Referente Legal

This study has implications for teacher educators’ development of meta-pedagogical practice in the second order field, albeit - with a small sample size of four participants - the findings that are presented are relatable, as opposed to generalisable. Rich and thick descriptions from this ‘set of similar cases’ (Cousins 2009) have yielded insights which may not have been possible if the data had been analysed with the aim of producing generalisations across the field. Whilst the study is not expected to impact upon policy, it could provide good quality information for my colleagues through

20

This route was replaced by the School Direct Training Programme (salaried) at the end of the academic year 2012/13.

‘knowledge creep’, and even help to improve practice. If so, the impact could ultimately be felt in schools by pupils through the enhanced practice of (student) teachers.

As outlined, it would appear that development from first to second order pedagogical practice occurs as a result of teacher educators embracing and embedding theoretical perspectives on teaching and learning to teach, rather than continuing to privilige practical elements in their habitus. This would include theorising their own practice, and verifying this against established theory. However, in the absence of more formal induction and professional development programmes and qualifications, it would appear that the individual teacher educator has firstly to acknowledge a need for this. This study helps them to do this. The findings, albeit from a small sample, revealed that the recognition of an imperative to engage in professional and academic development is linked to length of experience in the role, but also to personal proclivity. This was reflected in the aforementioned drivers. Particularly in light of the notion that new teacher educators may start ‘on the back foot’, as demonstrated by Figure 2 (p36), and that it may take many years for them to develop their understandings of meta- pedagogy (see Table 2, pp127-8), the case for induction and subsequent professional development relating to meta-pedagogy emerges from the research as a pressing priority. The significance of professional development can be viewed as a key finding of the study, as the suggestion is that it is not about adding new knowledge but a qualitatively different type of knowledge. The argument is that it would be possible to accelerate the process of teacher educators developing their practice through exploration of the theoretical perspectives of ITE pedagogy. The transformative nature of this is apparent, as it would involve a refocusing and reimagining of what it means to teach in ITE. This would also help to underline the distinction between the sub-fields of university- and school-based ITE.

Whilst I needed to be aware of my own positionality throughout the research process, as outlined in section 3.2, the analysis of findings has thrown up unanticipated perspectives, which challenge any observer bias. As indicated in Section 3.2, I had believed that theoretical and reflective components were overwhelmingly part of the university contribution in ITE. However, this study indicates that, far from the DfE’s judgement of university-based ITE programmes being too academic, the focus may predominantly be on the practical rather than the theoretical aspects. Underlying this judgement, one of the assumptions made is that school teachers will automatically and naturally evolve into teacher educators, and that particularly those in university will embrace epistemic theory about teaching and learning as part of this ‘evolution’. The paucity of professional development opportunities would suggest that this also happens to a large extent independently and organically. However, as three of the four participants observed that they had not been concerned with theory as school teachers, it is unclear what might act as the catalyst for this process – especially as they had enjoyed success in their former field. As expert practitioners, they would perhaps see no obvious reason for them to seek out

any theoretical underpinnings of meta-pedagogy. Certainly, in the current system in England, there does not appear to be much – if any – regard paid to this aspect of new teacher educators’ professional development. The various iterations of the Post Graduate Certificate for Learning and Teaching in HE, now widely offered to new university lecturers, might build knowledge of how to teach others in HE, but not of how to teach others (within an HE environment) how to teach in schools. Inevitably, this generic professional development qualification will focus on andragogy rather than meta- pedagogy – as the latter would only be relevant for teacher educators (Field 2012).

In this study, content, rather than process, appeared to be a major consideration particularly for Julie and Steve, who displayed a high regard for compliance (as outlined in Sections 4.3 and 4.5; see also Table 2, p127-8) and a particular focus on the teachers’ standards. Paradoxically, in a climate where university-based ITE appears to be under threat in the face of a shift towards school-led programmes, these teacher educators may be increasingly focused on ‘getting the job done’, rather than on ‘getting it right’. The latter might involve a wide-spread re-evaluation of the distinctive nature of university- based ITE, and the place of phronesis and epistemic theory within this – across the teacher education community. This would be helped by a wholesale examination of what the university-led sessions are for in terms of learning to teach, and how the pedagogy inspired intentions are understood and translated by the student teachers. If, as an HEI respondent in the interim report from BERA (2014) maintains, “the involvement of universities is crucial for providing and promoting links to the research base” in teacher education, and that “(t)he ability to bring together research and practice is arguably the mark of a professional” (p23), then teacher educators need to be demonstrating this in their own practice – to a greater degree than may be evident with the majority of participants of this study.

