EXPANSIÓN Y CONTROL TERRITORIAL

Socio-cultural theories of learning suggest that practice is not developed in isolation, but rather is co-constructed within specific sites contexts, and within key relationships (Robbins, 2007; Rogoff, 2003). This is certainly the case for practicum. Practicum is a social and relational act (Haigh & Ell, 2014). It may be argued that for a given period of time, a set of participants come together to form a temporary community (Goodnough, et al., 2009), in which the novice teacher works closely with others to negotiate a shared understanding and shared repertoire of practice. This includes the key actors of student teacher, associate teacher and teacher educator, but also encompasses other characters including the other staff, families and

children of the educational setting. When working well, the practicum relationships can offer much to the participants, but such relationships are also very vulnerable, with potential for conflict, anxiety and discord.

Caires, Almeida and Vieira (2012) suggest that attention has shifted in research from considering the individual roles and responsibilities of the triad members, to greater consideration of the affective-relational elements of the student teacher-assessor

relationships. From a student teacher’s perspective, warm and positive relationships appear to be one of the most defining characteristics of an effective practicum (Haigh, 2005). The

participants in practicum work closely together, interacting on both a personal and

professional level. Student teachers actively desire a relationship with the associate teacher that is friendly, open, and responsive. Student teachers indicate marked dissatisfaction, and increased stress and frustration when positive relationships do not eventuate (Bradbury & Koballa, 2008). Similarly:

We found the match between student teachers and the programme, the school and the teacher to have a profound effect on the relationships which formed and ultimately on the degree of success... where there was a clash of philosophy and belief about teaching, relationships became strained and student development was limited. (Campbell-Evans & Maloney, 1997, p. 46)

Doxey (1996) framed her study around the importance of the relationship context in

facilitating the best outcomes for early childhood education students and states that positive relationships “nurture openness in reflection; support the risk taking that leads to change and improvement; reduces a student’s anxiety and; improves confidence and competence” (p. 5). Her survey of 142 student teachers in an early childhood teacher education programme in Toronto asked participants to identify and rank the most important characteristics of the

associate teacher and the teacher educator. Eighty three percent ranked personal or relational qualities as the most important for associate teachers, while in comparison only 16% identified professional competence as the most important quality. Similar results were also found in relation to the desired qualities of teacher educators. These findings affirm the proposition that the quality of the personal relationship is seen by student teachers as significantly more important in the practicum relationship than the professional competence of associate teachers and teacher educators. Relationships are also seen as significant in helping the student teacher to negotiate the terrain of teaching and assist student teachers in developing their professional identity (Haigh, 2005). It appears that the most effective outcomes of practicum emerge within a collaborative model of teacher education where teacher educators and associate teachers work closely together with a shared understanding of the purpose and vision of practicum. As Haigh suggests, “If these three groups of people are to work together for quality pre-service teacher education then they need to have shared understandings and expectations of the roles that they play and the relationships that they will be developing” (2001, p. 2). Positive relationships are also shown to minimise student teacher stress, and to act as a buffer (Caires, Almeida, & Vieira, 2012) to some of the identified challenges of practicum assessment.

One of the most significant impediments to successful practicum experiences lies in a lack of congruence in the way the different members of the triadic conceptualise their role (Hastings & Squire, 1999), and their expectations of practicum experience. Bradbury and Koballa (2008) suggest that participants may carry idealised images of the practicum relationships, and that when these “do not materialise, disillusionment and tension can result” (p. 2134). One participant in their study encapsulated this dilemma in stating “I have this idea of what I want her [the student teacher] to be like and she just wants to do everything I say” (p. 2138). This associate teacher had an expectation of a student teacher who was independent and self-

governing, who would appreciate her advice, but would use it as a catalyst for growth. The student on the other hand, most definitely saw herself in the novice role, and desperately sought the guidance, support and feedback of the ‘expert’ teacher. This difference in

expectations had implications for the quality of their relationship, marked by frustration and a lack of mutual satisfaction. The only participant of this study to indicate satisfaction with their mentoring relationship was the student teacher whose experience most closely matched her initial expectations. Brown and Danaher (2008) similarly argue that dissonance in expectation arises from the fact that each member of the triadic has different interests, both explicit and implicit, and that these interests are often to some extent in competition with each other. While each may seek peaceful, productive relationships, the reality is that those involved will have their own agenda, their own bias and thus dissonance and tension must in some way be anticipated, and then worked through. They suggest that “understanding that those interests are sometimes conflicting, contested and even controversial helps to make the practicum partnerships and the associated collaborative learning more, not less, likely to be effective and equitable” (Brown & Danaher, 2008, p. 150).

2.11.1.Practicum assessment and power

As teacher education positions itself within social-constructivist paradigms of learning and teaching, notions of power and hierarchy in the roles of the triad members have come under scrutiny. Bloomfield (1997, p. 27) argues that “the practicum is commonly a point of focus around which issues of power and ownership are contested”. Power resides with the institution to determine and shape the nature of the practicum experience (Hastings &

Squires, 1999) and there is a clear hierarchy of triad members (Turnbull, 1999) in their role and responsibility in relation to assessment (Veal & Rikard, 1998). Cattley (2007) asserts that such power dynamics can become a focus of practicum relationships, and can be detrimental to the professional growth of the student teacher.

Ortlipp (2003a, 2003b) explores the notion of voice and silence in the assessment of

practicum, and proposes that power differentials limit the genuine sharing of all voices, as well as open and honest dialogue. Field (2002) posits the need for traditional power dynamics to shift to more egalitarian relationships in which “supervisors and their students embark on a practicum journey together, with reflective discussion and meaningful collaboration as their guide” (p. 1). Wilson (2006) reflects that when there are conflicting ideas between the

associate teacher and the teacher educator, the student will more often adopt the associate’s approach, however in terms of final assessment decision making, the associate teacher is often excluded, or given a limited role. Power can thus be viewed as a fluid entity, which changes according to the demands of the situation.

Partnership models of teacher education which seek to address power differences between educational settings and institutions have seen closer working relationships between the sites, but hierarchical relationships tend to remain (Bloomfield, 2009), especially in relation to assessment decision making. Grudnoff and Williams (2010) report on a New Zealand project to push the boundaries of the traditional partnership model of practicum, through

reconceptualising the roles of the participants, enhancing the collaborative nature of relationships and giving significantly greater responsibility to the education setting for both learning and assessment. Findings of the study suggest that more collaborative approaches can disestablish traditional hierarchies and can serve to enhance student teacher learning in practice, through stronger intersection of theory and practice. However, they highlight that the required investment of time and financial constraints were significant challenges in scaling this model to the wider population of students.

Interestingly, it appears that student teachers themselves may not seek a more equal share of power in the practicum setting. Rather, there is evidence that student teachers value explicit

guidance, direction and feedback from the associate teacher (Haigh, Pinder & McDonald, 2006); features more commonly associated with the ‘expert’ mantle. This may provide them with a sense of security when facing a situation that is complex, ambiguous and challenging.

Keesing-Styles (2003) argues that as educators wrestle with shifting pedagogies and the post- modern arguments stemming from critical theory, the form and substance of assessment must change:

To achieve a critical approach to assessment, it must be centred on dialogic interactions so that the roles of teacher and learner are shared and all voices are validated... such an approach no doubt creates challenges and discomfort but opens up creative possibilities for the reinvention of assessment” (Keesing-Styles, 2003, The Relationship Between Critical Pedagogy and Assessment, para 2).