Dimensions of teachers’ transdisciplinary competence based on a systematic review of three transdisciplinary areas
Keywords:teacher competence, transdisciplinarity, diversity competence, research competence, digital competence
This study contributes to the conceptualisation of teachers’ competence through a systematic review (a concept synthesis) of three key transdisciplinary competencies—teachers’ diversity competence, teachers’ research and development competence, and teachers’ digital competence. Based on our analysis, we propose a set of dimensions to consider—within which there were important tensions in the research literature reviewed—when discussing teachers’ professional competence. These dimensions are: the 1) beneficiary, 2) teachers’ role, 3) attitudes, knowledge and skills, 4) sources of competence, 5) relationship to disciplinary content and 6) assessment. We discuss the three areas in light of these dimensions. We suggest that the complexity of being and becoming a teacher is a blind spot in research on teachers’ transdisciplinary competence and that many articles show deficit thinking about teachers.
Aflalo, E. (2014). The invisible barrier to integrating computer technology in education. Journal of Education and Learning, 3(2), 120–134. https://doi.org/10.5539/jel.v3n2p120
Akuma, F. V. & Callaghan, R. (2019). A systematic review characterizing and clarifying intrinsic teaching challenges linked to inquiry‐based practical work. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 56(5), 619–648. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.21516
Alvargonzález, D. (2011). Multidisciplinarity, Interdisciplinarity, Transdisciplinarity, and the Sciences. International Studies in the Philosophy of Science, 25(4), 387–403. https://doi.org/10.1080/02698595.2011.623366
Ball, D. L., Thames, M. H., & Phelps, G. (2008). Content knowledge for teaching: What makes it special? Journal of Teacher Education, 59(5), 389–407. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022487108324554
Bernstein, B. (1999). Vertical and horizontal discourse: An essay. British Journal of Sociology of Education, 20(2), 157–173. https://doi.org/10.1080/01425699995380
Biesta, G. (2014). How does a competent teacher become a good teacher? On judgement, wisdom, and virtuosity in teaching and teacher education. In R. Heilbronn & L. Foreman-Peck (Eds.), Philosophical perspectives on the future of teacher education (pp. 3–22). Wiley Blackwell. https://doi.org/10.1002/9781118977859.ch1
Biesta, G. (2019). How general can Bildung be? Reflections on the future of a modern educational ideal. In G. Biesta (Ed.), Obstinate Education (pp. 23–38). Brill Sense. https://doi.org/10.1163/9789004401105_003
Bologna Process. (2018). Paris Communiqué (Vol. 25). http://www.ehea.info/media.ehea.info/file/2018_Paris/77/1/EHEAParis2018_Communique_final_952771.pdf
Bulterman-Bos, J. A. (2008). Will a clinical approach make education research more relevant for practice? Educational Researcher, 37(7), 412–420. https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X08325555
Getenet, S. T. (2017). Adapting technological pedagogical content knowledge framework to teach mathematics. Education and Information Technologies, 22(5), 2629–2644. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-016-9566-x
Glaesser, J. (2019). Competence in educational theory and practice: a critical discussion. Oxford Review of Education, 45(1), 70–85. https://doi.org/10.1080/03054985.2018.1493987
Gough, D., Oliver, S., & Thomas, J. (2017). An introduction to systematic reviews. Sage.
Hammerness, K. (2013). Examining features of teacher education in Norway. Scandinavian Journal of Educational Research, 57(4), 400–419. https://doi.org/10.1080/00313831.2012.656285
Hilton, J. T. (2016). A case study of the application of SAMR and TPACK for reflection on technology integration into two social studies classrooms. The Social Studies, 107(2), 68–73. https://doi.org/10.1080/00377996.2015.1124376
Hubbard, A. (2018). Pedagogical content knowledge in computing education: A review of the research literature. Computer Science Education, 28(2), 117–135. https://doi.org/10.1080/08993408.2018.1509580
Krogh, L. B. & Kvols, A. M. (2016). Forskningsbaseret læreruddannelse: Hvad siger litteraturen? Via Undervisning og Læring.
Leutwyler, B. (2014). Between Myths and Facts: The Contribution of Exchange Experiences to The Professional Development of Teachers. Journal of Curriculum and Teaching, 3(2), 106–117. https://doi.org/10.5430/jct.v3n2p106
Lund, A., Jakhelln, R. E., & Rindal, U. E. (2015). Fremragende lærerutdanning - hva er det, og hvordan kan vi få det? In A. Lund, R. E. Jakhelln, & U. E. Rindal (Eds.), Veier til fremragende lærerutdanning (pp. 13–36). Universitetsforlaget.
Milne, A. A. (1926). Winnie-the-Pooh. Dell.
