This article was downloaded by: [North Dakota State University]On: 25 August 2013, At: 23:13Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registeredoffice: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

European Journal of Teacher EducationPublication details, including instructions for authors andsubscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/cete20

Creating expansive learningopportunities in schools: the roleof school leaders in initial teachereducation partnershipsAlaster Scott Douglas aa Department of Education, Roehampton University, London, UKPublished online: 01 Dec 2011.

To cite this article: Alaster Scott Douglas (2012) Creating expansive learning opportunities inschools: the role of school leaders in initial teacher education partnerships, European Journal ofTeacher Education, 35:1, 3-15, DOI: 10.1080/02619768.2011.633994

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/02619768.2011.633994

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the“Content”) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis,our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as tothe accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinionsand views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors,and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Contentshould not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sourcesof information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims,proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever orhowsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arisingout of the use of the Content.

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Anysubstantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing,systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms &Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

Creating expansive learning opportunities in schools: the role ofschool leaders in initial teacher education partnerships

Alaster Scott Douglas*

Department of Education, Roehampton University, London, UK

This article analyses the learning opportunities afforded pre-service teacherswhen participating in a primary school placement in London, England as part oftheir university teacher education course. Cultural historical activity theory isused as a theoretical framework to address how pre-service teacher learningopportunities are constructed. Building on a previous year-long ethnographicstudy which explored how and why pre-service teacher learning opportunitiesdiffered in school settings, this paper introduces a small scale pilot study. Thestudy integrates developmental work research into an initial teacher educationschool/university partnership, and considers the role of the school leader in this.Possibilities for pre-service teachers, teachers and teacher educators to worktogether in a research process that is integral to an initial teacher education part-nership are forwarded, with the aim of ensuring that critical enquiry and learn-ing are kept at the forefront of the activity.

Keywords: preservice teachers; cultural historical activity theory (CHAT); learn-ing opportunities; initial teacher education

Introduction

The situation in initial teacher education (ITE) in England and Wales with ‘minimumcompetency models of teacher training and “non-universitised” alternative trainingroutes’ (Smith and McLay 2007, 39) is seen as an isolated position in Europe withregards to pre-service teacher learning. Since 1992, initial teacher education inEngland has been essentially school-based (DfE 1992, 1993): the regulations haverequired 24 weeks out of the 36-week Postgraduate Certificate of Education (PGCE)course to be based in schools for pre-service teachers wanting to teach at secondarylevel and 18 weeks for primary level. The PGCE course is the most popular entryroute into teaching in England with 59% of trainees in 2007–2008 (DCSF 2008).The shift to school-based teacher education in England has meant that partnershipshave developed between university departments of education and groups ofcommitted local schools, with different interpretations of partnership emerging aspolitical priorities change (Furlong 2008). Most recently further emphasis has beengiven to school training in the UK government’s White Paper The importance ofteaching (DfE 2010). Therefore, schools have been given some direct responsibilityand greater funding for training rather than just hosting pre-service teachers.

*Email: alaster.douglas@roehampton.ac.uk

European Journal of Teacher EducationVol. 35, No. 1, February 2012, 3–15

ISSN 0261-9768 print/ISSN 1469-5928 online� 2012 Association for Teacher Education in Europehttp://dx.doi.org/10.1080/02619768.2011.633994http://www.tandfonline.com

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Nor

th D

akot

a St

ate

Uni

vers

ity]

at 2

3:13

25

Aug

ust 2

013

A consequence of partnership legislation for both primary and secondary ITEcourses ‘was that for many teacher educators a large element of their work came toinvolve... managing the differing roles and responsibilities of school-based tutors andmentors in ITE’ (Murray 2008, 21). In England the mentor is the school supervisingteacher who works closely with the pre-service teacher in discussing their progressand day to day teaching. In primary schools the mentor is often the regular class tea-cher with whom the pre-service teacher does most of their teaching. The school tutoroversees the teaching placement and may take a more senior role in matters ofassessment and in liaison with the university tutor.

