Complexity and contradiction: Disciplinary expert teachers in primary science and mathematics education

Teaching and Teacher Education xxx (xxxx) xxx

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Teaching and Teacher Education journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/tate

Complexity and contradiction: Disciplinary expert teachers in primary science and mathematics education Reece Mills*, Theresa Bourke, Erin Siostrom Faculty of Education, Queensland University of Technology, Victoria Park Road, Kelvin Grove, QLD, 4059, Australia

h i g h l i g h t s
The nomenclature used to describe disciplinary expert teachers and their ways of working is highly varied and contextual.
Knowledge specialism in the primary school can occur at the preservice or inservice career stage, with the former presenting concerns about these educators’ positioning as both novice and expert.
There is insufficient evidence to know whether specialist teachers or generalist teachers with a specialisation positively impact instructional quality and student learning.
Disciplinary expert teachers need to be supported by school administrators to build quality relationships with their colleagues.

a r t i c l e i n f o

a b s t r a c t

Article history: Received 25 March 2019 Received in revised form 24 October 2019 Accepted 19 December 2019 Available online xxx

This article presents a systematic literature review about disciplinary expert teachers in primary science and mathematics education. This is a timely synthesis of the literature, as current reforms in teacher education in Australia and internationally require primary teachers to have specialised knowledge in a learning area. Systematic review protocols were used to identify and evaluate the relevance of numerous articles of which thirty-seven were included in the final analysis. Findings show insufficient evidence about whether expert teachers have a positive impact on instructional quality and student learning. Implications are discussed with reference to the current policy moment in Australia and teacher education more broadly. © 2019 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Keywords: Expert teacher Teacher education Primary education Science education Mathematics education

Contents 1. 2. 3. 4.

5. 6. 7. 8.

Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Background and context . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Current policy moment in Australia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Methodological approach . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.1. Problem formation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.2. Data collection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.3. Data evaluation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.4. Analysis and interpretation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . General descriptive trends . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . How are disciplinary expert teachers defined? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . How are disciplinary expert teachers prepared? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . In what ways and to what extent do disciplinary expert teachers impact teaching and learning? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00

* Corresponding author. E-mail addresses: [email protected] (R. Mills), [email protected] (T. Bourke), [email protected] (E. Siostrom). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2019.103010 0742-051X/© 2019 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Please cite this article as: Mills, R et al., Complexity and contradiction: Disciplinary expert teachers in primary science and mathematics education, Teaching and Teacher Education, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2019.103010

2

R. Mills et al. / Teaching and Teacher Education xxx (xxxx) xxx

9. 10. 11. 12.

What can be learnt to inform primary specialisations policy enactment in Australian education? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . What are directions for future research? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Juxtaposing the findings and the current policy moment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Funding details . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

1. Introduction In response to perceived deficits in primary science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) education, there is international interest in primary teachers with specialised science and mathematics education knowledge. Current reforms in initial teacher education (ITE) in Australia, where this research is contextualised, require preservice teachers to graduate with a specialisation in a learning area that may include science or mathematics. This represents a significant change to the way that primary teachers are prepared, and requires changes to the structure and content of ITE courses. This also has ramifications for the way science and mathematics education is taught in primary schools in the future. It is timely, then, that the research in this field is synthesised to determine what is known and what is not known about disciplinary expert teachers in primary science and mathematics education. In this review, we use “disciplinary expert teachers” as an umbrella term that includes instructional coaches, specialist teachers, or teachers with a specialisation (nomenclature that arose from this synthesis of research). The aim of doing so is to bring together research findings from multiple contexts to inform teacher preparation and professional learning, and to guide future scholarship, policy decisions, and school teaching practice. This article first examines the rationale behind calls for expert teachers by reviewing science and mathematics education in the primary years, and the Australian primary specialisations policy. The methodological approach to conducting this review is then described, along with the themes and assertions arising from the literature. Finally, implications for scholarship, policy, and practice are discussed in the light of the current policy moment in Australia and teacher education more broadly.

2. Background and context It is suggested in educational discourse in Australia and internationally that STEM knowledge and practices are necessary to innovate in and adapt to an uncertain future (Education Council, 2015; European Union, 2010; National Science and Technology Council, 2018). Strong performance in STEM is associated with the economic advancement and social wellbeing of nations (Office of the Chief Scientist, 2016). The importance of education to STEM performance lies in the assertion that “to prepare for a future in which STEM will be pervasive, Australia [and other nations] must ensure that it has a suitably qualified population from which a skilled … workforce can be drawn” (Office of the Chief Scientist, 2016, p. 7). Declining participation in post-compulsory science and mathematics education at school and university, however, may hinder the realisation of a STEM-skilled citizenry and workforce (Henriksen, 2015; Timms, Moyle, Weldon, & Mitchell, 2018). Globally, there are challenges with participation and engagement in senior school and university science and mathematics. There are variable long-term and short-term enrolment trends in Australia, the UK, and the US (Department of Education and

00 00 00 00 00 00 00

Training, 2019; Higher Education Statistics Agency, 2019; National Science Board, 2018). In Australia specifically, there has been a continuous decline in the number of high school students selecting post-compulsory science and mathematics education in the past two decades (Kennedy, Lyons, & Quinn, 2014). In the 20 years from 1992 to 2012, Year 12 participation in almost all senior science and mathematics subjects declined (Kennedy et al., 2014). There are many possible explanations for this trend, including changes in school subject offerings and university prerequisite study requirements; lack of career guidance and information; and students’ negative attitudes towards science and mathematics (Lyons & Quinn, 2015). Notwithstanding that science and mathematics participation challenges vary between countries and disciplines (Henriksen, 2015), one explanation that has gained considerable attention suggests that there are concerns regarding the quality of science and mathematics instruction in the formative primary years. Primary teachers are perceived to face a number of challenges enacting quality science and mathematics education. A primary teacher is traditionally viewed as a ‘generalist’ or ‘self-contained’ teacher who is responsible for teaching across all learning areas. While this can be viewed as a strength because it lends itself to the development of the academic, social, and emotional needs of the ‘whole child’, it has been represented as a problem in Australian education policy (see Bourke, Mills, & Siostrom, in press) and elsewhere internationally (see below). It has been argued that teachers have underdeveloped content knowledge and lack confidence in teaching science and mathematics due to the curriculum demands of their generalist teacher role (TEMAG, 2014). In turn, it is suggested that science and mathematics education may fall by the wayside, with learner-initiated science experimentation and mathematical investigation replaced by listening to the teacher talk and completing worksheets (Flückiger, Dunn, & Stinson, 2018). There are global calls for science and mathematics expert teachers in the primary years given the importance of STEM education and perceived concerns about teaching quality. Such calls are from education and industry associations alike. In the United States, there are strong calls from the National Council of Teachers of Mathematics (NCTM) for the use of specialist teachers in primary mathematics “to enhance the teaching, learning, and assessing of mathematics and to improve student learning” (NCTM, n.d., para. 2). Similarly, the National Science Teachers Association (NSTA) promotes science-specific teaching support for teachers in the form of science mentors within and across grade levels (NSTA, 2017; 2018). In the United Kingdom, there are calls for specialist science teachers, underpinned by the argument that strong subject knowledge impacts the effectiveness of science teaching (Association for Science Education [ASE], 2019). A range of nine industry organisations recently lobbied to the ASE in support of subject-specific mentoring in primary schools (ASE, 2019). In Australia, some states have successful primary science and mathematics specialist teacher programs (e.g., Victoria’s Primary Mathematics and Science Specialists initiative; Department of

Please cite this article as: Mills, R et al., Complexity and contradiction: Disciplinary expert teachers in primary science and mathematics education, Teaching and Teacher Education, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2019.103010