Ministry of Education and Research. (2016). Regulations relating to the Framework Plan for Primary and Lower Secondary Teacher Education for Years 5–10 [Forskrift]. Ministry of Education and Research. https://www.regjeringen.no/contentassets/c454dbe313c1438b9a965e84cec47364/forskrift-om-rammeplan-for-grunnskolelarerutdanning-for-trinn-5-10---engelsk-oversettelse.pdf
Mishra, P. & Koehler, M. J. (2006). Technological pedagogical content knowledge: A framework for teacher knowledge. Teachers College Record, 108(6), 1017–1054. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9620.2006.00684.x
Moher, D., Liberati, A., Tetzlaff, J., Altman, D. G., & The, P. G. (2009). Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses: The PRISMA Statement. PLOS Medicine, 6(7), e1000097. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pmed.1000097
Mulholland, V. L. & Salm, T. (2017). “It doesn’t feel like a natural fit”: Co-operating teachers account for their evaluation and assessment of pre-service teachers’ efforts to fulfill social justice indicators. Alberta Journal of Educational Research, 63(1), 75–97.
OECD. (2005). Teachers matter. Attracting, developing and retaining effective teachers. OECD Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1787/9789264018044-en
Oranje, J. & Smith, L. F. (2018). Language teacher cognitions and intercultural language teaching: The New Zealand perspective. Language Teaching Research, 22(3), 310–329. https://doi.org/10.1177/1362168817691319
Redecker, C. (2017). European framework for the digital competence of educators: DigCompEdu.
Robinson, D. B. & Young, D. (2019). The Relationship Between Teachers’ Inclusion-Related Knowledge, Skills, and Attitudes and Student Outcomes: A Review of Recent Literature. Exceptionality Education International, 29(3).
Rosenberg, J. M. & Koehler, M. J. (2015). Context and Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge (TPACK): A Systematic Review. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 47(3), 186–210. http://doi.org/10.1080/15391523.2015.1052663
Shulman, L. S. (1986). Those Who Understand: Knowledge Growth in Teaching. Educational Researcher, 15(2), 4–14. https://doi.org/10.1177/002205741319300302
Shulman, L. S. (1987). Knowledge and teaching: Foundations of the new reform. Harvard Educational Review, 57(1), 1–21. https://doi.org/10.17763/haer.57.1.j463w79r56455411
Sivertsen, G. (2013). Norskspråklige vitenskapelige tidsskrifter i humaniora og samfunnsvitenskap. Forfatterkrets, formål og mulighet for åpen tilgang. NIFU.
Staus, N., Gillow-Wiles, H., & Niess, M. (2014). TPACK development in a three-year online masters program: How do teacher perceptions align with classroom practice? Journal of Technology and Teacher Education, 22(3), 333–360.
Sutton, A., Clowes, M., Preston, L., & Booth, A. (2019). Meeting the review family: exploring review types and associated information retrieval requirements. Health Information & Libraries Journal, 36(3), 202–222. https://doi.org/10.1111/hir.12276
Tricco, A. C., Antony, J., Soobiah, C., Kastner, M., Cogo, E., MacDonald, H., D’Souza, J., Hui, W., & Straus, S. E. (2016). Knowledge synthesis methods for generating or refining theory: a scoping review reveals that little guidance is available. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 73(May), 36–42. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclinepi.2015.11.021
UNESCO. (1994). The Salamanca Statement and Framework for Action on Special Needs Education: Adopted by the World Conference on Special Needs Education; Access and Quality. Salamanca, Spain, 7–10 June 1994. UNESCO.
UNESCO. (2008). ICT competency standards for teachers: Competency standards modules. UNESCO.
van Schaik, P., Volman, M., Admiraal, W., & Schenke, W. (2018). Barriers and conditions for teachers’ utilisation of academic knowledge. International Journal of Educational Research, 90, 50–63. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijer.2018.05.003
Westera, W. (2001). Competences in education: A confusion of tongues. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 33(1), 75–88. https://doi.org/10.1080/00220270120625
Yeh, Y. F., Hsu, Y. S., Wu, H. K., Hwang, F. K., & Lin, T. C. (2014). Developing and validating technological pedagogical content knowledge‐practical (TPACK‐practical) through the Delphi survey technique. British Journal of Educational Technology, 45(4), 707–722. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjet.12078
How to Cite
Copyright (c) 2020 Bjørn Smestad, Astrid Gillespie
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
Declaration on copyright
- The author/s will keep their copyright and right of reproduction of their own manuscript, with the work simultaneously licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution License, but give the journal a permanent right to 1) present the manuscript to the public in the original form in which it was digitally published and 2) to be registered and cited as the first publication of the manuscript.
- The author itself must manage its financial reproduction rights in relation to any third-parties.
- The journal does not provide any financial or other remuneration for contributions submitted.
- Readers of the journal may print the manuscripts presented under the same conditions that apply to reproduction of a physical copy. This means that mass reproduction of physical copies or production of copies for commercial purposes is not permitted without the agreement of the author/s.