Recent research has focused on these differing roles and on how schools con-tribute to pre-service teacher learning. This is apposite now that responsibility forinitial teacher education is shared more equally with higher education, and espe-cially now that the responsibility for educating pre-service teachers is likely toincrease in schools. Suggestions such as job rotations between university and schoolstaff in order to develop a common language and joint professional orientation forpeople working in ITE have been suggested in research considering the situation inNorway (Elstad 2010). Other research highlights a lack of tension and challengebetween school teachers and university teacher educators who too readily accommo-date different perspectives and restrict discussions to practical rather than pedagogi-cal issues. ‘Such a process is likely to feel comfortable for the participants but doesnot fully explore the opportunities offered by dissonant perspectives’ (Hutchinson2011). Similarly, in a small-scale research project which examined mentor and pre-service teacher dialogue ‘maintenance of stable relationships through the recognitionof the different [ITE] roles and mutual appreciation’ (Spendlove, Howes, and Wake2010, 74) was also evident. Wanting to minimise possible threats to pedagogicalunderstandings meant that these were rarely discussed and instead the focus was onteaching performance. The ability to critically reflect on practice was less consid-ered and impoverished the learning experience:

We now need to find ways to make these tensions the subject of discussion and debatewithin our partnerships, considering the wider context of cultural, institutional and his-torical situations within which these activities are mediated. (Spendlove et al. 2010,75)

It is research findings such as those above that have initiated this pilot study,which aims to promote challenge and debate in order to benefit understanding ofpedagogical issues for pre-service teachers and mentors in schools.

Research rationale

The analysis in this research focuses on the social and cultural practices in one pri-mary school and explores how the ITE activity has developed historically and col-lectively in the school. The potential strength of a cultural historical and activitytheory (CHAT) analysis in trying to address the question of what learning opportu-nities are available to pre-service teachers is that it focuses attention on learning asa social phenomenon, a process that takes place within social systems that haveevolved culturally and historically and that offer participants in those systemscertain physical or psychological tools with which to work on a shared object.A central CHAT concept in this analysis is the idea of an activity’s object. This is

4 A.S. Douglas

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Nor

th D

akot

a St

ate

Uni

vers

ity]

at 2

3:13

25

Aug

ust 2

013

often described as the true motive of an activity (Leont’ev 1981). This is evidentbecause it is true to the specific practices in which it is located. Nevertheless, anobject is always open to negotiation in an activity like initial teacher educationwhere participants have different opinions and intentions with regards to the activ-ity. A focus on performance from a head teacher, for example (who may be work-ing on the activity of improving pupils’ test results) may strongly affect an ITEactivity system’s object. Whilst a tutor may focus on the pre-service teacher’s learn-ing, a head teacher may see the pre-service teacher as an extra pair of hands.Hence, the object of the ITE activity system may be understood differently (or evencontested) by the system’s participants, who are likely to bring many motives to thecollective activity. Therefore, interpretations of teacher education call forthresponses to the object of activity being worked on with the pre-service teachers.However, participants will rarely speak in terms of how the object of ITE activity isconstructed and so for the researcher, understanding how participants see the objectbecomes possible by analysing how participants appropriate tools and how theywork within the school’s ITE activity system.

Tools (course handbooks, schemes of work, pre-service teacher reports, etc) areused in meetings with pre-service teachers, university tutor visits and lesson obser-vations. When analysing the significance and use of tools, and how they are inher-ently situated culturally, institutionally and historically, one can consider a numberof claims that characterise them in the context of the school’s cultural history. Arethe tools used because of historical precedence? Are the tools employed becausethey are a fixed and unquestioned part of the context? In themselves the tools maylead to learning opportunities, but do not necessarily guarantee this if they and theITE activity rules simply ensure that tasks are carried out instrumentally. In suchsituations, the tools act as rules and may not work on the object at all.

In this research, the activity system is used as a descriptive heuristic (seeFigure 1) to explore whether participants share understandings of the object,outcomes and tools of the primary school-based ITE activity. Previous ethnographic

Tools (e.g. school resources, handbooks, pre-service teacher reports, observation sheets, use of language)

Subject (school staff involved in ITE, lead teacher tutor and university tutor)

Object (pre-service teacher learning?)

