LITERATURE REVIEW OF SUBJECT-SPECIALIST PEDAGOGY
L I T E R AT U R E R E V I E W O FS U B J E C T- S P E C I A L I S T P E D AG O G YPA M H A N L E Y, J O N AT H A N H E P WO R T H , K E V I N O R R , R O N T H O M P S O NS C H O O L O F E D U C AT I O N A N D P R O F E S S I O N A L D E V E L O P M E N TUNIVERSITY OF HUDDERSFIELDSeptember 2018
G AT S B Y I S A F O U N D AT I O N S E T U PB Y D AV I D S A I N S B U R YTO R E A L I S E H I S C H A R I TA B L E O B J E C T I V E S .WE FOCUS OUR SUPPORT ON A LIMITEDNUMBER OF AREAS:PLANT SCIENCE RESEARCHNEUROSCIENCE RESEARCHS C I E N C E A N D E N G I N E E R I N G E D U C AT I O NECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT IN AFRIC AP U B L I C P O L I C Y R E S E A R C H A N D A DV I C ETHE ARTSW E A R E P R OAC T I V E I N D E V I S I N G P R O J E C T STO AC H I E V E O U R A I M S . W E A R E E N T H U S I A S T I CA B O U T S U P P O R T I N G I N N O VAT I O N . W E A R EA N A LY T I C A L A S W E B E L I E V E I T I S I M P O R TA N TTO U N D E R S TA N D T H E O P P O R T U N I T I E SA N D P R O B L E M S W E TAC K L E . W E TA K E AL O N G - T E R M V I E W A S W E D O N OT T H I N K M U C HC A N B E AC H I E V E D B Y S H O R T, O N E - O F FP R O J E C T S . W E A R E A LWAY S E AG E R TO F O R MPA R T N E R S H I P S W I T H O R G A N I S AT I O N S W H OS H A R E O U R G OA L S .The Gatsby Char itable FoundationT h e Pe a k , 5 W i l t o n R o a d , L o n d o n S W 1 V 1 A PT 44 (0)20 7410 0330F 44 (0)20 7410 0332w w w. g a t s b y. o r g . u kCopyr ight Gatsby Char itable Foundation 2018
CONTENTSIntroductionSECTION ONE: CONCEPTS OF SUBJECT-SPECIALIST PEDAGOGY1. Background2. The context of ITE for FE3. Pedagogy and the subject-specialist teacherGeneric pedagogySubject-specialist pedagogyThe ‘subject’ in FE4. Evidence for the nature of pedagogical content knowledge5. Recontextualisation6. Signature pedagogies, vocational habitus and learning as becoming7. From literature review to intervention design57791213161921232426SECTION TWO: EMPIRICAL STUDIES8. Background9. Reviews of effective pedagogy10. Defining concepts in empirical studiesThe conceptualisation of pedagogyThe conceptualisation of PCK in empirical studiesThe conceptualisation of espoused and enacted practices11. Approaches to evaluating effective practiceTeacher self-reportTeacher testsObserving teaching practiceVignettes and video promptsCoRes and PaP-eRsStudent feedbackExamples of mixed methods12. Themes arising from empirical 9DISCLAIMERThe views and opinions expressed in this report are those of the author and do notnecessarily state or reflect those of the Gatsby Charitable Foundation.3
L I T E R AT U R E R E V I E W O F S U B J E C T S P E C I A L I S T P E D AG O G YACKNOWLEDGEMENTSThe authors would like to thank Jenifer Burden, Hannah Stanwix and NatashaWatkinson of the Gatsby Charitable Foundation for their support andencouragement throughout the preparation of this literature review.We are particularly thankful to Jenifer Burden for her boundless enthusiasm for theproject and for her championing of technical education in general. We gratefullyacknowledge the financial support from the Gatsby Charitable Foundation, withoutwhich the literature review could not have been written.4
L I T E R AT U R E R E V I E W O F S U B J E C T S P E C I A L I S T P E D AG O G YINTRODUCTIONThe review has been divided into two main sections. Section One addressesthe challenges of conducting a literature review in this field and the thinkingunderpinning our approach, before considering some of the key ideas that havebeen identified. Section Two is a more detailed exploration of the studies locatedduring the review process. This introductory section will summarise the aims andscope of the review.The literature review was designed to: Provide a framework for understanding and critiquing the notion of subjectspecialist pedagogy in the Further Education (FE) and Skills sector Inform the development of interventions within FE initial teacher educationprogrammes with the intention of improving the development of trainees’subject-specialist pedagogy Inform the development of a research methodology for investigating the subjectspecialist pedagogies of trainee teachers and evaluating the impact of theinterventions Inform the development of a Theory of Change approach to articulate theassumptions underlying the interventions and their evaluationIt aims to answer the following key research questions:1. What constitutes subject-specialist pedagogy (in the context of science,engineering and technology teaching in further education) and how can it beconceptualised?2. How do teachers acquire a knowledge of