R. Mills et al. / Teaching and Teacher Education xxx (xxxx) xxx

Education and Training [DET], 2019), but most do not and some have been quite unsuccessful (e.g., Queensland’s Primary Science Facilitators; Department of Education, Training and Employment [DETE], 2012). There are also emerging calls for engineering and STEM specialist teachers (Bastian, 2018; Croft & Loughran, 2018). While it is broadly espoused in the statements reviewed that better knowledge and skills in primary science and mathematics education will encourage students’ engagement and achievement in science and mathematics throughout their schooling, what empirical evidence is there to support this logic? The following section provides a summary of the current policy moment in Australia. 3. Current policy moment in Australia A recent ministerial advisory report in Australia, Action Now: Classroom Ready Teachers (TEMAG, 2014), recommended that primary preservice teachers are equipped with an area of ‘specialisation’, such that they have additional education in a learning area above and beyond what is currently provided in ITE courses. The Action Now: Classroom Ready Teachers e Australian Government’s Response recommended to “use course accreditation arrangements to require universities to make sure that every new primary teacher graduates with a subject specialisation” (Department of Education and Training [DET], 2015, p. 8). The government’s response provided clarification about the role of a teacher with a specialisation, stating that: Primary teachers with a subject specialisation will complement the teachers they work with by sharing their knowledge and skills. This does not mean primary teachers will teach only in their area of specialisation, but rather their expertise will be available within the school to assist other teachers with the knowledge and expertise to teach the subject effectively (DET, 2015, p. 8, p. 8). The Australian Institute for Teaching and School Leadership (AITSL) was responsible for overseeing the introduction of primary specialisations in ITE courses commencing 2019 onwards. AITSL defined even further the role of a primary teacher with a specialisation in their Standards and Procedures for Accreditation of Initial Teacher Education Programs in Australia as having an additional depth of understanding in one learning area, comprising of expert content knowledge, pedagogical content knowledge, and highly effective classroom teaching (AITSL, 2015). While AITSL are prescriptive about what constitutes a priority learning area (science, mathematics/numeracy, and English/literacy), and what the role and characteristics of a teacher with a specialisation in science or mathematics are, there is little support given to ITE institutions about how to enact the policy. Their guideline document suggests that “flexibility, diversity and innovation are key principles that underpin the accreditation of teacher education programs”, and “as such, the primary specialisation Program Standard deliberately does not specify the model that programs use to deliver primary specialisations” (AITSL, 2017a, p. 3). It is anticipated in policy that primary teachers with a specialisation in science and mathematics education will have a positive impact upon students’ attitudes, engagement, and achievement in these learning areas. According to the Primary Specialisation Graduate Outcomes Stimulus Paper (AITSL, 2017b), a teacher with a specialisation may have a deeper understanding of: content and process knowledge, including the nature of scientific/mathematical knowledge and its influence in our lives; curriculum knowledge and the capacity to see connections within and between curricula; typical learning progressions/trajectories and where common difficulties in learning may arise; research-informed and ageappropriate teaching approaches; teaching and learning resources and the ability to manage learning spaces, materials, and

3

equipment, including digital technologies; assessment strategies to increase the impact of their teaching practice; and the capability to effectively share their expertise with other teachers. 4. Methodological approach This systematic review employed a multi-conceptual methodological approach informed by a number of scholars and established protocols. This incorporated Randolph’s (2009) overall approach to conducting a systematic literature review; Cooke, Smith, and Booth’s (2012) SPIDER (Sample, Phenomenon of Interest, Design, Evaluation, and Research Type) approach to formulating search terms; and Moher, Liberati, Tetzlaff, and Altman’s (2009) general PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) protocols. Most importantly, Randolph’s (2009) sentiment that the process of conducting secondary research mirrors the processes of conducting primary research was adopted. From this perspective, the steps to completing a literature review are problem formation, data collection, data evaluation, analysis, and interpretation (Randolph, 2009). The approach to operationalising these critical tasks is described in the sections that follow. 4.1. Problem formation This is a systematic literature review about the preparation of “disciplinary expert teachers” (i.e., instructional coaches, specialist teachers, and generalist teachers with an area of specialisation, as arose from the findings of this review) in primary science and mathematics education and their impact on teaching and learning. The aim is to integrate findings from multiple approaches and contexts to answer the research questions: (1) How are disciplinary expert teachers defined? (2) How are disciplinary expert teachers prepared? (3) In what ways and to what extent do disciplinary expert teachers impact teaching and learning? (4) What can be learnt to inform primary specialisations policy enactment in Australian education? and (5) What are directions for future research? To focus the review, a set of inclusion/exclusion criteria was established. The literature search included:
empirical, peer-reviewed journal articles published in English anytime up to the end of December, 2018 or currently in preparation or in press; and
articles whose focus is on the education of primary teachers with expertise in science or mathematics education or their subsequent work in schools. The following types of articles were excluded from this review:
articles about general teacher professional learning or development or coaching (i.e., those not specific to science/mathematics education);
articles about peer coaching wherein there is no disciplinary ‘expert’ teacher;
articles wherein the participants happened to be preservice teachers or teachers with expertise in science/mathematics education, but the focus was on something different (e.g., their use of scientific calculators in solving mathematics problems);
articles wherein the science/mathematics expert teacher is an academic teacher educator or researcher; and
articles wherein only the implications of the research are related to expert teachers (i.e., recommendations emerging from the research are calls for teachers with more specialised knowledge and experience, but the research topic itself is not related to

Please cite this article as: Mills, R et al., Complexity and contradiction: Disciplinary expert teachers in primary science and mathematics education, Teaching and Teacher Education, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2019.103010

4

R. Mills et al. / Teaching and Teacher Education xxx (xxxx) xxx

disciplinary expertise in the primary years and does not answer the research questions). It is worth emphasising that the intent of this review is not to synthesise general professional learning or development or coaching literature. The specific focus of this review is what can be learned about expert teachers in primary science and mathematics education. 4.2. Data collection The articles included in this review were compiled from five sources: (1) an electronic search of general and educational research databases; (2) a manual search of science education, mathematics education and teacher education journals; (3) the reference lists of articles identified as relevant in the data screening process; (4) the reference list of two existing reviews/commentaries about mathematics coaching (Levy, Pasquale, & Marco, 2008; Polly, Mraz, & Algozzine, 2013); and (4) personal communication with authors of critical relevant articles to identify further relevant articles including work that may be in preparation or in press. The search terms were refined over time through an iterative process to ensure that results would be a robust representation of existing research. The following search phrase was used: AB (elementary OR primary) AND teach* AND (science OR math*) AND (coach* OR speciali*). Data collection began with an electronic search of Scopus (the largest general abstract and citation database), ERIC (Education Resources Information Center), and Education Source databases. In doing so, the SPIDER technique (Cooke, Smith, & Booth, 2012) was adapted to formulate search terms, database-specific thesauruses were used to identify any additional synonymous search terms, several trial database searches were conducted to check whether our search terms were yielding relevant results, and general input from a teacher education librarian was sought. The authors existing knowledge about specialism in the primary years was also drawn upon in our choosing of the search terms. Additionally, manual searches of recent issues of prominent journals for further relevant articles were conducted. Journals searched were: Journal of Research in Science Teaching, Science Education, International Journal of Science Education, Research in Science Education, Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, Educational Studies in Mathematics, Journal of Mathematical Behaviour, ZDM: The International Journal of Mathematics Education, Teaching and Teacher Education, Asia-Pacific Journal of Teacher Education, Teaching Education, Journal of Science Teacher Education, and Journal of Mathematics Teacher Education for coach* or speciali*. While this is not an exhaustive list of journals that may publish scholarly work on this topic, the purpose of the manual searches was primarily to confirm the validity and reliability of the electronic search of databases. The reference lists of articles identified in the data screening process, including existing reviews and commentaries, were also searched. In this process, the reference lists of relevant studies were analysed to identify any further relevant studies, and so on, until we were certain that no more relevant studies could be obtained from this process. From this, personal communication was initiated with authors of critical articles (i.e., authors who had published more than one relevant article). This was effective, as many authors confirmed that all of their published work in the area was identified, and some offered additional articles that were currently under review or forthcoming. The bibliographic details of all articles were exported from the databases and imported into an Endnote library, and duplicate articles were removed. There were hundreds of articles that were evaluated for their relevance through the PRISMA (Moher et al.,