There are further, unanticipated, implications arising from the findings of this study, linked in turn to each of the three research questions. Firstly, in the absence of engagement with theory, it appears that the main distinction between the pedagogies of school teaching and ITE is that, whilst both involve teaching, the latter risks combining teaching with preaching that particular way of teaching, through transmission and simplistic modelling. The research raises questions regarding truisms about ITE teaching, including the primacy and value of role modelling. However, whilst this would distinguish school-based pedagogy from meta-pedagogy, there is no theoretical link between the two. So, Swennen et al’s (2008) call for teacher educators to ‘preach what they teach’ (i.e. to teach congruently) takes on another, rather negative, layer of meaning. Secondly, it may be significant that Bill had many more years of practice as a teacher educator than the remaining three participants, and, in the absence of formal support and guidance, this raises the spectre of (potentially) exceptionally long ‘induction’ periods required for teacher educators to develop their pedagogy of ITE, depending on ad hoc processes. Thirdly, whilst there were similarities in enacted meta-pedagogical practice,

certainly between Julie and Steve, and to a lesser extent across all four participants, any common understandings appeared to be based on practical considerations rather than being underpinned by a shared view of any knowledge base for a pedagogy of ITE (as explored in Chapter 5). This does not augur well for any prospect of shared, informed, understandings across the ITE community.

This is borne out by both Julie’s and Bill’s passing comments about ‘just making it up as we go along’, and the somewhat wistful observation from the former that ‘it’s just – we’re doing our best, aren’t we?’. This supports the notion of ‘ad hocery’, as I had suspected. However, in terms of

beneficence, taking part in the study seemed to provide participants with new and fresh insights regarding their practice. Notwithstanding the possible impact of the Hawthorne effect (see p70), this is demonstrated in the following comments during the interviews: ‘I haven’t thought about that

before’, ‘that’s made me think now’ (Rachel); ‘it’s only when you sit down and someone fires

questions at you, that you start actually thinking ‘well, what do I do?’’ (Julie); ‘That’s just triggered that [insight]. Not what I was thinking at the time’ (Bill); ‘that’s me unpicking it now’ (Steve).

Whether, and to what extent, this impacted upon their pedagogical practice, and reflective thinking about practice, is beyond the remit of this study – but could form the basis of future research. However, it suggests that this may have acted as a catalyst for them to ‘move on’ from their (then) stage of development as teacher educators.Consequently, I would argue that engagement in self-study and collaborative research into meta-pedagogy is a way forward for ITE tutors. This would constitute the first stage of developing a community of practice (mutual engagement) (Wenger 1998), and has the potential to result in the key characteristic of a ‘shared repertoire’, justifiable through joint research findings and emerging theoretical models.

This, then, points a way forward towards a shared repertoire, and this study can therefore inform professional action. The findings indicate that there may be a need for an extrinsic catalyst for teacher educators to develop their meta-pedagogical practice, which makes a clear case for formal induction with this as a focus. Whilst this again raises the question of‘who will educate the teacher educators’ (see Footnote 19), a formal induction should enable them to ‘find the teacher educator within themselves’, rather than consisting of didactic input from so-called experts. This study has identified a number of aspects which should be explored through interrogation of the available literature, as well as through accumulated practical wisdom; that is, through episteme and phronesis. These include, inter alia, (new) teacher educators confronting their own belief systems about teaching and learning – and learning to teach, consideration of the models and elements of meta-pedagogy, and reflection on how student teachers might both perceive their pedagogy inspired intentions and apply these in their practice.

However, this study also suggests that there may be a need for targeted and focused research-led post- induction professional development for meta-pedagogical practice, following the first three years in the field. This not only addresses the issue of teacher educators developing a research profile, which Griffiths et al (2010) suggest “requires as much attention as the pedagogical aspects of their role” (p245), but actually combines these two elements. Whilst self-study indicates a willingness and receptiveness on the part of the individual teacher educator to apply theoretical notions to personal practice, being engaged in mutual research (as outlined above) would allow for meaningful exchange within – possibly also beyond – communities of practice. This could lead to ‘collective knowledge construction (Loughran 2006), and the development of a shared knowledge base which is underpinned by theoretical perspectives of ITE pedagogy.