subject-specialist pedagogy?3. How do teachers articulate and use their knowledge of subject-specialistpedagogy?4. How is subject-specialist pedagogy developed in courses of initial teachereducation and in CPD?5. What concerns and issues exist relating to subject-specialist pedagogy (in thecontext of SET teaching in further education)?6. What good practice has been disseminated relating to the development ofsubject-specialist pedagogy?The bulk of the literature review took place between October 2015 and June 2016so that it could inform the final intervention design. There was subsequent regularmaintenance until March 2018.The scope of the literature review is expressed by a Boolean search specificationwhich combines relevant terms, and which can be expressed roughly by thediagram in Figure 1.5
L I T E R AT U R E R E V I E W O F S U B J E C T S P E C I A L I S T P E D AG O G YPedagogy:Teacher knowledge,attitudes and beliefsProcesses and rationalesfor teaching and learningVocational pedagogyRecontextualisationTeacher professionallearning and InitialTeacher EducationWork-basedlearningPedagogical contentknowledgeSubject-specialistpedagogy (in FEand skills)Knowledge andcurriculum:What is to be learned?Vocational knowledge& skillsRecontextualisationKnowing and becoming:occupational identitiesSET knowledge in FE andskillsOperationalisingpedagogical knowledgeFigure 1: Scope of the literature reviewThe search terms were refined as the literature review progressed; for example,pedagogical content knowledge and recontextualisation were not initially includedas search terms, but were revealed as important by broader search terms suchas subject-specialist pedagogy. Some literature items associated with the searchterms were regarded as being normally out of scope; for example, primary andelementary education, and subject-specialist pedagogies not associated with STEMsubjects. However, such items were reviewed before being excluded and whereappropriate were retained. Synonyms were used where appropriate to ensurethat important items are not inadvertently missed; for example, teacher trainingand teacher education were both included in the search. Purposive searches werealso conducted of journals likely to contain items of relevance, and of the work ofauthors known to be active in relevant fields.Our inclusion criteria for selecting literature were:1. Studies could use any methods (qualitative, quantitative or mixed)2. Studies could have taken place in any country, but the findings had to beaccessible in English3. The date of publication had to be 2000 or later. Older studies that offeredimportant insights or that were the basis of significant future work could beincluded.The full bibliography contains 252 items from which a smaller subset of the mostrelevant articles was selected for detailed examination; these latter articles arelisted at the end of this report.6
L I T E R AT U R E R E V I E W O F S U B J E C T S P E C I A L I S T P E D AG O G YSECTION ONE: CONCEPTS OF SUBJECTSPECIALIST PEDAGOGY1. BACKGROUNDDebates concerning the nature and status of teacher knowledge can be tracedback at least to the 19th century. From an early stage, these debates have includedwhat teachers might know that is distinctive to the occupation of teaching, andhow this knowledge might relate to the knowledge of specific academic disciplines.Bullough (2001) notes that struggles between universities and schools over thelocation of teacher education gave rise to an examination of what might constitutea special province of knowledge for teachers. According to Parr (1888, p. 469cited in Bullough, 2001), “there is a special knowledge in each subject that belongsto instruction. This is quite distinct from academic knowledge the ideas of anacademic subject are arranged in an order which is determined by their ownrelations. The order of the same ideas, when they are arranged for teaching, isdetermined by their relation to the learning mind”. Almost a century later, Parr’sidea of a ‘special knowledge’ held by teachers was to be echoed by Lee Shulman inhis advocacy of pedagogical content knowledge (Shulman, 1986; 1987), which hasbecome one of the central frameworks for research in subject-specific pedagogy,particularly in secondary school science education.Debates about teacher knowledge are, of course, situated in wider controversiesover the availability and purposes of education, including questions concerning whoshould learn what, and how. Moreover, socio-cultural theories of learning suggestthat teacher knowledge and practices cannot be adequately conceptualised apartfrom the contexts in which they are embedded. For this reason, it is necessaryto supplement