2009) screening and eligibility processes described in the next section (Fig. 1). 4.3. Data evaluation The first author screened 589 potentially relevant studies by assessing their title and abstract. Following this, 73 full-text articles were read in their entirety to determine their relevance using the inclusion/exclusion criteria. Remaining studies were excluded from the review. A total of 37 articles were included in the final analysis. To ensure that the first author was fair in his screening of the initial articles using the inclusion/exclusion criteria, the first and third authors compared their screening of the first 20% of articles and found a 100% match in the articles they identified as relevant. Information extracted from relevant studies was organised in an electronic database using Microsoft Excel. This included each article’s author and date of publication; journal of publication; geographical location; research design; view of expertise adopted in the study (i.e., instructional coach, specialist teacher, or teacher with a specialisation); setting and participants; methods of data generation and analysis; findings; limitations of the study; and finally, recommendations for further research. 4.4. Analysis and interpretation All authors worked collaboratively to assign the papers one or more keywords, which were iteratively refined into more parsimonious themes by looking for commonalities and contradictions ~ a, 2013). Three themes among the extracted information (Saldan emerged: (1) Nomenclature, Definitions, and Ways of Working; (2) Preparation; and (3) Impact on Teaching and Learning e Advantages and Contradictions (Table 1). It was sometimes difficult to distinguish the main focus of a study. For example, some studies were about ‘preparation’ and ‘impact on teaching and learning’ because they sought to evaluate an accreditation course or education program by examining the expert teacher’s effectiveness in a school or classroom. In these cases, the authors carefully looked to determine the main focus of the study and classified it accordingly. The authors were able to determine the main focus of all but one of the 37 articles, which was categorised in two themes (Markworth, Brobst, Ohana, & Parker, 2016). In the sections that follow, the findings of our analysis and interpretation are presented, aligned to the research questions. The alignment between the research questions, research themes, and findings is presented in Fig. 2. This also serves as a ‘roadmap’ to reading the next sections of this review. While the first three research questions and themes are closely linked, the fourth and fifth research questions were answered by examining closely the data across all three themes. 5. General descriptive trends There has been a dramatic increase in attention paid to this topic over the last five years, with 68% of the research articles published from 2015 onwards. While most of the research on this topic was conducted in the United States (78%), other research has been conducted in Australia (14%), China (3%), England (3%), and South Africa (3%). There are studies that examine instructional coaching, specialist teaching, and other forms of specialism; although, as becomes clear in this paper, the nomenclature and definitions used to describe disciplinary experts is varied, which is often problematic in interpreting research. There are a balanced number of studies about science (44%) and mathematics (56%). While a large proportion of the research is made up of small scale, qualitative

Please cite this article as: Mills, R et al., Complexity and contradiction: Disciplinary expert teachers in primary science and mathematics education, Teaching and Teacher Education, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2019.103010

R. Mills et al. / Teaching and Teacher Education xxx (xxxx) xxx

5

Fig. 1. Approach to article collection and evaluation.

studies (70%), there are a few larger scale, quantitative or mixed methods studies that engaged multiple school sites or sources of data (30%). We noted that, overall, many studies appear to be discrete, one-off research projects. There were few substantive, continuous programs of research. 6. How are disciplinary expert teachers defined? Finding 1: The nomenclature used to describe disciplinary expert teachers and their ways of working are highly varied and contextual. There is some consensus about the nomenclature and definitions used to describe expert teachers in primary science and mathematics education. A number of studies have documented models that draw upon the expertise of an instructional coach, generalist teacher with a specialisation, or specialist teacher (Fig. 3). These represent the three subthemes that are elaborated on in this section alongside ways of working. Given the varied and contextual nature of disciplinary expertise/knowledge specialism in the primary years, the term “disciplinary expert teacher” has been used as an umbrella term by the authors in communicating broadly about the three terms and their respective ways of working. Instructional coach. Nine articles examined the work of instructional coaches in science or mathematics education (Anderson et al., 2014; Campbell & Griffin, 2017; Gibbons, Kazemi, & Lewis, 2017; Gu & Gu, 2016; Hopkins, Ozimek, & Sweet, 2017; Mudzimiri, Bourroughs, Luebeck, Sutton, & Yopp, 2014; Obara & Sloan, 2009; Polly, Algozzine, Martin, & Mraz, 2015; Snodgrass Rangel, Bell, & Monroy, 2017). These are educators who work with classroom teachers to improve their teaching practice, with the goal of affecting student learning (Mudzimiri at al., 2014). Instructional coaching involves collaborative and cyclical planning,

teaching, and reflection (Campbell & Malkus, 2014). Rather than coteaching or team-teaching, the emphasis here is on a co-learning process where the coach’s and teacher’s content knowledge, pedagogical knowledge, and beliefs about teaching and learning are brought to the fore, broken down, and rebuilt as necessary (Campbell & Malkus, 2017). In this approach, it is implied that the coach is more knowledgeable and experienced than the classroom teacher (Campbell & Griffin, 2017). This is important because the coach may be called upon to support curriculum and resource development, model lessons for teachers, and provide professional learning workshops (see Ways of working below). Some studies have advocated for instructional coaches to engage teachers collectively in service of school-wide improvement, rather than working in isolation with individual teachers (e.g., Gibbons et al., 2017; Hopkins et al., 2017). Generalist teacher with a specialisation. Five articles focus on generalist classroom teachers with a learning area specialisation in science or mathematics (Gerretson, Bosnick, & Schofield, 2008; Herbert, Xu, & Kelly, 2017; Markworth et al., 2016; Sexton & Downton, 2014; Webel, Conner, Sheffel, Tarr, & Austin, 2017). Quite often, this approach manifests as team-teaching or coteaching, with the more expert generalist teacher sometimes referred to as a ‘specialist’ (Markworth et al., 2016). The premise of this approach is that generalist classroom teachers share students and teach the learning areas they feel most comfortable with (Gerretson et al., 2008; Webel et al., 2017). There is great diversity of practice within team-teaching approaches in particular, as the teaching arrangements can involve two or three generalist classroom teachers sometimes within or across year levels (Markworth et al., 2016). Sometimes the more expert generalist teacher may be given time release from classes to carry out roles more typical of an instructional coach (e.g., Herbert et al., 2017).

Please cite this article as: Mills, R et al., Complexity and contradiction: Disciplinary expert teachers in primary science and mathematics education, Teaching and Teacher Education, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2019.103010

6

R. Mills et al. / Teaching and Teacher Education xxx (xxxx) xxx

Table 1 An overview of the articles included in this review (n ¼ 37). Research Themes

References

No. of Articles

Theme 1: Nomenclature, Definitions, and Ways of Working

Anderson, Feldman, and Minstrell (2014) Campbell and Griffin (2017) Gerretson, Bosnick, and Schofield (2008) Gibbons, Kazemi, and Lewis (2017) Gu and Gu (2016) Herbert, Xu, and Kelly (2017) Hopkins, Ozimek, and Sweet (2017) Marco-Bujosa and Levy (2016) Markworth, Brobst, Ohana, and Parker (2016) Mudzimiri, Burroughs, Luebeck, Sutton, and Yopp (2014) Obara and Sloan (2009) Polly, Algozzine, Martin, and Mraz (2015) Sexton and Downton (2014) Snodgrass Rangel, Bell, and Monroy (2017) Webel, Conner, Sheffel, Tarr, and Austin (2017) Bourke & Mills, in preparation Campbell and Malkus (2014) Enderson, Grant, and Liu (2018) Gibbons and Cobb (2017) Harrington, Burton, and Beaver (2017) Haver, Trinter, and Inge (2017) Livy and Downton (2018) Smith (1999) Swars, Smith, Smith, Carothers, and Myers (2018) Brobst & Markworth, (in press) Brobst, Markworth, Tasker, and Ohana (2017) Campbell and Chittleborough (2014) Dailey and Robinson (2016) Harvey (1999) Kier and Lee (2017) Levy, Jia, Marco-Bujosa, Gess-Newsome, and Pasquale (2016) Marco-Bujosa, Levy, and McNeil (2018) Markworth, Brobst, Ohana, and Parker (2016) Markworth, Brobst, Parker, & Ohana (2018) Myers, Swars, and Smith (2016) Nickerson (2010) Poland, Colburn, and Long (2017) Schwartz, Abd-El-Khalick, and Lederman (2000)

15

Theme 2: Preparation

Theme 3: Impact on Teaching and Learning e Advantages and Contradictions

9

14

Note. Articles included in the present study are marked with an asterisk (*) at the end-of-text for ease of reference. Markworth et al. (2016) is included in two themes.