Outcome (Newly Qualified Teachers)

Rules (ITE Partnership) Community (staff,

school, university, government, subject community)

Division of labour(lead teacher tutor, pre-service teacher, university tutor – as in ITE practice)

Figure 1. An activity system for school-based ITE.

European Journal of Teacher Education 5

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Nor

th D

akot

a St

ate

Uni

vers

ity]

at 2

3:13

25

Aug

ust 2

013

research (Douglas 2009, 2010) undertaken in secondary school subject departmentsrevealed that for some school departments the university’s desire for exploratorywork in pre-service teacher learning was in tension with the established understand-ings in the school departments of how teachers work. Data illustrated the differ-ences in the kinds of teacher learning possible, afforded in relation to the ways inwhich participants constructed the object of the ITE activity system. The necessityof negotiating and renegotiating the system’s object regularly by all participantswas emphasised in order for collaborative work in ITE to be successful in creatinglearning opportunities that help develop pre-service teachers as responsivepractitioners.

This research considers how one may negotiate the ITE activity system’s objectin a primary school with the school tutor seen as central to the negotiation process.This leadership role illustrates the multi-dimensional aspect to the work as they leadand facilitate a developmental work research (DWR) intervention by questioningidentified contradictions in current practice, negotiating these and then implementingnew forms of practice. Researchers frequently identify the gap between theory andpractice as being a problem that prevents such an approach being adopted (Darling-Hammond and Bransford 2005) or the existence of discontinuities between schoolpractices and those of teacher educators (Zeichner 2010). This pilot study isdesigned to look at ways of addressing and exposing different types of learningopportunities available in a primary school for pre-service teachers. ‘In the UK, theroute into primary teaching for the majority of teachers is via the three- or four-yearundergraduate route’ (Macrory and McLachlan 2009, 259). However, the pre-ser-vice teachers in this study are working within a PGCE partnership scheme. Thestudy aimed to open up new possibilities for learning by giving the school tutorresponsibility to negotiate the object of ITE activity.

Questions on pre-service teacher learning opportunities were addressed over fivedays of fieldwork comprising participant observation and interviews in the school.This included observations of meetings between pre-service teachers, mentors anduniversity tutors, lesson observations followed by feedback sessions, and interviewswith all participants involved in ITE. The data set comprises field notes writtenin situ, transcripts of interviews, and numerous documents. The five days of field-work was followed by a DWR-style workshop with ITE school staff and with theuniversity tutor.

DWR and the change laboratory method

This research uses cultural and historical activity theory as the theoretical and ana-lytic framework for the research and draws on the developmental work research(DWR) methodology of Engeström (2007) using the change laboratory method.DWR is a mode of research intervention where researchers and practitioners jointlyinterrogate the structural tensions in and between different dimensions of activity(in this case ITE) as defined by CHAT, such as the rules, tools and divisions oflabour that have emerged in ITE practices over time and which constrain the devel-opment of future ITE activity. The desired outcome of the DWR meetings is expan-sive learning at a systemic level. Expansive learning opportunities, a conceptcentral to Engeström’s research (1999, 2008) takes learning forward for participantsand acknowledges the importance of context. Such learning opportunities alsopromote the possibility of new learning through developing increased abilities to

6 A.S. Douglas

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Nor

th D

akot

a St

ate

Uni

vers

ity]

at 2

3:13

25

Aug

ust 2

013

interpret situations. The aim is to encourage participants to explain the focus oftheir work and so reveal the object motive, and question whether change in prac-tices are necessary in order to work on the object identified. An expansive transfor-mation could be accomplished if ‘the object and motive of the activity [were]reconceptualised to embrace a wider horizon of possibilities than in the previousmode of the activity’ (Edwards 2010, 160).