Parr’s distinction between the order imposed by the structure ofthe academic discipline and the order imposed by the needs of learners. Whilstthese are important factors in the construction of pedagogy, there will also be aninstitutional order imposed by the culture, history and social relations of individualeducational establishments and their place in specific national educational systems,as well as a social order which derives from the relationship between education andthe production/reproduction of broader social structures, including the distributionof educational attainment according to class, gender and ethnicity. The operationand relationships of these distinct, but interacting, orders has been profoundlyanalysed by Basil Bernstein (see, for example, Bernstein, 2000).For this literature review, the importance of the institutional and social ordersis perhaps most evident in the need to locate considerations of subject-specificpedagogy within the international context of vocational education and training(VET) and, more specifically, the English FE and Skills sector. As is well known, theFE sector has a distinctive character which has been produced by the interactionof historical, cultural, political and social factors shaping education in England overmore than a century. These factors have combined to produce a situation inwhich, although successive governments have highlighted the importance of thesector to national economic well-being, the social status of FE belies its potentialcontribution to society. For technical education in particular, issues such as thecomplexity and fragmentation of the qualifications system have posed considerablechallenges to realising this potential, and although the reports of the Wolf Review(Wolf, 2011) and the Sainsbury Panel on technical education (DfE 2016) haveled to government action to streamline this system and make it more robust,7
L I T E R AT U R E R E V I E W O F S U B J E C T S P E C I A L I S T P E D AG O G Yreal progress will take time. These features of the FE sector pose a number ofchallenges to understanding and developing subject-specific pedagogy, not leastthe marginalisation of teacher education and professional development within thesector and the lack of research which specifically addresses subject pedagogy inFE. Conceptually, there is also the question of how the idea of a subject can beappropriate in the highly diverse context of further education, both because of theproliferation of occupational categories driven by competence-based approachesto vocational training and also arising from the erosion of traditional disciplinaryboundaries and identities entailed by the complexities of modern industrialproduction as well as the questionings of postmodernism (Fisher & Webb, 2006).The complexities introduced by our focus on vocational education and training arenot confined to the nature of the FE sector. There is also the question of the natureof vocational knowledge and skill, and the practices involved in their development,and there is an ongoing debate about what kinds of knowledge are or should bemade available to vocational learners (Wheelahan, 2012; Bathmaker, 2013). Some ofthese debates have been framed by the notion of recontextualisation, understoodas the social and intellectual processes of transformation by which knowledge andpractices originally located in real vocational contexts are selected, organised and reinterpreted within vocational curricula (see, for example, Hordern, 2013). Althoughrecontextualisation as a concept has been developed by a number of authors indifferent ways it has perhaps been used most powerfully by Bernstein, who brings toit characteristic preoccupations with the social distribution of knowledge and the useof pedagogy for the implicit projection of certain forms of learner identity.In conceptualising vocational teaching and learning, it is natural to think ofcommonalities between vocational areas such as science and engineering and theirrelated academic disciplines – drawing conclusions about vocational pedagogiesfrom corresponding pedagogies within subjects such as physics or biology. However,there has been increasing attention in recent years to the notion of vocationalpedagogy per se. In this kind of approach, the focus is on what pedagogies areuseful across a range of vocational contexts, supporting in a consistent way thedevelopment of knowledge, skill and identity among learners. Building on thework of David Guile, Bill Lucas and a number of co-workers (see, for example,Lucas et al., 2012), the report of the Commission on Adult Vocational Teaching andLearning summarises a number of distinctive features of vocational