Fig. 2. Alignment between the research questions, themes, and findings.

Please cite this article as: Mills, R et al., Complexity and contradiction: Disciplinary expert teachers in primary science and mathematics education, Teaching and Teacher Education, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2019.103010

R. Mills et al. / Teaching and Teacher Education xxx (xxxx) xxx

7

Fig. 3. Nomenclature and definitions arising from this review.

Specialist teacher. One article relates to specialist teachers responsible for the planning and delivery of science only (MarcoBujosa & Levy, 2016). The specialist science teacher may teach one or more grades, and may have a designated science classroom or laboratory for lessons. Complicating research on specialist teachers are the different ways in which the term is used, which is often to describe an instructional coach or a generalist teacher with a specialisation. The term ‘elementary mathematics specialist’, for example, is used in US mathematics education research and policy as an umbrella term to describe educators who may work with teachers as coaches, teach mathematics to primary students in one or more grades, or work with groups of students to provide remedial or enrichment activities (NCTM, 2019). While this broad notion of a specialist teacher may be advantageous for schools, as the specific duties carried out by a specialist can be responsive to their needs, the lack of specificity is challenging when interpreting research in this area. Ways of working. Tasks typically carried out by expert teachers may include collaborative curriculum and lesson planning, including locating resources for teachers; observing a colleague’s science or mathematics teaching; modeling science or mathematics teaching; co-teaching science or mathematics lessons; working with students; pre- and post-lesson conferences and reflective conversations; and handling student assessment or learning data (Campbell & Griffin, 2017; Herbert et al., 2017; Hopkins et al., 2017; Mudzimiri et al., 2014; Polly et al., 2015; Sexton & Downton, 2014; Snodgrass Rangel et al., 2017). To a lesser extent, and particularly in the case of instructional coaches, they might be involved in facilitating and sharing information among teachers; providing professional development; and writing or administering grants (Gibbons et al., 2017; Hopkins et al., 2017; Mudzimiri et al., 2014; Obara & Sloan, 2009; Polly et al., 2015; Sexton & Downton, 2014). Other administrative tasks such as meeting with school leadership teams and responding to emails and phone calls are also part of their daily work (Campbell & Griffin, 2017; Mudzimiri et al., 2014; Sexton & Downton, 2014). While seemingly well defined, the roles and responsibilities of expert teachers require further explication, as it has been suggested there may be a disconnect between their perceived professional role and what they actually do (e.g., Campbell & Griffin, 2017; Gu & Gu, 2016; Mudzimiri et al., 2014; Polly et al., 2015).

7. How are disciplinary expert teachers prepared? Finding 2: Disciplinary expert teachers may be self-appointed or chosen by the school principal, or have formal preparation at the preservice or inservice career stage that includes additional education in content knowledge, pedagogical content knowledge, and leadership. The three subthemes that will be elaborated upon in this section are inservice, preservice, and ongoing professional learning. Inservice. Although inservice teachers are commonly selfappointed experts in a given learning area, or chosen by the principal to carry out additional leadership or coordination duties (Gerretson et al., 2008; Herbert et al., 2017; Markworth et al., 2016; Sexton & Downton, 2014), four articles document the enactment of a formal mathematics specialist course (Campbell & Malkus, 2014; Harrington, Burton, & Beaver, 2017; Haver, Trinter, & Inge, 2017; Swars et al., 2018). The courses outlined in these studies reveal mixed findings about their value. These courses comprised formal university units of study generally focused on content knowledge, pedagogical content knowledge, and leadership knowledge and skills. While the completion of formal education led to positive changes in teachers’ mathematical beliefs, content knowledge, and classroom teaching practices in one study (Swars et al., 2018), teachers’ mathematical beliefs and pedagogical knowledge were more resistant to change in another study (Campbell & Malkus, 2014). In reviewing their approach to the preparation of mathematics specialist teachers, Harrington and her colleagues (2017) determined that while units about teaching mathematics were well-received, a number of tensions arose from the mathematical content knowledge units. Teachers thought the level of mathematical content knowledge in the units was too difficult, and in need of refinement to focus on the specialised mathematical knowledge needed for teaching mathematics. They reported that mathematics at a level ‘outside of what they teach’ is not important for them to know and understand. Teachers also wanted ideas and techniques to take back to the classroom for use right away, rather than think deeply about mathematics and develop conceptual understanding beyond a purely algorithmic point of view. There was little information reported about the leadership aspect of these preparation courses (c.f. Haver et al., 2017), which is common to most research in this broader theme.

Please cite this article as: Mills, R et al., Complexity and contradiction: Disciplinary expert teachers in primary science and mathematics education, Teaching and Teacher Education, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2019.103010

8

R. Mills et al. / Teaching and Teacher Education xxx (xxxx) xxx

Preservice. Three articles, including that of the authors, have considered the preparation of expert teachers in initial teacher education courses (Authors, in preparation; Livy & Downton, 2018; Smith, 1999). Authors (in preparation) have documented their experience developing and enacting a science specialisation for primary preservice teachers that comprises seven online modules tied to critical events in their preservice education course such as curriculum and professional experience units. Other work in preservice teacher education has emphasised the value of school experiences in the preparation of disciplinary experts (Livy & Downton, 2018; Smith, 1999). Smith (1999) noted that preservice teachers with a science specialisation were inclined to interrogate and revise their science content knowledge in response to their experiences in the classroom, noting that it may be preferable to emphasise the fluidity of knowledge structures and their close link to practice, rather than specify the content knowledge that preservice teachers must acquire. Likewise, Livy and Downton (2018) also support the value of school experience. Preservice teachers in this study, who were preparing to be mathematics specialists, observed a Year 5/6 lesson on geometric reasoning (calculating the size of angles without a protractor). They wrote field notes, reflections, and a report, which, overall, was beneficial in terms of their understanding of how children learn mathematics. Ongoing professional learning. One study examined a series of 10 professional learning tasks for in-service mathematics coaches designed to strengthen their content and pedagogical knowledge (Enderson, Grant, & Liu, 2018). The professional learning tasks had three components: (1) sessions during which they solved probability problems and collaboratively reflected upon their solutions with peers; (2) observation of student problem solving and analysis of student work samples; and (3) discussions about problem solutions and discoveries from working with children. There was evidence of the coaches learning about mathematical understanding and thinking, particularly around using representations such as diagrams, data, and graphs to solve mathematics problems. The mathematics coaches developed a newfound thinking about themselves as both leaders and learners, and appreciated more greatly the importance of having time to discuss mathematics learning and teaching with their teacher colleagues. Finally, Gibbons and Cobb (2017) have synthesised from the literature possible professional learning activities for mathematics instructional coaches such as co-designing instruction, analysing classroom video, and examining student work. 8. In what ways and to what extent do disciplinary expert teachers impact teaching and learning? Finding 3: While instructional coaches appear to have a positive impact on the quality of science and mathematics teaching, there is insufficient evidence on the impact of specialist teachers or generalist teachers with an area of specialisation on teacher instructional quality or student learning. There are a range of ways science and mathematics expert teachers in the primary years are perceived to impact teaching and learning (see Gerretson et al., 2008; Poland et al., 2017). We analysed 14 articles that offered empirical evidence about expert teachers’ qualifications and knowledge; planning and instruction time; instructional quality; teacher identity; student learning outcomes; and professional learning and collaboration. These represent the six subthemes that are elaborated on in this section. Qualifications and knowledge. Two articles offer evidence to support the notion that expert teachers possess high levels of content knowledge (Brobst et al., 2017; Nickerson, 2010). In a comparative study of generalist teachers and disciplinary experts (a combination of specialist teachers and generalist teachers who