Using the conceptual tools of activity theory in the change laboratory helps theparticipants consider how the object of ITE activity is constructed and how tools,rules and the division of labour are seen in the activity system. Possibilities arenegotiated of how tools could change in order to prevent the tensions noted fromthe research data. Facilitated by the researcher and the lead school tutor, the changelaboratory uses research data as evidence of current ITE practices in the school(known as ‘mirror’ data – for example, ‘everyday understandings of practices col-lected from individual interviews with staff’) (Edwards 2010, 162). These data arepre-selected by the researcher for their capacity to highlight tensions in the ITEpractices. Owing to the research in the pilot study being small-scale with only fivedays of fieldwork undertaken, the mirror data were also supplemented by, and com-pared to, data from earlier ethnographic research (termed ‘window’ data) generatedfrom ITE activity in a secondary school (see Douglas in press). Accepting that thesecondary school research data are different, they can help to illuminate points ofcomparison when considered alongside the primary school data.

There are differences in the implementation of the change laboratory in thisresearch method compared to Engeström’s (2007) description of DWR methodol-ogy. I did not use video recording and unfortunately, owing to the time of year theresearch was undertaken, the pre-service teachers had left the school placement andhad started teaching as newly qualified teachers. They were therefore unable toattend the change laboratory workshop.

The study

An initial research question was formulated to address pre-service teacher learningopportunities:

� What are the opportunities for pre-service teacher learning as constructed andreconstructed in a primary school?

An aim was to highlight possible tensions in learning opportunities for pre-serviceteachers and this was inherent in the research question. Initial responses to thequestion started to describe the similarities and differences noted in the ways thementors worked with pre-service teachers, and gave suggestions as to why this wasso. However, because CHAT concepts were being used to further analyse the data,specific questions were also asked within this intellectual framework as a means ofexploring these issues. These were asked in order to guide the subsequent datageneration and analysis for the study:

� How are ITE tools used and appropriated by participants in the school ITEactivity system?

� How do participants understand the object and outcome of the school ITEactivity system?

European Journal of Teacher Education 7

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Nor

th D

akot

a St

ate

Uni

vers

ity]

at 2

3:13

25

Aug

ust 2

013

These questions enabled an analysis of the ITE activity system in the schooland the social practices that occurred in relation to the ITE activity. The CHAT con-cepts (tools, object, and outcome) were used as the focus of analysis. ITE toolsbecame the units of analysis with their use helping to identify participants’ percep-tions of the ITE activity system’s object, and the relationships between participantsand pre-service teachers in the ITE activities. The research questions also addressedthe evolution of ITE practices together with participants’ histories in relation toITE. Tensions and contradictions noted in the ITE activity system fed into furtherexploration and analyses of the ITE activity during the DWR change laboratory.

The research primary school

The selection of the primary school as a place to conduct the research was madefor a number of reasons, one of them being the recommendations of academic staffat Roehampton University. The university staff were well positioned for suggestingschools for a PGCE course, and had participated in ITE research with differentschools in the past. Additionally, the school was well regarded for the way its staffworked with the university, and had many connections with the work of the univer-sity’s PGCE course, with which it had been involved for a number of years. Theprimary school had also been designated as a ‘Model A’ School at RoehamptonUniversity, which means that a larger proportion of funding resources and thesupervision of pre-service teachers are transferred to the school with the support ofa university tutor who makes on average two school visits during the year. Thethree school-based tutors included the lead school tutor who took responsibility forITE at the school and liaised with the university tutor. The school tutors, after hav-ing undergone training at the university, were responsible for supporting and assess-ing the three pre-service teachers. Each of the pre-service teachers was paired witha class teacher (their mentor) and taught their classes.

The Model A school status suggests that the work the school did in teacherdevelopment was both extensive and a priority. The school works in a number ofcapacities with the university and the school staff occasionally take sessions at theuniversity with the ITE students. Therefore, based on issues of appropriateness andof opportunity (Silverman 2005) the research site was chosen as a potentially richenvironment for observing teacher education. Situated in London, the school is acomprehensive mixed primary school (4–11 years) with over 400 pupils. It is anoversubscribed school and serves a generally advantaged area and has an averagepercentage of pupils with statements of special educational needs. The overall effec-tiveness of the school was classed as outstanding in the most recent Office for Stan-dards in Education (Ofsted) inspection.