pedagogy,which synthesise key notions of recontextualisation, interdisciplinarity and identityformation (CAVTL, 2013, pp. 15-16).This brief summary of the key issues framing research into subject-specificpedagogy indicates that a review of the relevant literature will be complex andwide-ranging. It needs to recognise the wider context of research into teacherknowledge and identity, curriculum and pedagogy, as well as examining more closelythe claims that pedagogies characteristic of particular subjects exist distinctly fromgeneric pedagogies. For the present purposes, this examination also needs to takeinto account the nature of the FE and Skills sector, and question particular featuresof pedagogies appropriate to vocational science, engineering and technology. Finally,there are questions concerning how teachers – particularly those new to teaching– acquire (or participate in) pedagogical knowledge and practices associated withtheir specialist areas, and how their developing knowledge, identities and practicescan be investigated empirically.8
L I T E R AT U R E R E V I E W O F S U B J E C T S P E C I A L I S T P E D AG O G Y2. THE CONTEXT OF ITE FOR FEThe professional status of teaching in the further education (FE) sector isrecognised as precarious throughout the academic, professional and policyliterature. Once described as a ‘Cinderella sector’ in which a history of ‘benignneglect’ by policymakers had left it without a clear sense of direction and purpose,FE became subject to successive waves of change from the early 1990s onwards.From the incorporation of colleges in 1993, through the reforms of New Labouraround the turn of the millennium, to the moves away from regulation markedby the Lingfield reports, these changes have yet to create a secure sense ofprofessional identity among FE teachers. Although there have been notableachievements in learning environments, curricula and professional training, questionsrelating to the nature of professionalism in the sector are still fiercely contestedand, depending on their political complexion, future governments are likely tointroduce further change.In any sector of education, a central component of teacher professionalism is theprofessional development teachers undergo, both at the start of their teachingcareer and as they gain experience. In particular, the nature and status of initialteacher education (ITE) is of crucial importance to how professionalism is viewedboth within and outside the sector. However, ITE is perhaps the area whichillustrates most clearly how changing political circumstances have introducedconsiderable volatility into notions of FE professionalism. The aftermath ofincorporation reduced the proportion of trained teachers as experienced andqualified staff retired or were made redundant, a situation which in 2000 ledto the introduction of a compulsory requirement for FE teachers to acquire arecognised teaching qualification. Alongside other reforms, including the creation ofa set of teaching standards and transferring responsibility for the inspection of ITEprogrammes to Ofsted, this signalled a decade of increasing government regulationof FE teacher training (for a comprehensive discussion of the recent history of ITEfor the FE sector, see Thompson, 2014).Although not always welcomed by university-based providers, who were used toa greater degree of autonomy, by 2010 it appeared that – in spite of recognisedweaknesses within the new system – progress had been made and the proportionof qualified staff was increasing. So, at least, was the conclusion of an evaluation ofthe Labour government reforms carried out by the then Department for Business,Innovation and Skills. However, as the first Lingfield report pointed out, themethods used to achieve this progress were contrary to the new spirit of marketliberalism, de-regulation and entrepreneurship desired by the Coalition government.They would also prove difficult to maintain in a period of significant reductions infunding for FE. Consequently, the requirement for teachers to obtain a recognisedteaching qualification was removed, together with other regulations introducedin 2007 such as compulsory continuing professional development (CPD) anda requirement to achieve a recognised professional status administered by theInstitute for Learning1. Nonetheless, the elaborate system of teaching qualificationsdeveloped in the period 2007-2011 has largely remained in place – albeit as anoption for those teaching or wishing to teach in the sector.1 These moves reflected more limited de-regulation in the school sector relating to requirements for teaching qualifications.9
