Subject knowledge and pedagogy in science ... - Wellcome Trust

Education research
Subject knowledge
and pedagogy in
science teacher training
October 2011

Education research
Subject knowledge and pedagogy
in science teacher training
John Holman, Senior Fellow for Education at the Wellcome Trust
Background
In December 2009, the Wellcome Trust commissioned
Roger Lock and colleagues at the University of
Birmingham to carry out a study of the subject content
of one-year postgraduate training courses for secondary
science teachers. Realising that most secondary science
teachers are required to teach outside their science
specialism, the Trust was interested to know how trainees
acquire subject knowledge (as opposed to general teaching
skills), and whether there are significant variations between
institutions.
The study involved more than half of Initial Teacher
Training (ITT) institutions in universities in England
and Wales. It used a combination of document analysis,
questionnaires and interviews with tutors and trainees:
in all, 54 per cent of tutors and 245 trainees from six
case study universities responded to questionnaires.
Respondents were self-selected in the sense that they
volunteered to take part in the study, but they were
distributed fairly evenly both geographically and by type
of institution.
Starting out as a science teacher
ITT institutions prepare trainees for teaching across all
three major sciences: physics, chemistry and biology. Most
trainees will end up teaching outside their main degree
specialism, at least in Key Stage 3, and it is not uncommon
to find trainees teaching (say) physics who have themselves
studied no physics beyond the age of 16. Yet effective and
inspiring teaching requires the teacher to understand the
subject matter in greater depth than the level they are
teaching at, so the acquisition of sound subject knowledge
and pedagogy is a particularly important part of a science
teacher’s training.
The report found that among trainees, biology specialists
predominate, the ratio of biologists to chemists to
physicists being 5:3:2. Moreover, biology specialists tended
to have better-quality degrees than physical scientists, and
one-third of those with a declared specialism in physics
had a limited physics component to their degree – which
might, for example, be in engineering or sport science.
With so much variability in subject specialism, the
challenge of bringing the subject knowledge and pedagogy
of all trainees to a level where they can teach science
across the breadth of the National Curriculum to age
16 is considerable. In fact the report concludes that it is
unrealistic to expect trainees to develop sufficiently secure
subject knowledge and pedagogy in both their specialist
and non-specialist areas through a one-year course.
Subject knowledge and teaching skills
The report usefully distinguishes between three categories:
• ‘Pure’ science subject knowledge (SK).
• Topic specific pedagogy (TSP): the skills and methods
needed to teach specific topics within science.
• General pedagogy: skills and methods applicable across
all subjects (for example, behaviour management).
Science subject knowledge is taught through a
combination of SK and TSP, with TSP predominating.
The majority of SK and TSP are delivered in the trainee’s
institution, as opposed to the placement school in which
they do their teaching practice. However, the amount of
time given to science knowledge, and in particular the
relative proportions of SK and TSP, vary widely between
institutions.
Some trainees take ‘subject knowledge enhancement’
courses before embarking on the ITT year. In such courses,
trainees may be taught by specialist scientists or by
education tutors. Trainees express a clear preference for
learning science knowledge through the latter.
While on school placement, trainees are supported by a
school mentor, and ITT institutions expect the mentor
to monitor and set targets for subject knowledge, though
the extent to which this happens in practice is unclear and
appears to be very variable.