team-teach, in this case), Brobst et al. (2017) found that disciplinary experts were more likely to have a science degree in addition to their educational qualifications, and had significantly higher science content knowledge. Nickerson (2010) also notes positive findings about content knowledge, indicating that throughout a mathematics specialist certification program, mathematics teachers gained content knowledge and began to see connections between mathematical concepts. While these articles concur on the importance of depth of discipline knowledge, neither demonstrate that this relates to instructional quality or student learning outcomes. Planning and instruction time. Five articles support the claim that more time is afforded to science planning and/or instruction in an expert teacher led classroom (Brobst et al., 2017; Brobst & Markworth, in press; Markworth, Brobst, Parker, & Ohana, 2018; Markworth et al., 2016; Poland et al., 2017). Experts teachers selfreported more planning time (Brobst et al., 2017; Brobst & Markworth, in press; Markworth et al., 2016, 2018) and more instruction time (Brobst & Markworth, in press; Markworth et al., 2018, 2016; Poland et al., 2017) than generalist classroom teachers. In direct contrast, however, one article notes that more instruction time was afforded to science by the generalist teacher due to the flexibility to adjust lessons rather than adhering to a fixed schedule (Levy et al., 2016). One of the studies in this category shows a positive correlation between both planning and instruction time and instructional quality (Brobst et al., 2017). Instructional quality. Six articles focused on teacher instructional quality, with contradictory findings (Brobst et al., 2017; Dailey & Robinson, 2016; Harvey, 1999; Levy et al., 2016; Myers, Swars, & Smith, 2016; Schwartz et al., 2000). Two of these studies, which examine the impact of instructional coaching on instructional quality, report an improvement in science teaching (Dailey & Robinson, 2016; Harvey, 1999). Teachers who engaged in instructional coaching developed personal theories of learning that were better-aligned with constructivism, employing more handson science activities, and reported a higher frequency of making connections between science and other curriculum areas (Dailey & Robinson, 2016; Harvey, 1999). When their coaching had ended, the teachers in one study remained concerned about promoting deep conceptual understanding, facilitating inquiry-based learning, managing science activities and experiments, and making obvious the relevance of science to students’ lives beyond the classroom (Harvey, 1999). The remaining four articles compare the instructional quality of generalist versus expert teachers (specialists and generalists with an area of specialisation). Three articles provide support in favour of an expert teacher led science or mathematics class, noting greater strengths in planning for and teaching science and mathematics (Brobst et al., 2017; Myers et al., 2016; Schwartz, Abd-El-Khalick, & Lederman, 2000). In direct contrast, however, there was no difference between these two groups of educators in Levy et al.’s (2016) study. This may have been due to differences in initial teacher education between the generalist and specialist teachers (i.e., a more robust preparation of generalist teachers, for whom teaching is likely their first degree) or because of class management issues that arose from the specialist teacher being perceived as a visitor by students and lacking an ongoing relationship with them (Levy et al., 2016). Teacher identity. Two research articles investigate the identity development of specialist science teachers, and the impact this has on teaching and learning (Kier & Lee, 2017; Marco-Bujosa, Levy, & McNeill, 2018). The identity of specialist science teachers change and advance as they negotiate science curricular and teaching norms; develop deeper connections between content, pedagogy, and the real world; and view themselves as both learners and

Please cite this article as: Mills, R et al., Complexity and contradiction: Disciplinary expert teachers in primary science and mathematics education, Teaching and Teacher Education, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2019.103010

R. Mills et al. / Teaching and Teacher Education xxx (xxxx) xxx

leaders of science education, who are able to confidently enact hands-on, inquiry-based learning activities (Kier & Lee, 2017). In this process, opportunities for collaboration with other science specialist teachers and sufficient support (e.g., time, physical space, and learning resources) are important to ease feelings of professional isolation and nervousness about being solely responsible for science education at a school (Marco-Bujosa et al., 2018). While a science or mathematics teacher identity appeared to have some affordances for instructional quality, there was no evidence to suggest that this impacts student learning. Student learning outcomes. Remarkably few research articles provided insight into students’ performance on assessment. While one article reported greater mathematical achievement of students taught by an expert teacher (Nickerson, 2010), two articles found no difference between the science assessment scores of students taught by a generalist and expert teacher (Levy et al., 2016; Schwartz et al., 2000). This is likely because there are many factors that influence student learning and achievement. Professional learning and collaboration. While all studies on instructional coaching found this to support ongoing teacher professional learning and collaboration, there was little evidence to suggest that specialist teachers or teachers with a specialisation also afforded this advantage. Three research articles found instructional coaching to support ongoing teacher professional learning and collaboration (Campbell & Chittleborough, 2014; Dailey & Robinson, 2016; Harvey, 1999), whereas one article suggests that specialist teachers or teachers with a specialisation are also afforded this advantage (Markworth et al., 2018). In the case of schools with a specialist teacher, Webel and colleagues (2017) found that the teacher felt isolated and had no other teachers to collaborate with (see also Markworth et al., 2016). This is likely because there is no shared responsibility for science education (Levy et al., 2016). 9. What can be learnt to inform primary specialisations policy enactment in Australian education? Finding 4: The role of school administrators is important in supporting disciplinary expert teachers. Principal leadership in science and mathematics is essential in determining the conditions necessary to support disciplinary experts. School principals have a crucial role to play in establishing a positive culture for science and mathematics education; mobilising school resources for science teaching and learning; and managing external education reform pressures to support science and mathematics teachers (Marco-Bujosa & Levy, 2016). Many studies noted the importance of school leaders in ensuring the effectiveness of disciplinary experts (see also Campbell & Griffin, 2017; Gibbons et al., 2017; Herbert et al., 2017; Levy et al., 2016; Nickerson, 2010). Finding 5: Relationships between an instructional coach and their colleagues (both administrators and other teachers) may be important supports for their work. An instructional coach’s relationship with school leaders and other teachers may be important supports for their work (Anderson et al., 2014). Instructional coaches can alleviate classroom teachers’ feeling of vulnerability about an outsider critically evaluating their teaching practice by showing general care and consideration in creating a safe environment for sharing ideas and practices, and a willingness to go above and beyond in their work (Anderson et al., 2014). Other factors that are important in generating productive professional relationships are coaches being reliable, open, and honest with the teachers with whom they worked (Anderson et al., 2014). The coach’s science content knowledge and classroom experience are also important in establishing and maintaining