L I T E R AT U R E R E V I E W O F S U B J E C T S P E C I A L I S T P E D AG O G YThis brief survey helps us to understand some of the broader issues that mayprove problematic for attempts to develop subject-specific pedagogy in the FEsector. These issues include: A lack of knowledge about the FE teaching workforce, including subject-specialistissues such as levels of qualification in relation to teaching responsibilities, industrialexperience, teaching qualifications and engagement in CPD Mixed messages to FE teachers about the value of teaching qualifications and ITE Uncertainties around the professional status of FE teaching that may result in a‘craft’ rather than ‘professional’ perception of teaching, potentially undervaluingpedagogical knowledge The limited potential of CPD for reaching significant numbers of FE teachers insufficient depth to have a serious impact Pressures on staffing in FE colleges following significant reductions in fundingsince 2011. These pressures are likely to increase as a series of Area Reviewsaimed at rationalising FE provision come to fruition.Data concerning the FE teaching workforce has generally been patchy andinconsistent, although recent work on behalf of the Education and TrainingFoundation has reversed a downwards trend in the availability and quality of data(see, for example, ETF 2015a on the teaching workforce and ETF 2015b on ITEprovision). The majority of the data is still not sufficiently granular to shed sufficientlight on subject-specialist issues in specific subject areas. However, Hayward andHomer (2015) provide a valuable analysis of the SET teaching workforce in FE,indicating that: The current SET workforce is well-qualified, both in terms of subject andteaching qualifications, to deliver programmes up to and including Level 3.However, they are less well-qualified and less experienced in terms of meetingfuture demand for courses at Levels 4-5. The age profile of this workforce is such that significant replacement demandwill occur in the future Although most SET staff receive some CPD, its duration tends to be limited andexisting models of CPD are unlikely to deliver the training needed to equip SETstaff for changing course demands, particularly in relation to science teachersAn understanding of the issues concerning subject-specific pedagogy alsorequires some discussion of the ITE curriculum for teaching qualifications in theFE sector. Although providers are increasingly aligning their offer with the 2014Professional Standards2 developed by the Education and Training Foundation(ETF), the curriculum is largely based on guidance produced by the Learning andSkills Advisory Service (LSIS) in 2011, which itself evolved from the curriculumintroduced in 2007 to implement the LLUK standards. Within this curriculum,subject-specific pedagogy is given some prominence, but with the exception of thespecialist qualifications in English and mathematics – aimed mainly at teachers oflanguage, literacy and numeracy – there is no attempt to make explicit the areas of2 This is the third set of FE professional standards in a period of 15 years, following the FENTO standards of 1999 and theLLUK standards of 2006. Each set has been markedly different to its predecessor.10
L I T E R AT U R E R E V I E W O F S U B J E C T S P E C I A L I S T P E D AG O G Ypedagogical knowledge that must be covered. For this reason, there is considerablevariation between providers in terms of the content of subject-specific pedagogicalknowledge made available to trainees, and in the approaches used to develop thisknowledge. The factors underlying this situation will now be discussed.Subject-specific pedagogy in ITE for the FE sector has been a strongly contestedissue for over a decade, although it must be said that the empirical basis for thesedebates has been extremely thin. Some of the factors within the debate are: External pressures from policymakers and from Ofsted, which have tended tostart from the assumption that subject-specific pedagogy in FE is similar to thatencountered in school subjects. Under these external pressures, ITE for FE hasbeen seen as inadequate because it tends to lack a formal body of knowledgeabout subject-specialist pedagogy and is not organised along subject-specialist lines. Critiques of disciplinary knowledge in general, and subject-specific pedagogicalknowledge in particular, which argue that such knowledge has decreasingrelevance in postmodern times of fluidity, interdisciplinarity, and the erosion ofauthority (Fisher & Webb 2006) Critiques which contrast the meaning of ‘subject’ in FE with that in schools, drawingattention to the numerous specialist areas in the FE curriculum and the diverseinterdisciplinary