Undertaking the research in the summer term owing to the funding becomingavailable then, meant that the three pre-service teachers were nearing the end oftheir course and each had been successful in securing a permanent teaching post forthe following September. It was therefore likely that this would have boosted theirconfidence and affected their observations and interviews with the researcher andthe school and university ITE staff. However, it was considered beneficial to theresearch that they were very keen to discuss the learning opportunities from theschool placement. The latter stage of the placement was seen as a time for reflectionand after having completed their teaching assignments, the ITE work now focusedon the pre-service teachers’ professional needs in preparation for their coming

8 A.S. Douglas

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Nor

th D

akot

a St

ate

Uni

vers

ity]

at 2

3:13

25

Aug

ust 2

013

employment. Future research of a similar nature could gain from being conductedearlier in the school placement when pre-service teachers have less experience ofteaching in schools.

Empirical analysis

For the purpose of this article the data and findings focus on two identified andclosely linked contradictions in the ITE activity in the primary school, which wereinitially analysed after the five days of fieldwork and subsequently discussed in theworkshop session with school staff (including the lead school tutor) and with theuniversity tutor.

Contradiction 1: pre-service teacher critique versus staff support

The first contradiction identified in the primary school ITE activity system relates tohow critiquing and debating ideas on pedagogy could be seen as negatively imping-ing on personal support in working relations. The university encouraged and wanteda ‘kind of critical enquiry’:

I see it as our responsibility in uni to say ‘look there are other ways of doing it’ sothat they can bring that critical lens to bear on what they see in the classroom.(University tutor, 18 June)

In interview, the pre-service teachers and the mentors in school emphasised thesupportive nature of ITE: ‘there’s this sort of policy of everyone’s helping everyoneelse and everyone’s learning from everyone else’s experience’ (mentor, 14 June).But the notion of challenging one another’s viewpoints was seen as possibly prob-lematic: ‘I haven’t been challenged about that [teaching ethos]; I think that wouldbe hard to be challenged by a student, but interesting’ (mentor, 11 June).

Although not dismissing that there could be interest in having to defend one’sapproach to teaching and learning, it was not an expected way of working that wasintegral to ITE. Similarly, pre-service teachers did not see such challenge as particu-larly necessary when asked if they would openly challenge teaching strategies:

I would definitely say ‘interesting why did you do that because I never would havethought to do that’ or something like that. . . But I’ve seen it more as I’m here tolearn, to expand my horizons rather than to shrink someone else’s, so if I needed to, Iwould definitely have that chat, but I’ve never had that opportunity, or that need.(Pre-service teacher, 16 June)

Commenting in terms of ‘shrinking someone’s horizons’ if questioning theirchoice of teaching practices, suggests a view of criticism and challenge that is nega-tive and not expansive; in fact quite the opposite. This pre-service teacher feels thatcommunication is important and suggests that commenting on teaching and learningchoices is something she would do. However, she focuses on her own learning ratherthan adopting an expansive learning approach, where the class teacher could learntoo. The idea of expected one-way learning is further enhanced by anotherpre-service teacher’s surprise that experienced teachers may also suggest (althoughnot criticise and challenge) pedagogical practices among themselves. This pre-serviceteacher also did not feel challenged during the school placement:

European Journal of Teacher Education 9

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Nor

th D

akot

a St

ate

Uni

vers

ity]

at 2

3:13

25

Aug

ust 2

013

No I haven’t personally been challenged and I haven’t noticed any arguments or dis-putes; there are always suggestions though and I think I’ve seen even experiencedstaff suggesting to each other. (Pre-service teacher, 16 June)

In the change laboratory workshop school staff readily recognised this contradic-tion and acknowledged that it was desirable to accept the importance of criticalenquiry. When negotiating the tension of questioning accepted practices, one mentorcommented: ‘I am not particularly thinking about their role [as a pre-service tea-cher] carefully enough’ (16 December). She felt that her concern for personally sup-porting the pre-service teacher sometimes discouraged her from challenging theideas behind the teaching practice. Another mentor also felt that careful consider-ation was needed in order to develop genuine debate, and suggested ways forwardfor encouraging collaboration:

You have to make an agreement between you if you are observing one another forexample, what the purpose of the observation is and what is going to happen after theobservation. (Mentor, 16 December)

Receiving feedback from pre-service teachers ‘felt strange’ for one of the men-tors when she was observed in her classroom. In the change laboratory she acceptedthat ‘maybe it shouldn’t’ (mentor, 16 December) as it was crucial that everyonewas open to learning. This illustrated the value of discussing ITE activity for allparticipants, which was emphasised in the workshop where new ways of appropriat-ing ITE tools (such as the example of observation above) were suggested. Theopportunity of being able to do this was welcomed – ‘it is so lovely to just be ableto sit down, share ideas and talk because there’s precious little time for doing that’(lead school tutor, 16 December). The university tutor also acknowledged thethought provoking nature of negotiating tensions observed during the fieldwork.She commented in the change laboratory workshop: ‘I’ve only just thought aboutthis because you [researcher] are making me think about it’ (16 December). Suchcomments suggest that seeking out tensions in ITE practices was not a natural wayof working in the school setting.

Contradiction 2: pre-service teacher experimentation versus school norms

A second contradiction observed in the ITE activity system was evident in how thenorms of the school and the classroom were acknowledged as being highly influen-tial on the pre-service teachers’ teaching practices and ideas, and also somethingthat needed to be protected: ‘From the class teacher’s point of view and for the bestinterests of the children we want to try and maintain what has previously happenedby way of routines and consistency and things like that, because we have to pickthe children up again when the student leaves’ (mentor, 17 June). Yet pre-serviceteachers were expected not to mimic teachers in the ways they worked: ‘I want you[pre-service teacher] to be your own person’ (mentor, 11 June). The lead schooltutor commented:

If they get with a really good teacher who’s got a strong personality and you go inand observe, you can almost hear that teacher speaking through the student and youthink ‘actually I don’t want you to do that’. (Lead school tutor, 17 June)

10 A.S. Douglas

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Nor

th D

akot

a St

ate

Uni

vers

ity]

at 2

3:13

25

Aug

ust 2

013

This desire for experimentation also appeared to be in tension with some staffseeing themselves as teachers to be emulated: ‘You are aware that you are there asa role model’ (mentor, 11 June).

Using the term ‘role model’ suggests that the learning is one way, with the pre-service teachers wanting to aspire to the examples of teaching made available tothem. But this too was seen as problematic when it came to pre-service teachersexperimenting with their own approaches to teaching. When asked how one mentorfelt about the opportunities pre-service teachers get to try out different ways ofteaching, she acknowledged the tension:

It’s a very good point. In many respects they don’t [get the opportunities]. If they havean excellent role model as a class teacher then they’re in a very good position. Evenif you have a very good role model, that doesn’t address the issue of differentapproaches. I see trainees attempt to model themselves on an outstanding teacher butthey don’t actually see what underpins the excellence of the teaching. They purelymimic what they’re doing without realising what underpins it. (Mentor, 14 June)

One mentor felt that in order to support a pre-service teacher effectively, it wasnecessary ‘to increase the confidence of the class teacher to let go’ (mentor, 14June). This was an issue that was raised in the change laboratory, and both the uni-versity tutor and the lead school tutor felt that this was an essential area for staffdevelopment in the support of new teachers: ‘It’s about how to move the studentson from safe places. Sometimes we feel we’ve managed it and other times not’(lead school tutor, 16 December).