9

quality working relationships, presumably because they are more likely to be perceived as an expert (Anderson et al., 2014). 10. What are directions for future research? Finding 6: There is limited research about the preparation and ongoing professional learning of disciplinary expert teachers, and the impact of expert teachers on student learning, engagement, and participation. In looking at gaps in the scholarship (few papers had recommendations for future research), there is limited research about disciplinary experts in primary science and mathematics education overall. On occasion, there were multiple articles arising from the same research project, which means that the research being carried out in ITE, schools, and classrooms is likely to be even more scant than what is actually represented herein. While there is an abundance of research about nomenclature, definitions, and ways of working, there are limited lines of inquiry about preparation in initial teacher education, ongoing professional learning, and impact on student learning, attitudes, and engagement and participation in post-compulsory science and mathematics education. This review has highlighted a need for research about the preparation and impact of expert teachers. Further inquiry is needed about the preparation of instructional coaches and specialist teachers, which represent approaches most unlike traditional generalist primary school teaching. Moreover, research about preparation that includes leadership knowledge and skills ought to be given priority, given the evidence in favour of instructional coaches arising from our review. There also appears to be a distinct paucity of research that examines the impact of expert science and mathematics teachers on student learning, engagement, and participation in post-compulsory science and mathematics education. Given that engagement and participation in postcompulsory science and mathematics education are highlighted in the rationale and justification for these educators in policy (AITSL, 2017b; TEMAG, 2014), this represents a worthy line of inquiry. 11. Juxtaposing the findings and the current policy moment When these findings from science and mathematics education research are juxtaposed against the current policy around primary specialisations in Australia, and teacher education more broadly, a number of concerns are worth elaboration. This review demonstrates that the nomenclature used to describe expert teachers and their ways of working are highly varied and contextual (e.g., Campbell & Griffin, 2017; Herbert et al., 2017; Webel et al., 2017). This premise also permeates the primary specialisations policy, wherein there is a slippage between the terms ‘specialist’ and ‘specialisation’. For example, the Action Now: Classroom Ready Teachers report simultaneously recommends “specialist teachers in the primary setting” (TEMAG, 2014, p. 20, emphasis added) and “primary teachers to have a specialisation” (TEMAG, 2014, p. 21, emphasis added). This is confusing for those enacting this policy reform because specialist teachers and generalist teachers with a specialisation have different ways of working in schools and classrooms (refer Fig. 1). The Action Now: Classroom Ready Teachers e Australian Government’s Response (DET, 2015) uses the term specialisation. This describes scenarios in which primary teachers work as generalist teachers across all learning areas and share their discipline-specific expertise with their colleagues (DET, 2015). In the context of this review, and also internationally, this approach appears to be unique. It seems that in international contexts, such as the US, a generalist teacher with a specialisation (although termed a ‘specialist’) may team-teach according to their area/s of specialisation rather than teach all learning areas (e.g., Webel et al., 2017).

Please cite this article as: Mills, R et al., Complexity and contradiction: Disciplinary expert teachers in primary science and mathematics education, Teaching and Teacher Education, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2019.103010

10

R. Mills et al. / Teaching and Teacher Education xxx (xxxx) xxx

Moreover, they may work with students rather than teachers (e.g., Webel et al., 2017). This means that within the Australian context, teachers with a primary specialisation may not be afforded the time to focus solely on planning and teaching science and/or mathematics, both of which were associated with instructional quality in this review (Brobst et al., 2017). In response to these issues, there needs to be consistent use of nomenclature and definitions to enhance discourse around disciplinary expertise in the primary years, and to provide clarification about their ways of working. There may also be value in promoting the advantages of coteaching or team-teaching to preservice teachers/graduates with a primary specialisation, which emerged as one way of working in this review and is supported by emergent research in science education (e.g., McNally, 2015; Tsybulsky & Muchnik-Rozanov, 2019). This review found that formal preparation can occur at the preservice or inservice career stage. In the US, where most of the research was conducted, there are mandated postgraduate pathways to become a disciplinary expert teacher in the primary years (e.g., Harrington et al., 2017; Haver et al., 2017; Swars et al., 2018). Australia’s primary specialisations policy appears to be at odds with this situation. Despite some discursive shifts, the policy overwhelmingly positions graduate (i.e., novice) teachers as experts and leaders. The stimulus paper states that graduate teachers with a primary specialisation “are required to meet the Graduate career stage of the Australian Professional Standards for Teachers (APSTs), and it is not an expectation that graduates with a primary specialisation will surpass this career stage” (AITSL, 2017b, p. 1, emphasis added). All policy documents, however, emphasise the expectation that these educators have expert knowledge and share their knowledge with other teachers. Also, many of the characteristics of a teacher with a primary specialisation listed in the stimulus paper are commensurate with the Highly Accomplished and Lead career stages of the APSTs (AITSL, 2017c) and ways of working described in international literature about instructional coaches (e.g., Campbell & Griffin, 2017). This is of concern because ITE institutions are faced with the challenge and contradiction of preparing graduate teachers to carry out work typical of their more experienced and senior colleagues. There is a risk that graduate teachers may not develop the content knowledge, pedagogical content knowledge, and classroom experiences needed for this level of work in their preservice teacher education (Nixon, Smith, & Sudweeks, 2019). Graduate teachers may also lack the level of analysis and reflection needed to change or advance other teachers’ understandings and classroom practice (Brobst & Markworth, in press; Campbell & Malkus, 2014). Finally, graduate teachers may experience resistance from their colleagues, particularly because they lack substantive classroom experience (Anderson et al., 2014). These concerns may be alleviated if primary specialisations are supported by school administrators (e.g., Marco-Bujosa & Levy, 2016), and if productive relationships are established between teachers with a specialisation and their colleagues (e.g., Anderson et al., 2014). These possibilities are given further consideration later in this section. While there is moderate evidence in support of the effectiveness of instructional coaches, there is insufficient evidence to suggest that specialist teachers or generalist teachers with a specialisation positively impact instructional quality and student learning. The assertion outlined in the primary specialisation policy that specialised knowledge will enhance instructional quality (and thus student engagement and post-compulsory participation in science and mathematics education) is not substantiated by this review. It is of concern that primary preservice teachers are mandated to have an area of specialisation with insufficient and contradictory evidence from existing research. There is a need to ‘problematise the problem’ of teacher specialisation in the primary school, with a

view to consider alternative solutions (Authors, under review). This also extends to international pushes for expert science and mathematics teachers from industry (e.g., ASE, 2019). The deficit discourses and circular logic that underpin the Australian policy and broader perceived need for teachers with disciplinary expertise need to be explicated and interrogated, and the perceived problem of teacher and teaching quality needs to be thought about differently (Authors, under review; Bacchi, 2009). For example, school principals and leadership teams can value science and mathematics education, directing school funding into resources, professional development, release time for planning, and so on (Marco-Bujosa & Levy, 2016). Also, the generalist classroom can integrate science and mathematics learning into other learning areas (e.g., integrated STEM education) to alleviate the burden of an increasingly crowded curriculum (e.g., English & King, 2015, 2019; English, King, & Smeed, 2017; King & English, 2016). Finally, there is almost certainly merit in removing other less necessary demands on teacher’s time, so they can focus on deeply engaging young children’s wonder and curiosity about the natural and built world (Pezaro, 2017). The authors’ final recommendation is that if teachers with a specialisation in science or mathematics are to be effective in the current policy context, they need to be supported by school administrators to build quality relationships with their teacher colleagues. With support in resourcing, timetabling, and ongoing professional learning, disciplinary expert teachers may be leveraged to improve instruction and learning, as has been successful in other countries such as the US (e.g., Campbell & Griffin, 2017; Gibbons et al., 2017; Herbert et al., 2017; Levy et al., 2016; MarcoBujosa & Levy, 2016; Nickerson, 2010). In instances where these teachers work directly with their colleagues to improve instruction, their success is likely to be dependent upon the establishment of a safe environment for sharing ideas and practices, and being reliable, open, and honest with their colleagues (Anderson et al., 2014). 12. Conclusion Primary preservice teachers in Australia must now have a learning area specialisation that may include science or mathematics. It is assumed in the rationale behind this policy reform that the expert teacher will positively impact student engagement and learning because they have an additional depth of understanding in science and/or mathematics education they can share with their colleagues. While this logic appears to be simple, the findings of our review suggest otherwise, indicating that the existent literature is shrouded with complexity and contradiction. There appear to be multiple, contextual approaches to disciplinary expertise in the primary years, ranging from instructional coaching to team- or coteaching. While there is a moderate level of support for instructional coaching, there is insufficient evidence to suggest that specialist teachers or teachers with a specialisation have a positive impact on student learning. The findings of this review call into question the Australian primary specialisations policy in particular, as there is little support for this reform in science and mathematics education research. The authors’ ongoing research now seeks to identify successful and contextually relevant approaches to knowledge specialism in the primary school to find out what practices are impactful for student achievement, engagement, and participation in science and mathematics education. Funding details This research was supported by the Queensland University of Technology Faculty of Education’s STEM Education and Teacher Education and Professional Learning (TEPL) Research Groups.

