Constructoras de vivienda, propuestas, avances e inaplicación de la normatividad

There is little research evidence in the literature to indicate the specific practices that are adopted by assessors in gathering assessment information about students on practicum. Haigh and Ell (2014) note that while there are governing standards for practicum, there are no specified guidelines for how assessment should be enacted in practice. Observation appears to be a key assessment tool (Power & Perry, 2002), but in many studies the role of observation appears to be a taken for granted practice, with little description or quantification of the observation process. Little attention is given to the different ways in which associate teachers and teacher educators may approach assessment practices within their roles.

Dayan (2008) reports on a study conducted in 1999 in which he analysed the actions of six teacher educators when visiting students in an early childhood centre in Israel. This study is significant as it is one of the few that is conducted within the context of the early childhood practicum, and also to identify specific practices enacted by teacher educators in the

assessment visit. He found that the visit tended to be defined by three key phases: arriving and walking around the setting; observation of the student teacher’s actual teaching practice; and the supervisory conference (triadic meeting). Analyses of these phases suggested that teacher educators tended to adopt one of three foci in their interactions and feedback. An activity- oriented assessor tended to focus on the activities that the student teacher engaged in and provided feedback on technical elements that were observed. A child-oriented assessor framed their assessment in response to the way the student teacher identified and responded to children’s learning. The student-oriented assessor placed the student teacher at the centre of the assessment, with a focus on their personal qualities and professional growth. These categorisations help to shed light on the way in which different teacher educators

conceptualise and enact their role as they engage in the assessment process. Dayan (2008) did not propose that any approach was more effective than another, but suggested that teacher

educators should reflect on and evaluate their approach to determine their pedagogy, particularly early in their career.

Assessment that focuses on growth requires effective feedback. Many authors refer in passing to the critical importance of feedback, and yet often fail to define the nature and form of feedback that is most effective. Joughin (2009, p. 2) defines feedback as:

…a process of identifying gaps between actual and desired performance, noting ways of bridging those gaps, and then having students take action to bridge those gaps. Feedback thus conceived is a moderately complex process of learning which is often difficult to enact to the satisfaction of students or teachers.

Cattley (2007) argues that the nature of feedback given within the practicum situation is critical in shaping the self-efficacy beliefs of the student teacher, and in turn their sense of self and professional identity. Given the emotional investment that student teachers have in the outcomes of the practicum and its assessment, Cattley (2007) warns against an over use of negative feedback, which could be destructive to emerging identity development. Copland (2010) argues that student teachers need to be actively and explicitly prepared to engage appropriately in the feedback process. If given guidance, support and practice, student teachers, and others involved in the triadic conference can engage with feedback in a more open, appropriate and considered manner, with the intent of enhancing the outcomes for all involved.

Randall and Thornton (2001) describe the way in which Heron’s (1990) Six Category

Intervention Analysis can be applied to feedback that supports the development of teachers. Heron’s framework divides feedback into two broad categories - Authoritative and Facilitative - which are further explicated in six specific ‘intervention’ types (prescriptive, informative, confronting, cathartic, catalytic and supportive) that may be apparent in feedback sessions

such as the triadic assessment meeting. Table 2.1 provides an overview of the categories as defined and operationalised by Randall and Thornton (2001). The categories of feedback reflect the types of feedback that may be offered to student teachers by either teacher educators or associate teachers during the practicum and the formal triadic assessment meeting.

Table 2.1

Heron’s Six Category Intervention Analysis

Authoritative Facilitative

Prescriptive

Refers to interventions in which the advisor tries to directly tell the teacher what they should do, how to improve or modify the way they teach.

Cathartic

This type of intervention seeks to allow a teacher to discharge their emotions and feelings,

particularly painful feelings of grief, fear and anger.

Informative

The advisor gives the teacher information or knowledge about the situation on which to base a new awareness and to facilitate personal growth.

Catalytic

This type of intervention from the advisor encourages self-discovery by the teacher by questioning on critical areas and by bringing knowledge and information to the surface Confronting

The advisor tries to raise the teacher’s

consciousness about certain aspects of teaching by sharing perceptions of the teacher’s behaviour and challenging the teacher on areas which are seen as problematic and through this confrontation to improve their teaching skills.

Supportive

In a supportive intervention the advisor affirms the worth of the teacher, primarily by praising and valuing what has been done.

