CAPÍTULO 7. CONCLUSIONES DEL TRABAJO
7.3. Valoración personal del proyecto
environments, “where the students and the teachers have very limited possibilities to interact with each other in face-to-face situations” (Enkenberg, 2001, p. 505), relevant
74
models which are more applied in non-distance learning environments, will be presented.
Squires (1999) explored seven important paradigms of teaching, and explained the main features, strengths and limitations of each paradigm. However, there are links and overlaps between them, and there are elements of similarity between them. They are: “teaching as a common-sense activity, teaching as an art, teaching as a craft, teaching as an applied science, teaching as a system, teaching as reflective practice, and teaching as competence” (Squires, 1999, p. 3). These paradigms were discussed by many authors such as Turner-Bisset (2001), who acknowledges these paradigms as “… being good ways of conceptualising teaching” (Turner-Bisset, 2001, p. 2). Also, Turner-Bisset stated that “these paradigms do not always manifest themselves in pure or discrete form, whether at the level of teachers’ professional work, or at the level of national trends and policies. However, they can be detected in various writings about teaching” (Ibid, 2001, p. 2). A new paradigm was suggested, acknowledging ‘teaching as a knowledge-based profession’, in which knowledge “encompasses concepts, facts, processes, skills, beliefs, attitudes and values” (Turner-Bisset, 2001, p. 159).
Martin (2005) has discussed how these paradigms are elements of the two models of professionalism, which were put forward by Fish (1995). These two models are shown in Table 3.3 to demonstrate “how the way in which teaching is conceptualised can affect what counts as professional knowledge” (Martin, 2005, p. 46). The first model is the technical-rational model, which has elements of the teaching as common- sense, craft, system and competence paradigms, while the second is the professional- artistry model (Ibid, 2005). However, the second one seems to be parallel to the paradigm which was suggested by Turner-Bisset (2001), and it has elements of the teaching as reflection and art paradigms (Martin, 2005). Each model has a view of a different perspective, therefore each one will lead to a model of ITE (Ibid, 2005) which may be affected the context and appropriate to person.
75
Table 3.3 Two models of professionalism
The technical-rational view The professional-artistry view
Follows rules, laws, schedules; uses routines, prescriptions
Starts where rules fade; sees patterns, frameworks
Uses diagnosis/analysis to think about teaching
Uses interpretation and appreciation to think about teaching
Wants efficient systems Wants creativity and room to be wrong Sees knowledge as graspable, permanent Sees knowledge as temporary, dynamic,
problematic
Theory is applied to practice Theory emerges from practice
Visible performance is central There is more to it than surface features Setting out and testing for basic
competences is vital
There is more to teaching than the sum of the parts
Technical expertise is all Professional judgement counts
Sees professional activities as masterable Sees mystery at the heart of professional activities
Emphasise the known Embraces uncertainty
Standards must be fixed; standards are measurable; standards must be controlled
That which is most easily fixed and measurable is also trivial- professionals should be trusted
Emphasises assessment, appraisal, inspection, accreditation
Emphasises investigation, reflection, deliberation
Change must be managed from outside Professional can develop from inside Quality is really about quantity of that
which is easily measurable
Quality comes from deepening insight into one’s values, priorities, actions
Technical accountability Professional answerability
This is training This is education
Takes the instrumental view of learning Sees education as intrinsically worthwhile
* Fish, 1995, p. 43, as cited in Matin, 2004, p.46
Higgins and Leat (2001) reinforce the idea that models of teaching and teacher development “are not mutually exclusive. … they represent different perspectives, generated by different contexts and insights” (Higgins and Leat, 2001, p. 60). Saban, Kocbeker and Saban (2007) conducted a study in a Turkey context on Turkish student-teachers’ conceptions of teaching and learning. Six main categories and metaphors emerged from the data, these are: (1) teacher as knowledge provider; (2) teacher as molder/craftsperson; (3) facilitator/scaffolder; (4) teacher as nurturer/cultivator; (5) teacher as counsellor; (6) teacher as cooperative/democratic leader (Erkmen, 2010). Erkmen sees that the first two categories put the full responsibility of teaching on teacher, and student is inactive (Ibid, 2010). According to Erkmen (2010, p. 37), this may be “due to the influence of traditional Turkish culture and education, where the teacher is seen as the sole authority and transmitter of knowledge, unlike Western education”. In this respect, this finding is consistent with Mansour’s research which argued that “teachers failed to develop constructivist-
76
oriented views about teaching and learning due to the fact that they had all experienced success in the existing ‘traditional-oriented’ educational environments” (Mansour, 2008b, p. 245). In the context of KSA, the students would have been used to this transmissive style of teaching through their primary and secondary education. However, the international literature argues that student-teachers need to be flexible, adaptable and questioning of theories, and thinking critically about their teaching practice. This is confirmed by similar studies in an international context, for example, Isenberg (1990); Zeichner (1986) and Atay (2006), who conducted studies in different contexts such as US, UK and Turkey. With regard to encouraging student-teachers to be flexible and adaptable and questioning of theories, these orientations could be widely applied in the KSA context. These orientations would be appropriate in the KSA teaching and learning context, because current policy aspires to improve the education quality and outcomes. Martin (2005, p. 48) claimed that “teacher-educators’ own beliefs and the ways in which they impact on course design is implicit rather than explicitly acknowledged”. She claimed from her personal experience that “it is a matter for individual reflection rather than for course team discussion” (Martin, 2005, p. 48). Therefore, it is necessary for teacher-educators to be aware of the range of models of ITE, in order to enable them to select the appropriate model for the context of teaching and learning (Higgins and Leat, 2001), and this leads to development of student-teachers’ professional knowledge. On the other hand, Tillema and Imants (1995, p. 148) argued in their research about training for the professional development of teachers, that “there is a dynamic relation between the teacher’s responsibility for his or her own learning and the training models that can be adopted”.