The National Curriculum for Science expects pupils
to have both knowledge and understanding of science
content (for example, the laws of motion, the periodic
table) and an understanding of the methods and processes
of science (‘How Science Works’). The study finds that How
Science Works is not identifiable as a major component of
ITT courses, which is surprising given the emphasis on this
area in the National Curriculum.
What do trainees think
Faced with a broad science curriculum, much of it outside
their specialist area, what is the response of trainees
Most ITT institutions require trainees to carry out a
‘subject knowledge audit’ to identify the areas where their
knowledge needs improving. However, trainees find the
audit process inefficient and the report shows a consensus
belief in leaving science knowledge to be learned when it is
needed.
So trainees normally wait until they know what topics
outside their specialism they will be teaching (in their
school placement or their first teaching job) before learning
the necessary subject knowledge and pedagogy. When they
do so, they tend to use books and other material resources
to ‘swot up’ SK, but rely more on human resources –
especially experienced teachers and ITT tutors – to learn
TSP. Trainees also find their own peers a valuable resource
for securing subject knowledge.
Looking ahead to their Newly Qualified Teacher (NQT)
year, trainees realise that they will need continuing
professional development (CPD) to complete the process
of securing subject knowledge and pedagogy. When asked
which topics they believe they will need, physics featured
most strongly, reflecting the large numbers of nonphysicists
who are expected to teach the subject.
However, trainees were more likely to identify generic CPD
than science-based courses as their anticipated need, with
assessment and behaviour management featuring strongly.
Key conclusions and implications for policy
Breadth and depth of subject knowledge and pedagogy
ITT is expected to prepare trainees to teach science across
the National Curriculum, but it is clear that the majority
do not have the necessary breadth and depth of subject
knowledge and pedagogy to do so, even by the time they
finish training. Their expectation is that they will learn the
required knowledge at the point they are required to teach
it. Given that many trainees will have had no education
in their non-specialist sciences since the age of 16, it has
to be concluded that many science teachers have subject
knowledge that is far from secure at the time they come to
teach. Because of the shortage of specialist physicists, this
is a particular problem for the teaching of physics, which is
already the least popular science, particularly among girls.
Two-year ITT courses would allow more time for acquiring
science knowledge, but they are not a practical possibility
for the foreseeable future. More practical solutions include:
• Treating the ITT year as the first stage in a continuous
process of professional development extending across
the early years of teaching, and providing purposedesigned,
extended CPD courses for non-specialists.
• Designating trained teachers as ‘specialist’ (qualified
to teach a specialist science to A level) or ‘associate
specialist’ (qualified to teach to GCSE level) at the end of
the training year.
• Intensifying the policy drive to recruit physics and
chemistry specialists.
• Creating a single, authoritative collection of resources
to provide accurate and validated science subject
knowledge for trainee teachers and NQTs, for all science
topics in the National Curriculum. This collection might
be hosted and validated by a national organisation such
as the Association for Science Education or the National
Science Learning Centre.
Variability between institutions
The study shows wide variation in the amount and nature
of coverage of science subject knowledge in training
courses, and particular uncertainty about the coverage
of subject knowledge in the school-based component of
training. With ITT policy placing increasing emphasis on
school-based training, there must be concern about how to
assure the level of subject knowledge that trainees acquire.
Possible solutions include:
• Acknowledging the impossibility of securing the
entirety of science knowledge required by the National
Curriculum, and taking a ‘less is more’ approach. This
would define a small common core of topics that are so
fundamental to science that all trainees should cover
them in depth, no matter what their specialism.
• Utilising specialist science teachers in schools to support
the development of subject knowledge and topic specific
pedagogy at trainees’ ‘point of need’.
This is a summary and commentary on the report Acquisition of Science Subject
Knowledge and Pedagogy in Initial Teacher Training, by Roger Lock, David Salt and
Allan Soares, University of Birmingham, October 2011. This report is available via
www.wellcome.ac.uk/About-us/Publications/Reports/Education/.

This work is © the Wellcome Trust and
is licensed under Creative Commons
Attribution 2.0 UK.
The future of science depends on the quality
of science education today.
We are a global charitable foundation dedicated
to achieving extraordinary improvements in
human and animal health. We support the
brightest minds in biomedical research and the
medical humanities. Our breadth of support
includes public engagement, education and the
application of research to improve health.
We are independent of both political and
commercial interests.
Wellcome Trust
Gibbs Building
215 Euston Road
London NW1 2BE, UK
T +44 (0)20 7611 8888
F +44 (0)20 7611 8545
E contact@wellcome.ac.uk
www.wellcome.ac.uk
The Wellcome Trust is a charity registered in England and Wales,
no. 210183. Its sole trustee is The Wellcome Trust Limited, a company
registered in England and Wales, no. 2711000 (whose registered office
is at 215 Euston Road, London NW1 2BE, UK). PE-5283/10-2011/AF