combinations of traditional subjects that they draw on. Whilstschool subjects number only a dozen or so, it has been estimated that thereare up to 200 specialist areas in FE (Crawley, 2005). Within technical education,national occupational maps may rationalise and standardise many of these areas(IfA, 2017), but the number of specialist areas is unlikely to reduce significantly. A recognition that the formal acquisition of codified pedagogical knowledgeplays a relatively limited role in the professional development of FE teachers, andthat social learning processes which develop a range of knowledge resources,including tacit as opposed to explicit knowledge, are important (Lucas, 2007;Nasta, 2007; Maxwell, 2010) A lack of empirical research on how FE trainees develop their subjectspecific pedagogy, or on the effectiveness of specific interventions aimed atimprovement in this area of ITE – the small-scale study by Maxwell (2010) is anotable exception to this Logistical issues related to the difficulty of maintaining viable groups ofsubject-specialist trainees given the diversity of FE ‘subjects’, and of staffingthese groups with suitably qualified and experienced teacher educators –particularly in SET subjectsAlthough these factors had been present for some time beforehand, they becameparticularly prominent from 2003 onwards when, having recently taken overresponsibility for the inspection of ITE programmes in FE, Ofsted published a surveyreport which was severely critical of existing ITE provision. One of the key areasidentified by Ofsted as requiring improvement was the development of subjectspecific pedagogy, which in their view compared poorly with corresponding provisionfor trainee school teachers. In this respect, the specific criticisms contained in theOfsted (2003) report may be summarised by a single paragraph within it:None of the formal training includes provision to help trainees improvetheir subject knowledge or their vocational competence. There is also little11
L I T E R AT U R E R E V I E W O F S U B J E C T S P E C I A L I S T P E D AG O G Yopportunity for trainees to develop subject-specific pedagogy which wouldenable them to understand and practise the particular skills relevant to teachingtheir specialist area. In some cases, subject-specific mentors are available to giveadvice and guidance, and trainees greatly value the contributions made by thesework-based staff. However, benefiting from this informal element of training isoften a matter of chance (pp. 20-21)In other words, both subject knowledge per se and pedagogical content knowledgewere neglected, with advice on pedagogy being largely generic. Ofsted (2003)found that the quality of the generic training led by teacher educators wasgenerally good; nevertheless, ‘The quality of the trainees’ teaching is affectedadversely by their limited knowledge of how to teach their subject’ (p. 4).The perceived weaknesses identified by Ofsted contrasted with the moreoptimistic – or perhaps complacent – assumptions embedded in the FENTOstandards current at that time.The standards are based on the assumption that those who teach in thesector already possess specialised subject knowledge, skills and experience.The standards, therefore, address the professional development of teachersand teaching teams rather than the development of their subject expertise.(FENTO, 1999, p. 3)Although leaving room for the development of subject-specific pedagogy asopposed to subject knowledge as a legitimate concern of ITE for the sector, thisassumption nevertheless reflected the somewhat laissez-faire attitude which thenexisted and which has proved difficult to eradicate through successive waves ofreform. Echoing a supposedly widespread belief in the FE sector that teaching skillsflow naturally from subject expertise, it is expressed by Robson (2006, p. 14) in thefollowing terms: “The assumption has been that if I know my subject, I can, bydefinition, teach it to others.”Providers responded to the Ofsted criticisms in a variety of ways, largely throughattempting to improve subject-specific mentoring arrangements but also throughinnovations in course content and delivery (see, for example, Fisher & Webb, 2006).However, although these improvements had some impact, a review based onthe 2004-08 inspection cycle noted that the quality of subject-specialist supportremained variable (Ofsted, 2009). There is also evidence that subject-specificpedagogy is not a strong element of CPD for SET teachers in FE, and scienceteachers in particular would welcome more CPD (Hayward & Homer, 2015).3. PEDAGOGY AND THE SUBJECT-SPECIALIST TEACHERThe Ofsted report of 2003 and its aftermath have caused providers of initialteacher education for the FE sector to confront the notion of subject-specificpedagogy more seriously than ever before. Outside the FE sector, similar trendshave existed for even longer, and Thornton (1998) sees increased governmentemphasis on subject-based curricular arrangements as part of the reactionagainst progressivism which gathered momentum throughout most of the1980s and 1990s. However, as already mentioned, subject-specific pedagogyremains a contested notion both within and outside the FE sector, “one thatsits in contradiction to strong intellectual and epistemological trends” (Fisher &Webb, 2006, p. 339). On the one hand, this is connected with pressures towards12
