‘Our Students’ Versus ‘My Students’? Experiences of Subject Teaching by Maltese Primary Church School Teachers
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.62695/KULS1703Keywords:
Generalist Classroom, Maltese Education, Pedagogy, Primary Education, Subject TeachingAbstract
Focusing on Year 5 and Year 6, this qualitative study encompasses a sample of six teachers who have employed the subject teaching approach in recent scholastic years in church schools in Malta. This study addresses these teachers’ experiences with the subject teaching approach, while also exploring associated benefits and challenges. The research delves into the perceptions of the teachers and the implications of subject teaching, offering valuable insights into the pedagogical landscape. The study exposes the phenomenon of learning compartmentalization and highlights the possible negative impacts and beneficial outcomes resulting from this pedagogical approach. These are presented in a comprehensive table which not only encompasses the perspective of teachers but also identifies perceived benefits and challenges for learners. While acknowledging the significance of subject teaching at the primary level, the authors recognize the necessity of future research to assess the subject teaching’s comprehensive impact, particularly the psychological support teachers offer within the broader context of holistic education. This paper stands as a catalyst for informed deliberations on the viability of subject teaching, both in Malta and internationally. It may also contribute to potential policy formulation while igniting further investigations in similar domains.
References
Abdallah, J. (2009). Benefits of co-teaching for ESL classrooms. Academic Leadership Journal, 7(1), 5–6.
Andrews, D. (2006). Departmentalization in the 5th grade classroom: Re-thinking the elementary school model. University of Nebraska – Lincoln.
Bahner, J. M. (1965). Team teaching in the elementary school. Education, 85(6), 337–341.
Bowlby, J. (1969). Attachment and loss (Vol. 1). Pimlico.
Brogan, M. J. (1966). Fifth and sixth year teachers’ and pupils’ opinions attitudes towards a semi-departmentalized organization in Marlatt Elementary School, Manhattan, Kansas. [Unpublished Master’s report]. Kansas State University.
Chan, T. C., & Jarman, D. (2004). Departmentalized Elementary Schools. Principal, 84(1), 70–72.
Chang, F., Munoz, M. A., & Koshewa, S. (2008). Evaluating the impact of departmentalization on elementary school students. Planning and Changing, 39(3-4), 131–145.
Chen, G. (2015). Understanding self-contained classrooms in public schools. Public School Review.
Gerretson, H., Bosnick, J., & Schofield, K. (2008). A case for content specialists as the elementary classroom teacher. The Teacher Educator, 43(4), 302–314.
Harris, M. B. (1996). The Effect of Departmentalization on the Reading Achievement of Sixth-Grade Students.
Hood, L. (2010). “Platooning” Instruction: Districts Weigh Pros and Cons of Departmentalizing Elementary Schools. The Educational Digest, 75(7), 13–17.
Johnson, M. (2013). The benefits of departmentalization in upper elementary grades for students and teachers. [Unpublished Bachelor dissertation]. Trevecca Nazarene University
Liu, F. (2011). Pre-service teachers’ perceptions of departmentalization of elementary schools. International Journal of Whole Schooling, 7(1), 40–52.
McDonald, M. J. (1958). Departmentalization in the elementary school. [Unpublished Master’s report]. Kansas State University.
McPartland, J. M. (1987). Balancing High Quality Subject-Matter Instruction with Positive Teacher-Student Relations in the Middle Grades: Effects of Departmentalization, Tracking and Block Scheduling on Learning Environments. Report No. 15.
Ministry for Education and Employment. (2015). The Learning Outcomes Framework. https://www.schoolslearningoutcomes.edu.mt/en/pages/about-theframework
Ministry of Education and Employment [MEDE]. (2012). A National Curriculum Framework for All 2012. Salesian Press.
Minott, R. (2016). Teacher departmentalized teaching experiences elementary teachers’ experiences of departmentalized teaching and its impact on learner affect. [Unpublished doctoral dissertation]. William Howard Taft University.
Mitchell, M. (1994). Keeping learners together: The benefits of constant membership. Schools in the Middle, 4(2), 35–37.
Mitchell, V. T. (2013). Departmentalized or self-contained – The relationship between classroom configuration and learner achievement. [Unpublished doctoral dissertation]. California State University.
Moffet, J. B. (1975). Teacher Education in Transition: An Experimental Program That Works.
Papert, S. (1993). Obsolete Skill Set: The 3 Rs – Literacy and Letteracy in the Media Ages. Wired Magazine.
Patton, M. (1990). Qualitative evaluation and research methods. Sage.
Pollacco, A. M. (2013). Exploring the generalist and subject teacher approaches in primary schools [Unpublished Bachelor dissertation]. University of Malta.
Reys, B. J., & Fennel, F. (2003). Who should lead mathematics teaching at the elementary school level? A case for mathematics specialists. Teaching Children Mathematics, 9(5), 277–282.
Schembri, H., & Sciberras, C. (2020). A COACTION model to explore remote teacher and learning support teacher collaboration during COVID-19 school closure in Malta. Malta Review of Educational Research, 14(2), 183–210.
Schembri, H., & Sciberras, C. (2022). A practical guide to conduct research in schools in Malta: Reflections, implications and suggestions. The Teacher, 7, 55–77.
Shawn, M., Stratil, M., & Reynolds, G. (1973). Team teaching: A source of support for teacher attitudes toward teaching. Education, 93(3), 295–301.
Shulman, L. S. (1986). Those who understand: Knowledge growth in teaching. Educational Research, 15(2), 4–14.
Strohl, A., Schmertzing, L. C., Schmertzing, R., & Hsiao, E.-L. (2014). Comparison of Self-Contained and Departmentalized Elementary Teachers’ Perceptions of Classroom Structure and Job Satisfaction. Journal of Studies in Education, 4(1), 109. https://doi.org/10.5296/jse.v4i1.4802
Stronge, J. H. (2018). Qualities of effective teachers (3rd ed.). Ascd.
Timmerman, V. (2017). Cross-curricular teaching: How does it work? European Commission.
Valerio, K. (2012). Intrinsic motivation in the classroom. Journal of Learner Engagement: Education Matters, 2(1), 30–35.
Williams, M. W. (2009). Comparison of fifth-year learners’ mathematics achievement as evidenced by Georgia’s criterion-referenced competency test: Traditional and departmentalized settings. [Unpublished doctoral dissertation]. Liberty University.
