MARCAS DE SERVICIOS

Whilst there were marked differences amongst the four participants, there were also elements which featured across the case studies, and appeared therefore to be significant. These are presented according to the themes previously identified, and the categories within each of these. A number of issues and ambiguities were raised through this, and pointed to a lack of consensus about the nature of ITE pedagogy, and how this might be enacted. These are outlined under the relevant headings below.

4.6.1 The teacher educator role

4.6.1.1Training for and development in the role

Any training for or development in the role appeared to be as a result of the teacher educators’ own efforts, rather than any organised induction and/or professional development programme. This meant that recognition of differences between first and second order pedagogy had apparently been gained through experience and a willingness to acquire and embrace new knowledge in the new field. Whilst three of the participants (Julie, Steve and Bill) noted that study for the Ed D had impacted upon their understandings and practice, it seemed clear that length of service was an important factor here. From this small sample, it appeared that depth of understanding correlated strongly with extent of experience in the role; that is, from four to over 25 years. Although this finding may not be surprising, the question remains of why received wisdom does not deem it necessary to provide training or professional development for new teacher educators (Martin & Russell 2009, Mueller 2003, Shagrir 2010), if new understandings are so hard won, and seemingly developed in a rather ad hoc fashion - as I had indeed presumed prior to commencing this study.

As my previous study had suggested that new teacher educators had difficulties in adapting their school teacher pedagogy to the different field, and a number of studies identified this transition period to be about three years, I had set this as the minimum experience required by participants. However, the findings from my study reflected Bronkhorst et al’s(2011) supposition that ten years’ experience was needed to acquire expertise as a university-based teacher educator. Only Bill, and, to a lesser extent, Rachel (in her ninth year in the role) came over as expert teacher educators, in the interviews and in the observed session, rather than as “teacher[s] involved with teacher preparation” (McKeon & Harrison 2010:36).

All of the participants talked of the influence of other people in the new field on their development; Julie, Rachel and Steve referred to peers and colleagues, and Bill to how the student teachers had impacted upon his practice. Whilst the latter perhaps broadens out the notion of community of practice as proposed by Wenger (1998), this could be said to be pivotal, in the absence of more formal routes for induction and professional development.

4.6.1.2Relationships with student teachers

As might be expected, how participants expressed their role in relation to the student teachers could be seen to impact directly on their teaching style and pedagogical choices. So, Julie and Rachel, who stated that they saw both themselves and the student teachers as being in learning roles, emphasised the importance of dialogue in their pedagogy, which was evident in their second order habitus. Steve alluded to an ‘expert to novice’ role as teacher educator, and his style appeared to be largely transmissive. Bill, on the other hand, talked of facilitating the process of allowing the student teachers to arrive at their own meanings, and his approach could be seen to be more constructivist in style.

However, there appeared to be anomalies, with participants alluding to the importance of positive relationships, and not wishing to appear as the giver of knowledge, and yet recognising that the teacher educator, as assessor, is inevitably in a position of power within the relationship.

4.6.1.3Constraints

Three of the four participants talked of constraints, and two of them reported that this had a negative impact upon their meta-pedagogy. Julie and Steve suggested that they needed to ‘get across’ so much information in such a short space of time, they would revert to more transmissive techniques. Bill also talked of external pressures in the field which led to a focus on quantity rather than quality, but this did not appear to impact upon his habitus. On the other hand, Rachel spoke of the opportunities afforded to teacher educators to reflect, when compared to school teachers.

4.6.1.4Compliance

The degree of compliance in the attitudes of the participants seemed to be related to length of experience in the teacher educator role and second order field. So, Steve appeared to accept uncritically the recent policy agendas and statutory requirements of ITE, whilst Julie referred to these almost as a necessary evil. With Rachel, compliance was only hinted at, when she admitted to having to lead the student teachers to reach the ‘right’ conclusions during apparently open discussion. Not only was Bill very critical of externally imposed constraints, his pedagogy appeared to be unaffected by them. For the latter two participants, this could be related to enhanced cultural capital, and the more confident development of a second order habitus.