L I T E R AT U R E R E V I E W O F S U B J E C T S P E C I A L I S T P E D AG O G Yinterdisciplinarity enforced by the complex nature of modern enterprises, but onthe other hand with more fundamental questioning of the authority of disciplinaryknowledge associated with postmodernism. Although the idea of a distinctivepedagogy associated with individual subjects or related groups of subjects mightappear attractive or even intuitively obvious, these trends make it necessary toexamine the assumptions underpinning notions of subject-specific pedagogy moreclosely, particularly in the context of FE.Generic pedagogyThere are several important questions concerning subject-specific pedagogy in ITEthat need to be answered before real progress can be made. These include: What should be encompassed by the term ‘subject-specific pedagogy’, andwhat relationships exist between subject-specific and what might be termed‘generic’ pedagogy? What constitutes a ‘subject’ in the FE sector, and what kinds of knowledge arepresent in the
1. What constitutes subject-specialist pedagogy (in the context of science, engineering and technology teaching in further education) and how can it be conceptualised? 2. How do teachers acquire a knowledge of subject-specialist pedagogy? 3. How do teachers articulate and use their know
Dental Officer 59 Naval Nurse 58 Dental Hygienist 59 Environmental Health Officer 59 Chaplain 63 Marine Engineer Officer 42 91 Communication & Information Systems Specialist Seaman Specialist Warfare Specialist Warfare Specialist Tactical (Submariner) Warfare Specialist Sensors (Submariner) Hydrographic, Meteorological & Oceanographic Specialist
Welden, Cindy Administrator 654-5003 O'Brien, Eileen Senior Office Technician 654-5001 Bobertz, Sarah LRE Specialist 654-5017 Burdzinski, Audrey LRE Specialist 654-5020 Cumulada, Amelia LRE Specialist 654-5036 Davis, Gabrielle LRE Specialist 654-5007 Dietrich, Lori LRE Specialist 654-5009 Mensik, Jodee LRE Specialist 654-5010
Mark Scheme 128 Unit 2 Paper 02 129 Mark Scheme 144 CAPE Food and Nutrition Subject Reports 2004 Subject Report 2005 Subject Report 2006 Subject Report 2007 Subject Report 2008 Subject Report (Trinidad and Tobago) 2008 Subject Report (Rest of the Caribbean) 2009 Subject Report 2010 Subject Report 2011 Subject Report 2012 Subject Report 2013 .
PMI Agile Certified Practitioner. Presentation Media 8. . Adobe Digital Designer Adobe Illustrator Specialist. Adobe InDesign Specialist Adobe Photoshop Specialist. AutoCAD Designer AWS Systems Operations. Basic Game Design 8. Big Data Analytics Business Analyst. Cisco CCNA Network Specialist CISSP . Computer and Network Security Specialist.
Graphic Design Specialist Housing Specialist Information Technology Specialist Instructor Loan Specialist Marketing Manager Marketing Specialist Paralegal . Fact Sheets – provides additional upload instructions . HOURLY RATES AND PEOPLE BY STAF
Build Your Resume– Serving your country can also serve your future as a great resume builder. You can gain real hands- . Contract Specialist . Financial Manager Intelligence Specialist Internal Revenue Agent Business Budget Analyst Business and Industry Specialist Contract Specialist Import Specialist Internal Revenue Officer
contained within the certified unit as described hereafter, and/or as adjusted by written mutual agreement of the parties: Included: Accounting Specialist I Accounting Specialist II Administrative Specialist I Administrative Specialist II Administrative Support Specialist Aircraft Mechanic Audio/Visual Production Technician Cadet - Detention
Anatomy is the study of the structure of living things. b. Physiology is the science of the functioning of living organisms and their component parts. SELF-ASSESSMENT EXERCISE 2 i. Factors that determine divisions in anatomy are: a. Degree of structural detail under consideration 5. HEM 604 BASIC ANATOMY AND PHYSIOLOGY OF HUMAN BODY b. Specific processes c. Medical application ii. The analysis .