Please cite this article as: Mills, R et al., Complexity and contradiction: Disciplinary expert teachers in primary science and mathematics education, Teaching and Teacher Education, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2019.103010

R. Mills et al. / Teaching and Teacher Education xxx (xxxx) xxx

Acknowledgements Thank you to Professor Lyn English, Associate Professor Louisa Tomas, and Dr. Charlotte Pezaro for their involvement in the preparation of this systemic review for publication. References AITSL. (2017a). Guideline: Primary specialisation. Retrieved from https://www.aitsl. edu.au/tools-resources/resource/guideline-primary-specialisation. AITSL. (2017b). Primary specialisation: Graduate outcome stimulus paper. Retrieved from https://www.aitsl.edu.au/tools-resources/resource/primaryspecialisation—graduate-outcomes-stimulus-paper. AITSL. (2017c). Australian professional standards for teachers. Retrieved from https:// www.aitsl.edu.au/teach/standards. AITSL [Australian Institute for Teaching and School Leadership]. (2015). Standards and procedures for accreditation of initial teacher education programs in Australia. Retrieved from https://www.aitsl.edu.au/tools-resources/resource/ accreditation-of-initial-teacher-education-programs-in-australia—standardsand-procedures. Anderson, R., Feldman, S., & Minstrell, J. (2014). Understanding relationship: Maximizing the effects of science coaching. Education Policy Analysis Archives, 22, 1e25. * Association for Science Education. (2019). Why subject knowledge must be at the heart of teachers’ early career framework. Retrieved from https://www.ase.org. uk/news/why-subject-knowledge-must-be-heart-of-teachers-early-careerframework. Bourke, T., Mills, R., & Siostrom, E. (in press). Tracing the origin of primary specialisation in Australian education: What's the problem represented to be? Australian Educational Researcher. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13384-019-00370y. Bacchi, C. (2009). Analysing policy: What’s the problem represented to be? Frenchs Forest, NSW: Pearson Australia. Bastian, D. (2018). Burmingham pushes for STEM teacher workforce strategy. Education Review. Retrieved from https://www.educationreview.com.au/2018/07/ birmingham-pushes-for-stem-teacher-workforce-strategy/#comments. Bourke, T. & Mills, R. (in preparation). Equipping primary preservice teachers with a specialisation in science: A case study of policy enactment.* Brobst, J. & Markworth, K. (in press). Elementary content specialisations: Perspectives on perils and promises. School Science & Mathematics* Brobst, J., Markworth, K., Tasker, T., & Ohana, C. (2017). Comparing the preparedness, content knowledge, and instructional quality of elementary science specialists and self-contained teachers. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 54(10), 1302e1321. * Campbell, C., & Chittleborough, G. (2014). The “new” science specialists: Promoting and improving the teaching of science in primary schools. Teaching Science, 60(1), 19e29. * Campbell, P., & Griffin, M. (2017). Reflections on the promise and complexity of mathematics coaching. The Journal of Mathematical Behavior, 46, 163e176. * Campbell, P., & Malkus, N. (2014). The mathematical beliefs of elementary mathematics specialist-coaches. ZDM: The International Journal of Mathematics Education, 46(2), 213e225. * Cooke, A., Smith, D., & Booth, A. (2012). Beyond PICO: The SPIDER tool for qualitative evidence synthesis. Qualitative Health Research, 22(10), 1435e1443. Croft, E., & Loughran, J. (2018). Highlighting the ‘E’ in STEM: Why engineering should be taught in our schools. Education Review. Retrieved from https://www. educationreview.com.au/2018/09/highlighting-the-e-in-stem-whyengineering-should-be-taught-in-our-schools/. Dailey, D., & Robinson, A. (2016). Elementary teachers: Concerns about implementing a science program. School Science & Mathematics, 116(3), 139e147. * Department of Education, Training and Employment. (2012). Science spark: Interim evaluation summary. Retrieved from https://qed.qld.gov.au/det-publications/ reports/Documents/evaluation/science-spark-summary.pdf. DET [Department of Education and Training]. (2015). Action now: Classroom ready teachers e Australian government’s response. Retrieved from https://www. aitsl.edu.au/tools-resources/resource/action-now-classroom-ready-teachersaustralian-government-response. DET (Victoria). (2019). STEM in schools. Retrieved from https://www.education.vic. gov.au/about/programs/learningdev/vicstem/Pages/schools.aspx. Education Council. (2015). National STEM school strategy. Retrieved from https:// www.education.gov.au/support-science-technology-engineering-andmathematics. Enderson, M., Grant, M., & Liu, Y. (2018). Supporting mathematics coaches’ learning of probability through professional development tasks. International Journal of Research in Education and Science, 4(2), 613e632. * English, L., & King, D. (2015). STEM learning through engineering design: Fourthgrade students’ investigations in aerospace. International Journal of STEM Education, 2(1), 1e18. English, L., & King, D. (2019). STEM integration in sixth grade: Designing and constructing paper bridges. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 17(5), 863e884. English, L., King, D., & Smeed, J. (2017). Advancing integrated STEM learning

