Characterising secondary school teacher imperatives as subject (signature) pedagogies : a pedagogy of support in maths and a pedagogy of engagement in science

The ideas of Lee Shulman have played a major role in reconceptualising pedagogical description. In 2005, Shulman described a construct called “signature pedagogies” in order to describe recognisable and distinctive pedagogies used to prepare future practitioners for their profession. As a broader application of Shulman’s ideas, this paper asks, what is the efficacy of describing pedagogies that have become entrenched in secondary school subjects as signature pedagogies? Approached from a cultural perspective these questions are examined by comparing the subject cultures of junior school maths and science as experienced by, and represented in the classrooms of, a small number of teachers from two secondary schools in Victoria, Australia. In this research, subject culture is underpinned by shared basic assumptions that govern the dominance of certain “subject paradigms” (what should be taught) and “subject pedagogies” (how this should be taught) (Ball & Lacey, 1980). In this secondary school setting, the term signature pedagogies can be equated to the term subject pedagogies on the basis that both aim to characterise practice across the subject, or discipline, based on what was perceived as central to the task of teaching and learning. The paper draws on classroom observation and teacher interview data to show how six teachers positioned two aspects of their teaching in relation to what they believed was central in shaping their maths and science teaching: the effect of the arrangement of curriculum content on teachers’ conceptualisations of the teaching task; and a pedagogical imperative to engage students through activity-based learning experiences. The cultural expectations surrounding these two aspects of teaching appear to have a strong influence on practice, and in some senses teachers’ pedagogical responses were clear. These common responses are what I am calling “subject pedagogies” (see Ball & Lacey, 1980) because there was general agreement about what was central to the teaching task. Two subject pedagogies were seen to represent strong discourses occurring in both subjects: a “Pedagogy of Support” in maths, and “Pedagogy of Engagement” in science. Their established and shared character resembled Shulman’s posited “signature pedagogies” (Shulman, 2005). The data shows that by evaluating cultural practices that teachers have in common, and assumptions underpinning these, there is potential for highlighting imbalances, strengths and weaknesses, and connections and disconnections, associated with prevailing subject pedagogies.

The mutual cultivation of subject and object in architecture

The relationship of the migrant figure and the house has been explored in previous research on the migrant house. In addition, the relationship between the migrant house and 1ts perception and representation within the local and national communities within the immigrant-receiving city has been analyzed. The approach and theoretical frameworks for this research involved an understanding of the relationship between the human subject and the object of architecture. Given that much poststructuralist theory has attended to the rethinking of human subjectivity and to rethinking the humanbody, traditional conceptualizations of the relationship between human subject and Object m architecture also need to be re-examined. This paper thus presents an exammatlon of one approach to this relationship, focusing on the exploratory and creative work of the late John Hejduk. Hejduk's Vladivostok presents an assembly of figure-objects that together are a literary metaphor for both society and the city. The paper Will argue that the human subject is imagined within an already ordered architectural sett1ng, and that the human subject cannot be thought prior to and outside the stage of architecture. Rather than searching for a causal or determining relat1onsh1p between subject and object this conceptual underpinning between the subject and object asks for an understanding of the dynamic and animated cultivation between them. In examining Hejduk's entry on the 'subjecUobject' in Vladivostok, the paper Will present an account of the mutual responsiveness that arises between human beings and architecture. It will argue that culture and subjectivity is internal rather than external or marginal to architecture.

Single-subject research designs and data analyses for assessing elite athletes’ conditioning

Research in conditioning (all the processes of preparation for competition) has used group research designs, where multiple athletes are observed at one or more points in time. However, empirical reports of large inter-individual differences in response to conditioning regimens suggest that applied conditioning research would greatly benefit from single-subject research designs. Single-subject research designs allow us to find out the extent to which a specific conditioning regimen works for a specific athlete, as opposed to the average athlete, who is the focal point of group research designs. The aim of the following review is to outline the strategies and procedures of single-subject research as they pertain to the assessment of conditioning for individual athletes. The four main experimental designs in single-subject research are: the AB design, reversal (withdrawal) designs and their extensions, multiple baseline designs and alternating treatment designs. Visual and statistical analyses commonly used to analyse single-subject data, and advantages and limitations are discussed. Modelling of multivariate single-subject data using techniques such as dynamic factor analysis and structural equation modelling may identify individualised models of conditioning leading to better prediction of performance. Despite problems associated with data analyses in single-subject research (e.g. serial dependency), sports scientists should use single-subject research designs in applied conditioning research to understand how well an intervention (e.g. a training method) works and to predict performance for a particular athlete.