Puntos básicos para un Outsourcing exitoso

Many researchers argue that teacher education pedagogy is not well-defined or theorised in terms of what exactly teacher educators should “know or be able to do” in order to become a proficient teacher educator (Goodwin et al., 2014, p. 284). Loughran (2006) comments that teacher educators’ teaching should encompass two levels of understanding pedagogy: the nature of the content to be taught to student teachers, and the nature of teaching to be implemented. Garcia and Rose (2007) claim that teacher educators have dual responsibilities in their pedagogical roles. One is to transfer pedagogical content and the other is to model the best pedagogical practices. Similarly, Goodwin et al. (2014) argue that this duality is also represented in “doing and knowing” about pedagogy (p. 286). In addition, Williams (2014) suggests that teacher education pedagogy requires them to be able to shift professional identities between the two roles as teachers and teacher educators at the same time.

33

The literature, in this sense, suggests a notion of dualism in teacher education pedagogy. Due to this dual responsibility, teacher educators must develop a thoughtful pedagogical practice that goes beyond the skills typically used in normal classroom teaching, because their teaching is, or should be, continuously and critically examined by student teachers (Loughran, 2006). However, examining this understanding of dualism in pedagogy does not bring much clarity about how pedagogical practice of teacher education is

conceptualised. Moreover, it leads to a question of whether or not teacher educators might be influenced by their own individual factors (such as their backgrounds) or contextual factors (such as institutional or cultural context) when conceptualising their pedagogical practices. These are some key elements of my focus in understanding about my

participants’ pedagogical practices in the Maldivian context.

Learning pedagogy is an unfolding and complex process. It is, therefore, crucial to teacher education practices. Loughran (1997) argues that teaching about teaching is different from simple pedagogical knowledge because:

The content of this knowledge encompassed both ‘a knowledge of pedagogy’ as well as a knowledge of the subject matter content. …helping student teachers to learn about and experiment with pedagogy for particular subject matter knowledge involves a knowledge of pedagogy that might bring this knowledge to the fore. … This special knowledge of teaching about teaching is tacit knowledge…easily overlooked by others, taken for granted by teacher educators themselves, and consequently neither sufficiently understood nor valued. (p. 4)

According to this view, the teacher educators’ pedagogy is much more complex than normal classroom teaching. Teacher educators are therefore, required “to make the tacit explicit” (Loughran, 1997, p. 4). They have to answer questions related to explaining reasons and how they work for better learning and teaching practices, including articulating when certain pedagogies suit certain situations. This draws attention to teacher educators’ pedagogy being different from normal teaching in classrooms because it “requires deep and well-conceptualised understanding of pedagogy” (Loughran, 2010b, p. 14). This understanding must be also “developed, articulated, critiqued and refined in the crucible of practice itself” (Loughran, 2010b, p. 14). These views place teacher educators in the position of learners of their own practice, teachers of their student teachers, experts of pedagogical knowledge, and evaluators of their own pedagogical practices. These multiple positions may sometimes bring complexity in terms of how teacher educators conceptualise their pedagogical practice. However, both these papers by Loughran did not place much emphasis on either the cultural influence or the influence of teacher educators’ own background on their conceptualisation of pedagogy. It could be argued that if teacher educators are being positioned as learners, teachers, or evaluators of their own practice, they are likely to be influenced by their own backgrounds and culture.

34

Some researchers share their experiences of both being a teacher and teacher educator, highlighting the differences in terms of the way pedagogy is understood and practised. Kosnik (2007), for example, describes her experiences of her uncertainty in the pedagogical approaches she used during her teacher education pedagogical practice. Adopting a reflective approach, through an observant and analytical lens made her develop better understanding of her teacher education pedagogy. Her teacher inquiry practice is a form of analysis that continuously enables her to seek deeper understanding of the challenges associated with her own practice. Such “inquiries represent an active enterprise with outcomes sometimes represented as teacher knowing (implying learning that is in a state of evolution) rather than teacher knowledge (implying learning that is fixed and stable)” (Clarke & Erickson, 2004, p. 55). This notion of inquiring into one’s own practice can be understood as self-studying or researching one’s own practice, which is parallel to fields of research such as “reflection, action research, teacher research, participant research and practitioner research” (Loughran, 2004, p. 9). Loughran (2006) draws attention to this notion of teacher education pedagogy in which teacher educators are constantly encouraged to reflect and theorise their own practice. It is “to better understand the nature of teaching and teaching about teaching and in so doing, improve the quality of teacher education” (Loughran, 2004, p. 30). The literature in this regard suggests that teacher educators’ positioning themselves as learners of their own practice can lead them to enhance their pedagogical practices. In such circumstances, the reflection becomes the hallmark of their conceptualisation of pedagogical practices. Reflection is thus an integral precept in forming teacher education pedagogy (Brookfield, 1995). The term ‘reflection’ has appeared in the writing of researchers since the 1980s, as an essential element of seeking expert knowledge in different disciplines (Go, 2012). For example, Mezirow (1991) saw reflective practice such as writing biographies, journal writing, and performing teaching as a means for fostering learning in adult education practice. Explaining reflective practice, Schön (1987) proposed three types of reflection: reflection-in-action (thinking about an on-going situation); reflection-on-action (thinking about a situation afterwards); and reflection-for-action (thinking about what happened to guide better practice). Schön further identifies three elements important to this reflective process: to be conscious (though not clearly articulated), critical (on-going evaluation) and spontaneous (room for more concerns to rise). Reflection can be understood as a process of ‘thinking on the run’, which allows teacher educators the opportunities to articulate their pedagogy when novices (Schön, 1987). Though Schön’s explanation of the reflective process is technical in terms of how it takes place, it is likely to be useful for understanding how teacher educators may evaluate their own practice as they continue

35

in the teacher education profession. These views suggest the importance of reflection for enhancing teacher education pedagogical practice.

Goodwin et al. (2014) argue that often teacher educators report that they are not prepared for their roles when they start their careers as teacher educators. They further suggest that even after years of experience, it is difficult for teacher educators to articulate what exactly they should know or be able to do when becoming a teacher educator. Loughran (2014) suggests that teacher education pedagogical knowledge develops through teacher educators’ active involvement in researching their own practice, which also requires them to have an agency in developing their own pedagogy via scrutinising the implementation of gained knowledge. These views imply that teacher educators’ pedagogy should be linked to reflective practice situated as learners, rather than experts. This means that learning about their practices never ends.

These studies imply the value of teacher educators’ regular evaluation of their teaching. However, how might teacher education practice be understood in a context where reflective practice and research is not currently a feature of their professional lives? The context of this study is a very small country, where university education has only recently been introduced. Perhaps this is why research has not yet established within the wider academic culture. In the context of my research, examining how specific pedagogical practice is conceptualised, whether through cultural habits, exposure to their university education, and other factors, is likely to be important for understanding my participants’ practices.

Teachers’ or teacher educators’ conceptualisation of pedagogical knowledge, whether learnt prior to entering actual teaching careers or during their practice, is likely to be influenced by many aspects associated with their experiences. The literature above discussed how this conception of pedagogical practice could be influenced by everyday teaching in classroom contexts. This means that in the Maldives, while many teachers and teacher educators acquire their qualifications overseas (formal knowledge), their

pedagogical knowledge is formed by their schooling and teaching experiences in the Maldives. In other words, this particular context may define their pedagogical goals. More specifically, I want to know if teacher educators’ practices are influenced by their own culture and the classroom context in which they practise.