4.6.2 Elements and models of meta-pedagogical practice 4.6.2.1Modelling

All of the participants spoke of implicit modelling – of school teacher habitus – during the interviews, and this was evident in the sessions observed. When questioned about explicit modelling, Rachel, Julie and Steve claimed to ‘step out’ on occasions and explain to the student teachers the purpose of an activity, although this was not apparent in their observed sessions. On the other hand, Bill spoke of explicit modelling without being prompted, and this was also evident in the observed session. He also talked of making the link with theory and concretising this. This demonstrates a clear distinction between first and second order habitus.

4.6.2.2 Transmission

It would appear that this aspect of practice was again related to length of experience as a teacher educator, and the development of habitus in the second order field. Despite claims to the contrary, Steve appeared to rely on it heavily, whilst Julie said she resorted to this reluctantly due to time constraints. On the other hand, Rachel talked of preferring more active strategies, which was evident in the session, and Bill of only using it selectively in particular circumstances – and not at all in the observed session.

4.6.2.3Constructivist teaching approaches

Whether articulated as such or not, there was agreement amongst the participants that social constructivism, and the related elements of (critical) reflection, discussion, interaction, experiential and active learning, were valuable teaching approaches – for learning generally, as well as specifically for learning to teach. This, then, would cross the boundary between first and second order habitus. This has to be tempered by two observations. Firstly, Julie claimed not to know what ‘constructivist’ really meant in terms of her own teaching, and Rachel did not view her own teaching as constructivist prior to being prompted. Secondly, Steve talked of this only in terms of what he was not able to do in his practice. However, Bill spoke about this knowledgably in the interviews, and it was evident in the observed session.

4.6.2.4Focus on subject knowledge/pedagogical content knowledge (PCK)

The government is currently placing great store on teachers’ subject knowledge, perhaps at the expense of PCK. Whilst Julie’s session placed great emphasis on the former, Steve made a point of privileging the latter, suggesting that student teachers could build upon their own subject knowledge which had been acquired through their degrees. Rachel referred to the importance of both subject knowledge, and of how this is applied. Whilst Bill did not make mention of either of these as focuses, the session observed was not subject-specific.

4.6.3 The role of theory

4.6.3.1 The nature and theory of learning and teaching per se

All of the participants referred to strongly-held views of the nature of teaching and learning, and about the effectiveness of active and dialogic approaches – across the first and second order field. Whilst these were also evident during the observed session in the practice of Bill particularly, as well as of Rachel, this was less so with Julie and Steve. Bill appeared to be comfortable talking about Theory (with a capital T), and how this may relate to teaching and learning generally, as well as specifically within teacher education. His understanding and knowledge was broader and more nuanced than the others’ seemed to be, particularly regarding the process of learning.

4.6.3.2Integrating theory and practice in ITE (including perceptions of practicum) Rachel and Julie referred to moving from theory into practice during their sessions – although this did not appear to be ‘Theory with a capital T’. Three of the four participants spoke of student teachers putting into practice in the school setting what had been learnt in the university-based sessions, and, although all of them referred to ‘reflection’, they did not elaborate upon the process through which this could be achieved. Bill doubted the notion of being able to transfer knowledge from one context to another, suggesting that, even if messages were understood and assimilated, these new understandings would need to be reconstituted in order to use them in practice. He described this as a spiral process of ‘reach, reflect, recode, retain’, and demonstrated how this was brought about through his meta-pedagogy.

This perhaps demonstrates the issue highlighted by Loughran (2006) that teacher educators have to accumulate knowledge of meta-teaching, and to question how theory may – or may not (Korthagen 2001) – be assimilated by student teachers in their teaching practice. From this study, there appears to be a need (not necessarily recognised by practitioners) for teacher educators’ own practical wisdom, developed as (former) teachers, to be developed further in the new context and role. This equates to expanding the habitus in the new field, and may lead to enhanced cultural capital. There is perhaps also an imperative for them to acquire deeper knowledge of formal theory. For these four practitioners, all of this seems to be related in part to length of experience as teacher educator, which again might further support the notion of providing some form of ‘training’/professional development at the time of transition – as well as post-induction – to allow for the new understandings to be acquired more speedily.

