TITULOS SUPLETORIOS

Rachel referred specifically to her background as an MFL teacher, which had meant that she was

‘used to communicating, and working with different groups, and setting up classrooms in a variety of

groups’, but also to more generic pedagogy:

...all the skills, you know, that I think...are implicit anyway, that...you use as a teacher, and the knowledge that you have as a teacher. You bring them with you, but I think perhaps you use them differently, and you develop them differently.

In providing the rider here, of having to use these ‘differently’ in ITE, Rachel cast doubt on the widely-held assumption that the transference of school-based teaching skills to the university sector is straightforward – a premise which a growing body of research is also challenging, as explored in Section 2.3.4. Her increasing recognition of the new field was reflected in her comment that, as a new teacher educator, ‘I probably thought I was transferring more than I was’. She expands on this when she talks of having transferred the following:

an understanding of how - I was going to say how to teach the subject - an understanding

of how I taught the subject. That’s not necessarily an understanding of how to teach it.

There were a number of ways in which teacher identity was evident in Rachel’s practice as a teacher educator, perhaps most obviously in terms of transferable knowledge and skills about teaching and learning. Resonating with the first of Hau-Fai Law et al’s (2007) designated teaching themes, ‘eclectic teaching and learning strategies’, the pedagogical practice in the observed session demonstrated a range of these, which would appear to have been drawn from Rachel’s wide experience as both first and second order practitioner, reflecting the habitus developed in both fields. The examples of teaching and learning activities within the session included: question and answer interaction, quizzes, guesswork/estimation, groupwork (including ‘jigsaw’ activity), link-making, sorting/matching, memorisation techniques, and use of visual aids. Rachel also clearly focused on a structured approach to teaching and learning, reflected in her comment, ‘that’s why I sequenced things

the way I did’. The planning of the session revealed this, through the sequencing of ‘stirrers and

settlers’, and student- and teacher educator-directed activities. All of this was likely to have been honed in her former practice and habitus as a school teacher, and could be directly applied in the new field. As Hau-Fai Law et al (2007) suggest:

As well as possessing a repertoire of strategies from their experience and training as professional teachers at the school level, [teacher educators] may also be able to utilise processes for selecting and using of teaching strategies which parallel the approaches used by professional school teachers. (p257)

The temptation here may be to dismiss disjunctures between habitus and field, and opportunities for the expansion of cultural capital may be lost.

4.2.4.2 Professional values and commitment to the profession

A focus on professionalism appeared to be a fundamental principle underpinning Rachel’s practice. She demonstrated a commitment to the profession of teaching, reflected in her perception of acting as

‘gatekeeper’ to the profession, and her concern for ‘our primary colleagues’ (by whom she meant

primary school teachers). Rachel’s focus on developing her own professional practice as a teacher educator was evident within her responses during both interviews, and can be seen to be a measure of professional commitment, as well as of her expanding habitus.

4.2.4.3 Passion for subject/children/education

Rachel professed a ‘love for the subject’ transferred from her school experience. Although she viewed the latter as ‘superficial’, Hau-Fai Law et al (2007) combine the two elements of ‘showing professional commitment and passion’ as another of their teaching themes, which “can involve a commitment to the profession of teaching itself, again reflecting the inter-relationship between the content of their teaching and their own teaching practice” (p258). These would appear to form part of Rachel’s first and second order habitus.

4.2.4.4 Sensitivity to student needs

Rachel demonstrated an inclination to be student-centred, focusing on the student teachers’ affective as well as cognitive needs, and hence on their learning; this included an informed use of feedback and plenaries. From the interviews and the observed session, it would appear that the creation of a safe learning environment was an underlying principle of her pedagogy, which reflected the focus on student needs. In the semi-structured interview, she expressed the need for empathy as a teacher educator, and then, in the stimulated recall interview, identified encouraging the students to empathise as a teaching and learning strategy:

And I think they did that [ activity] really well, because most of that was from empathising, and thinking about their own position they’d been in as a learner, and then

thinking about the position they’d been in now as an observer.

During the session, her sensitivity towards students’ feelings was seen to impact directly on the way teaching methods or interactions were modified, and pedagogical decisions-in-action were made. During the stimulated recall interview, she repeatedly expressed satisfaction about students demonstrating their learning and new insights during the session – as well as sensitivity about where learning had not been so effective, either for individual students, or as a result of pedagogical interventions (for example, ‘that’s where I tried to get them to think what they thought the bridges might be called, but it was too hard for them’).

Her clear focus on student needs, identified by Hau-Fai Law et al (2007) as an aspect of practice which can be linked to former school teacher identity (and therefore habitus), reflected a sophisticated perception of ‘student as teacher and learner’ (Taylor 2008); students were encouraged to think critically, question practices and explore principles. Also, by recognising their different starting points and needs, Rachel said she felt able to help them as individuals, and collectively, to develop a broad understanding of teaching and learning. She provided scaffolding in the form of prompts and stimuli, and appeared to be aware of individuals’ progress. In the semi-structured interview, she referred to the fact that there were ‘some weak students’in this year’s cohort, which again highlighted her perceived role as ‘gatekeeper’ in preparing all of the students as entrants into the teaching profession.

There were repeated allusions throughout both interviews to the importance of formal and informal student feedback informing Rachel’s practice, which reflected the recognition of her role as co- learner. In both interviews, she referred to the importance of plenaries, in order to evaluate outcomes, and to modify her practice. Her emphasis on the pastoral or affective domain within her practice appeared also to link to her school teaching background, and habitus. Hau-Fai Law et al (2007) suggest that sensitivity towards student needs reflects the layered nature of teacher education:

Teacher educators’ background as professional school teachers may well influence how this sensitivity is seen and exercised by them. In a way that parallels teacher educators’ knowledge of and use of strategies, sensitivity to student needs is both part of what teacher educators value from their school teaching backgrounds and something to be modelled for their higher education students. (p257)

This harks back to Section 4.2.2.1, and the issue of modelling.