11

through engineering design: Sixth grade students’ design and construction of earthquake resistant buildings. The Journal of Educational Research, 110(3), 255e271. European Union. (2010). Europe 2020: A European strategy for smart, sustainable and inclusive growth. Brussels: European Commission. Flückiger, B., Dunn, J., & Stinson, M. (2018). What supports and limits learning in the early years? Listening to the voices of 200 children. Australian Journal of Education, 62(2), 94e107. Gerretson, H., Bosnick, J., & Schofield, K. (2008). A case for context specialists as the elementary classroom teacher. The Teacher Educator, 43(4), 302e314. * Gibbons, L., & Cobb, P. (2017). Focusing on teacher learning opportunities to identify potentially productive coaching activities. Journal of Teacher Education, 68(4), 411e425. * Gibbons, L., Kazemi, E., & Lewis, R. (2017). Developing collective capacity to improve mathematics instruction: Coaching as a lever for school-wide improvement. The Journal of Mathematical Behavior, 46, 231e250. * Gu, F., & Gu, L. (2016). Characterizing mathematics teaching research specialists’ mentoring in the context of Chinese lesson study. ZDM: The International Journal of Mathematics Education, 48(4), 441e454. * Harrington, R., Burton, L., & Beaver, C. (2017). Answering the call by developing an online elementary mathematics specialist program. The Journal of Mathematical Behavior, 46, 303e312. * Harvey, S. (1999). The impact of coaching in South African primary science InSET. International Journal of Educational Development, 19(3), 191e205. * Haver, W., Trinter, C., & Inge, V. (2017). The Virginia mathematics specialist initiative: Collaborative effort among all components of the VA mathematics community. The Journal of Mathematical Behavior, 46, 289e302. * Henriksen, E. (2015). Improved participation in science, technology, engineering and mathematics (STEM): What does it mean and why is it needed? In E. Henriksen, J. Dillon, & J. Ryder (Eds.), Understanding student participation and choice in science and technology education. Dordrecht: Springer. Herbert, S., Xu, L., & Kelly, L. (2017). The changing roles of science specialists during a capacity building program for primary school science. Australian Journal of Teacher Education, 42(3), 1e21. * Higher Education Statistics Agency. (2019). What do HE students study?. Retrieved from https://www.hesa.ac.uk/data-and-analysis/students/what-study. Hopkins, M., Ozimek, D., & Sweet, T. (2017). Mathematics coaching and instructional reform: Individual and collective change. The Journal of Mathematical Behavior, 46, 215e230. * Kennedy, J., Lyons, T., & Quinn, F. (2014). The continuing declined of science and mathematics enrolments in Australian high schools. Teaching Science, 60(2), 34e46. Kier, M., & Lee, T. (2017). Exploring the role of identity in elementary preservice teachers who plan to specialize in science teaching. Teaching and Teacher Education, 61, 199e210. * King, D., & English, L. (2016). Engineering design in the primary school: Applying STEM concepts to build an optical instrument. International Journal of Science Education, 38(18), 2762e2794. Levy, A., Jia, Y., Marco-Bujosa, L., Gess-Newsome, J., & Pasquale, M. (2016). Science specialists or classroom teachers: Who should teach elementary science? Science Educator, 25(1), 10e21. * Levy, A., Pasquale, M., & Marco, L. (2008). Models of providing science instruction in the elementary grades: A research agenda to inform decision makers. Science Educator, 17(2), 1e18. Livy, S., & Downton, A. (2018). Exploring experiences for assisting primary preservice teachers to extend their knowledge of student strategies and reasoning. The Journal of Mathematical Behavior, 51, 150e160. * Lyons, T., & Quinn, F. (2015). Understanding declining science participation in Australia: A systemic perspective. In E. Henriksen, J. Dillon, & J. Ryder (Eds.), Understanding student participation and choice in science and technology education. Dordrecht: Springer. Marco-Bujosa, L., & Levy, A. (2016). Caught in the balance: An organization analysis of science teaching in schools with elementary science specialists. Science Education, 100(6), 983e1008. * Marco-Bujosa, L., Levy, A., & McNeil, K. (2018). A case study exploring the identity of an in-service elementary science teacher: A language teacher first. Research in science education. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11165017-9681-8. * Markworth, K., Brobst, J., Ohana, C., & Parker, R. (2016). Elementary content specialization: Models, affordances, and constraints. International Journal of STEM Education, 3, 1e19. * Markworth, K., Brobst, J., Parker, R., & Ohana, C. (2018). Exploring elementary content specialization: Benefits and cautions, pitfalls and fixes. NCSM Journal of Mathematics Education Leadership, 19(2), 3e11. * McNally, J. (2015). Learning from one’s own teaching: New science teachers analyzing their practice through classroom observation cycles. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 53(3), 473e501. Moher, D., Liberate, A., Tetzlaff, J., & Altman, D. (2009). Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: The PRISMA statement. PLoS Medicine, 6(7), 1e6. Mudzimiri, R., Burroughs, E., Luebeck, J., Sutton, J., & Yopp, D. (2014). A look inside mathematics coaching: Roles, content, and dynamics. Education Policy Analysis Archives, 22, 1e32. * Myers, K., Swars, S., & Smith, S. (2016). From the university to the classroom: Prospective elementary mathematics specialists’ pedagogical shifts. In

Please cite this article as: Mills, R et al., Complexity and contradiction: Disciplinary expert teachers in primary science and mathematics education, Teaching and Teacher Education, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2019.103010

12

R. Mills et al. / Teaching and Teacher Education xxx (xxxx) xxx

Proceedings of the 38th annual meeting of the North American chapter of the international group for the psychology of mathematics education. Tucson, AZ.*. National Science Board. (2018). Science and engineering indicators 2018. Retrieved from https://www.nsf.gov/statistics/2018/nsb20181/. National Science and Technology Council. (2018). Charting a course for success: America’s strategy for STEM education. Retrieved from https://www.ed.gov/stem. NCTM [National Council of Teachers of Mathematics]. (2019). The role of elementary mathematics specialists in the teaching and learning of mathematics. Retrieved from https://www.nctm.org/Standards-and-Positions/Position-Statements/ The-Role-of-Elementary-Mathematics-Specialists-in-the-Teaching-andLearning-of-Mathematics/. Nickerson, S. (2010). Preparing experienced elementary teachers as mathematics specialists. Investigations in Mathematics Learning, 2(2), 51e68. * Nixon, R., Smith, L., & Sudweeks, R. (2019). Elementary teachers’ science subject matter across the teacher career lifecycle. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 56(6), 707e731. NSTA. (2018). NSTA position statement: Elementary science education. Retrieved from https://www.nsta.org/about/positions/elementary.aspx. NSTA [National Science Teaching Association]. (2017). NSTA position statement: Science teacher preparation. Retrieved from https://www.nsta.org/about/ positions/preparation.aspx. Obara, S., & Sloan, M. (2009). The evolving role of a mathematics coach during the implementation of performance standards. Professional Educator, 33(2), 1e13. * Office of the Chief Scientist. (2016). Australia’s STEM workforce: Science, technology, engineering, and mathematics. Retrieved from https://www.chiefscientist.gov. au/category/science-and-research/ocs_reports/. Pezaro, C. (2017). Specialist science and maths teachers in primary schools are not the solution. Retrieved from https://www.aare.edu.au/blog/?tag¼specialistteachers-in-primary-schools. Poland, S., Colburn, A., & Long, D. (2017). Teacher perspectives on specialisation in the elementary classroom: Implications for science instruction. International Journal of Science Education, 39(13), 1715e1732. * Polly, D., Algozzine, R., Martin, C., & Mraz, M. (2015). Perceptions of the roles and responsibilities of elementary school mathematics coaches. International Journal of Mentoring and Coaching in Education, 4(2), 126e141. *

Polly, D., Mraz, M., & Algozzine, R. (2013). Implications for developing and researching elementary school mathematics coaching. School Science & Mathematics, 113(6), 297e307. Randolph, J. (2009). A guide to writing the dissertation literature review. Practical Assessment, Research and Evaluation, 14(13), 1e13. ~ a, J. (2013). The coding manual for qualitative researchers (2nd ed.). Thousand Saldan Oaks: Sage. Schwartz, R., Abd-El-Khalick, F., & Lederman, N. (2000). Achieving the reforms vision: The effectiveness of a specialists-led elementary science program. School Science & Mathematics, 100(4), 181e193. * Sexton, M., & Downton, A. (2014). School mathematics’ leaders beliefs about their role when participation in a school mathematics project. Australian Primary Mathematics Classroom, 19(3), 3e5. * Smith, R. (1999). Piecing it together: Student teachers building their repertoires in primary science. Teaching and Teacher Education, 15(3), 301e314. * Snodgrass Rangel, V., Bell, E., & Monroy, C. (2017). A descriptive analysis of instructional coaches’ data use in science. School Effectiveness and School Improvement, 28(2), 217e241. * Swars, S., Smith, S., Smith, M., Carothers, J., & Myers, C. (2018). The preparation experiences of elementary mathematics specialists: Examining influences on beliefs, content knowledge, and teaching practices. Journal of Mathematics Teacher Education, 21(2), 123e145. * TEMAG [Teacher Education Ministerial Advisory Group]. (2014). Action now: Classroom ready teachers. Retrieved from https://docs.education.gov.au/node/ 36783. Timms, M., Moyle, K., Weldon, P., & Mitchell, P. (2018). Challenges in STEM learning in Australian schools: Literature and policy review. Melbourne, VIC: Australian Council for Educational Research. Tsybulsky, D., & Muchnik-Rozanov, Y. (2019). The development of student teachers’ professional identity while team-teaching science classes while using a projectbased learning approach: A multi-level analysis. Teaching and Teacher Education, 79, 48e59. Webel, C., Conner, K., Sheffel, C., Tarr, J., & Austin, C. (2017). Elementary mathematics specialists in “departmentalized” teaching assignments: Affordances and constraints. Journal of mathematics Behaviour, 46, 196e214. *

Please cite this article as: Mills, R et al., Complexity and contradiction: Disciplinary expert teachers in primary science and mathematics education, Teaching and Teacher Education, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2019.103010