Whilst Steve seemed to suggest that the practicum was a more valuable learning experience than the university sessions, Julie felt that it may hamper the student teachers’ progress. This tension between school and university was also implied in Bill’s interviews, although it appeared to be viewed as a professional opportunity and challenge rather than a drawback of the course.

4.6.3.3Recognition of distinctions between pedagogy and meta-pedagogy

This was demonstrated clearly by Bill. Although in the interviews Rachel and Julie both acknowledged that there were differences between first and second order teaching, ultimately they talked about teaching their curriculum subject, reflecting their habitus as school teacher. Curiously, despite conducting a study into the ways in which student teachers learn to teach, Steve referred only to the differences between teaching adults and teaching children.

4.6.3.4Theoretical underpinnings of meta-pedagogical practice

These were very clearly articulated by Bill, as well as demonstrated in practice. These appeared to emanate from his wide reading and personal study. The other three participants appeared to be working on personal theories of ‘what works’, developed from their first order practice and habitus. When questioned, their responses suggested that were not aware of any knowledge base underpinning meta-pedagogy.

This lack of theory underpinning practice may seem odd. It might be expected that teachers – wittingly or not – base their practice on theories of teaching and learning. Whilst these same theories may continue to impact upon pedagogical practice as teacher educators, in three of the four cases there appeared to be either an unawareness, or a dismissal/rejection, of theory – certainly theory which may relate to second order practice. For them, this would suggest that first order habitus still prevails in the second order field.

4.6.4 The impact of former school teacher identity 4.6.4.1Transference of skills and knowledge

There was ample evidence that all four participants had transferred skills and knowledge into the new field, as might be expected. The broad repertoire of teaching and learning strategies demonstrated this clearly, particularly in the observed sessions of Rachel and Bill, as well as their evidently sound understandings of the processes of teaching and learning. However, Julie and Steve did not appear to have developed these skills and knowledge significantly in the new field, and did not seem to recognise a need to expand their habitus. This points to the possibility that it takes a long period – longer than the three years I had anticipated might be the case – to move beyond the pedagogical practice and habitus of a teacher (focussing on the teaching and learning of curriculum subjects), and to develop a distinct pedagogy for teacher education, taking account of the content and process of learning to teach.

4.6.4.2Professional values and commitment to the profession

All of the participants demonstrated a professional attitude during the interviews as well as during the observed sessions, in that they clearly cared about the impact of their practice. Their values appeared

to be centred on providing valuable learning experiences for (all) student teachers as well as pupils, which was modelled in the sessions; in Julie’s case, these were related to musical learning experiences. Their commitment to the profession of teaching was evident throughout, both as former teachers, and as teacher educators. This, therefore, applied across the two fields, or sub-fields.

4.6.4.3Passion for subject/children/education

Rachel and Julie professed a passion specifically for their subject (MFL and music respectively), and, although Bill was not teaching a subject-based session, his affinity with MFL was evident. Bill and Steve referred to a passion for teaching children, which was also implicit in Julie’s interviews. In this regard, their former habitus and identities as school teachers were apparent; also, for all four participants, this passion seemed to be central to their identity as teacher educators.

4.6.4.4Sensitivity to student needs

This featured strongly both in the interviews and the observed sessions, and could be seen to relate back to the participants’ former habitus as school teachers. Bill and Steve talked about the imperative of creating a safe environment, conducive to learning. Rachel, Julie and Bill were seen to modify their teaching to accommodate student teachers’ needs, and Steve spent time with a particular student teacher who was struggling in his session. All of them focused on, and expressed pleasure in, student teacher learning, and were quick to pick up on whether certain activities were successful or not. This can also be seen to be a form of modelling – of first order habitus in the second order field.