Note. Adapted from Randall, M. & Thornton, B. (2001). Advising and supporting teachers. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

Darling-Hammond and Snyder (2000) propose that the process of feedback and reflection should not be a static and finite process, but rather used as a tool within multiple

opportunities for the student teacher to practice, and thereby develop competence. Feedback should guide the student teacher in the opportunity to try again (Kahu, 2008), so that it facilitates assessment for learning. The opportunity to try again yields further assessment data

as to the student teacher’s ability to learn from practice. This may be difficult if feedback and assessment is only given at the end of the practicum and the student teacher does not have the opportunity for immediate implementation. As Kahu (2008, p. 193) suggests “this lack of immediate opportunity to apply feedback can result in students simply reading the comments at the time and then not referring to them again, resulting in no improvement or learning”.

White (2009) conducted a multi-phase action research project with several cohorts of teacher educators (four in Phase Two, six in Phase Three) and student teachers (35 across Phases One, Four and Five) in a New Zealand primary initial teacher education programme, which examined the use of an explicit model to guide the feedback process during practicum. Teacher

educators were encouraged to be more focused in the questions that they asked, in order to stimulate meaningful discussion and then to offer explicit guidance on teaching practice and support for the student teacher to set specific goals. These goals were revisited with the student teacher either on a second visit during the practicum or in a debriefing session following the practicum. The feedback and reflection cycle then began again to support ongoing professional growth, either for future practicum or in moving into the profession. Findings indicate that three variables were critical in the relative effectiveness of the feedback: time, honesty and lecturer availability.

Kahu (2008) summarises key findings on feedback and its role in evaluation, motivation and learning, identifying the following characteristics as critical in the appropriate use of feedback:

Feedback increases motivation if it is: clear, frequent and conveys developing competence; avoids subtly conveying perceptions of low ability such as praising for easy tasks; focuses on mastery rather than norms; emphasises effort and learning rather than being correct; and treats mistakes as normal (Kahu, 2008, p. 189).

This is an interesting issue for the early childhood practicum experience where there is arguably little scope for mistake making, given the age and potential vulnerability of the children concerned. Potentially a more authentic picture of the student as a teacher would be elicited if the student teacher did not feel that they had to be on their ‘best behaviour’ at all times. Nicol and Macfarlane-Dick (2006) argue that feedback should support student teachers to become more skilled in and committed to self-assessment and self-regulation by clarifying good performance, facilitating the development of reflection, encouraging discussion, encouraging positive self-esteem, giving opportunities to demonstrate improvement, and providing information that can be used to shape future teaching.

The challenge remains, however, that a student teacher may appreciate the feedback, but not actually use it make changes to future practice. Joughin (2009, p. 24) takes a strong position, arguing that:

Clearly, assertions about the importance of feedback to learning stand in contrast to the findings of empirical research into students’ experience of assessment, raising questions regarding both the theoretical assumptions about the centrality of feedback to learning and the frequent failure to bring feedback effectively into play as part of the teaching and learning process.

One of the challenges of a triadic approach is that reflection and feedback are brought into a more public forum. Copland (2010) conducted an ethnographic study of 16 students and four trainers in a certificate level teacher training course in the United Kingdom. She found that tension emerged not only from the power relationships within the triad, but also from the necessity of sharing reflection and feedback so openly. She found that group feedback was a complex event that required specific skills and not all participants were confident and competent to engage fully in the process. She also found personality traits and dispositions

were influential factors in determining the willingness of students to contribute and the effectiveness of the information shared.

Rorrison (2010) worked with colleagues in a Swedish-Australian network to research practicum learning, developing a series of principles to guide best practice in practicum. In summarising her findings, Rorrison (2010, p. 516) applied the developed principles to the assessment act and called for the following practices:

• Clearer conceptualisation of the theories and pedagogies that guide teachers, carefully scaffolded for the student teacher;

• greater shared understanding between the institutions and the triad members to enhance transparency;

• a more flexible view of prospective teachers, allowing space for individual learning needs and development;

• acknowledgement of contextual differences in the practicum; and

• fostering supportive, humane mentoring that moves from discourses of ‘failure’ that are a result of inequitable expectations.

Rorrison (2010, p. 516) argues that such shifts in practice at the institutional and teacher educator level will bring about a “practicum turn, where practicum is viewed not as a testing ground but as a learning experience… of great benefit to future teachers providing it is carefully designed and the learning not left to chance”. In advocating for a shift in practice, Rorrison (2010) acknowledges that current practices are problematic. The following section explores the challenges frequently reported in practicum literature.