In the field of ITE, it is argued that the technical-rational model is related to the competency approach, while the professional-artistry model is related to reflective practitioners’ approach. However, both are important in ITE to enable student- teachers to work in the classroom effectively, in which they modify their practice and are critical in relation to their performance (Fish, 1995; Martin, 2005). Shafer (2004) gave an example of reflective practitioner:
After teaching a lesson many teachers will look back and perform an analysis of what took place and, based on this analysis, may alter the lesson the next time they teach it. This results in a new analysis of the modified lesson (Shafer, 2004, p. 32).
77
Although Martin (2005) agrees that these models are useful, she warns that “they are also generalisations, can oversimplify data, and that each case must be seen in its context” (Martin, 2005, p. 49). Tillema and Imants (1995, p. 135) support the idea that teaching is a “craft” that attends to the practical aspects of teaching and views competence as “reflective practice”. In a craft perspective, the competence can:
Only be established within the cultural milieu of teaching itself through a (re) construction of knowledge in real-life situations (Clandinin and Connelly, 1986), where teachers learn from their own experience (by cumulative
reflection) or from one another (Tillema and Imants, 1995, p. 135). Freebody, Maton and Martin (2008) identified cumulative learning and the structural
features of disciplinary knowledge that enable it to happen. They claimed that this knowledge “builds over time by integrating and subsuming previous knowledge, and segmented learning, where new ideas or skills are accumulated alongside past knowledge” (Ibid, 2008, p. 192). The structure of knowledge is in relation to “other educational and everyday knowledge”, therefore learners need to build knowledge over time and also they are able to transfer this knowledge between different contexts, then cumulative learning will happen (Op. cit.). In the Saudi ITE context, and from personal experience, the college imposes the content of the modules in the ITE programmes. There is a question of whether it is more effective to develop student- teachers’ professional knowledge, or whether this is a policy to control what lecturers provide to Saudi student-teachers during their preparation as teachers.
It is argued that reflective practice is an important part of professional preparation, in which student-teachers themselves are reflective about their own teaching abilities and children’s learning outcomes (Elliott, 2005). The process of reflection means reviewing, reconstructing, re-enacting and analyzing in critical way on the student- teachers’ own teaching (Ornstein, Thomas and Lasley, 2004). This needs student- teachers to look back on their teaching and learning experiences. So, they should learn to observe outcomes and offer reasons for effective practice and less successful activities, which in turn, helps them understand their own teaching behaviour better and helps them improve as teachers (Ibid, 2004). Moreover, the reflective practice in a group setting enables student-teachers to listen carefully to each other, and this gives them important experience for their future career (Ibid, 2004).
78
The apprenticeship model takes into account the development of student-teachers’ competences; this is because this model assumes that the amount of time spend in the practice context should be sufficient for developing novices’ competences (Martin, 2005). However, John (1996) illustrates the criticism of the apprenticeship model, in which student-teachers pay more attention to the personal features of teachers, such as good relationships with their students and enthusiasm, rather than considering the essential characteristics of ‘professional’ teachers, which may be invisible to the apprentices, like knowledge, understanding and skills. In this respect, some researchers, for example, Laursen (2007), argued that the competences could be not relevant to the theoretical knowledge. He stated that: “Many student teachers experience problems about the relationship between ‘theory’ and ‘practice’ in teacher education and find ‘theories’ irrelevant to the development of teacher competences”. Contrary to this view, Brandes (1995, p. 213) asserted that: “theory informs practice and practice modifies theory”. Furthermore, Blaise (2006, p. 96) asserted that: “theory guides and shapes everything that teachers do in the classroom”. In addition, Pedro (2005, p. 59) indicated that student-teachers’ reflections are “based on educational theory that they had learned in their university courses as they progressed through the teacher preparation program”. In this sense, Abdelhafez (2010, p. 279) asserted that: “Reflection modifies practice and facilitates teacher growth”.
Alzaydi (2010, p. 64) stated that: “practice needs theory which provides it with principles and guidelines”, but he concedes that there is a challenging link between theory and practice and that educational theories are not easily applied into classroom practices. Importantly, this finding also concurs with the findings of Cheng (2005, p. 354), who found that the student-teachers were engaged in the complex process of mapping their theoretical knowledge from the programme onto the realities of a classroom practice. These theory-practice links are important for developing competence and promoting reflection, as well as building teacher identities. A study by Laursen (2007) on student teachers’ conceptions of theory and practice in teacher education revealed that student teachers thought that members of the teaching staff at the university did not care about how educational theories are linked to classroom practices. They also mentioned that even if lecturers talked about ideas related to practice, their explanation was theoretical and not easily acted upon in the teaching practice context (Ibid, 2007).
79
On the other hand, it is worth to stating that theoretical knowledge is important in student-teachers’ practice and their reflections. However, Haggarty and Postlethwaite (2003) maintain that personal experiences, context in terms of relationships and expectations, and values are also important factors in the reflective process. This is made clear by Alzaydi (2010, p. 65) who stated that “teachers do not use formal theories only, but also use personal theories which were shaped by their previous personal experiences about learning and teaching”.
These prior views have provided a summary of conceptual models in ITE, and to what extent student-teachers consider theories learned in their programme relevant to classroom practice. There are many female Saudis who are learning at universities in the KSA to be teachers. However, the need for knowing the models for ITE in this context from student-teachers’ perspective, and how these models reinforce their teaching and learning, is significant. In addition, the reviewed studies relevant to this research will help to understand how student-teachers’ beliefs, previous personal experiences, context and values impact on their classroom practice in the context of KSA.