. Recent pieces of curriculum reform have placed a greater degree of ownership and responsibility on schools. Every schools greatest asset is its teaching staff. The ‘localisation’ of the National Curriculum presents an opportunity for teachers to respond to the challenge of developing themselves and the curriculum they offer to their pupils in tandem.

A good key principle for teaching today? What do you think?