The university tutor acknowledged how the social practices in the school couldalso pressure pre-service teachers and affect their willingness to try new teachingand learning strategies that may challenge current practices. The university tutorknew the school staff well and her familiarity with them may have dissuaded pre-service teachers from critiquing school practices:

I go in and I know everybody and everyone, you know hugs and kisses and all therest of it and I think actually that’s quite hard because if they [pre-service teachers]don’t get on in that, it’s only just occurred to me, they’re thinking ‘but they’re allgood friends here’. (University tutor, 18 June)

Expecting pre-service teachers to be their ‘own person’ and challenge the statusquo of teaching and learning in the school could be considered a demanding under-taking when the ITE activity system’s rules (norms and conventions) are closely tiedin with the social practices of the school. In discussing the above quotation in thechange laboratory, the university tutor questioned the social practices in the school:‘It has made me think though that I need to think about how I present myself if I goin like that, so it’s been good for me’ (university tutor, 16 December).

One mentor questioned the pre-service teacher’s opportunity for open discus-sion: ‘she (pre-service teacher) always says that she agrees with what I’m sayingbut whether or not she does; she could just be being polite’ (mentor, 16 December).The temptation to emulate teachers when working in such a close-knit communityand to replicate the social practices evident in the school is understandable: ‘watch-ing [teacher] teach has just been amazing and then me trying to do somethingsimilar myself’ (pre-service teacher, 16 June). However, this way of working doesnot allow for the possibility of two-way learning, but appears like an apprenticeship

European Journal of Teacher Education 11

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Nor

th D

akot

a St

ate

Uni

vers

ity]

at 2

3:13

25

Aug

ust 2

013

model, often critically evaluated in ITE literature for ‘privileging mastery of tech-niques of management of the classroom and behaviour of pupils [rather than devel-oping] inquiring minds and reflective approaches’ (Spendlove et al. 2010, 65).

Discussion

Criticism of ITE has suggested that there is too much ‘emphasis on curriculumdelivery at the expense of the experience of responsive pedagogical decision mak-ing’ (Edwards and Protheroe 2003, 240). Practices may be seen to be responsive ifthey are developed through questioning and challenging pedagogical decisions withregards to specific contexts. ITE tools can help this by initiating debate about estab-lished pedagogical meanings. This was evident in the fieldwork when the universitytutor observed one of the pre-service teachers, and noted in the feedback sessionhow she, as a tutor, needed to think carefully through the topic that had been taught(getting pupils to write explanations rather than instructions) and work out how shewould have approached this lesson. She proceeded to discuss this openly with thepre-service teacher and they shared their opinions:

University tutor: We try and simplify it for them but actually in this case you knowthe overlap, this is not a criticism, because it took me most of the lesson to kind ofsort this out for myself. I kept thinking hang on what, why do they keep doing this[mixing the two writing genres]. You’ve got some lovely bits of writing and this ismuch more about untangling a little bit the difficulty of trying to teach genres dis-cretely. So just think about that one.

Pre-service teacher: What’s in the national strategy is to recommend these volcanoes[for writing explanations] but they also talk about using a video and that’s what [men-tor] and I discussed, and it was like actually we’ve got this opportunity, let’s. . . butthen once we watched the video yesterday we suddenly realised actually there’s areally strong crossover there and we have to be careful.(Field notes, 18 June)

Resulting discussions from feedback sessions like the above may feed into pre-service teachers’ thinking, which along with the ideas of other participants shouldbe open to critique. If discussions arising from the tools are meaningful to pre-ser-vice teachers’ pedagogical experiences, these can affect their practices, which mayin turn feed back into how future discussions arising from the tools are shaped.Thus, opportunities for mutual and expansive learning can arise when tools areappropriated in this way, with the relationships of the participants using them beingopen to learning (‘you made me think a lot about that’ – university tutor, 18 June).If the tools (in this case the feedback session) had been appropriated in a regulatoryway with the tutor giving an ‘assessed’ response to the lesson on how well the writ-ing genres had been taught, the tool would have simply worked as a rule in theactivity system and learning would have been restricted, as new interpretationswould not have been enabled. If information is imparted as a one-way process,contestation is repressed and compliance encouraged.

Conclusions

Where pre-service teacher learning was seen in similar ways to the learning of allpractitioners, as ongoing and specifically in relation to its context, then the object

12 A.S. Douglas

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Nor

th D

akot

a St

ate

Uni

vers

ity]

at 2

3:13

25

Aug

ust 2

013

of the ITE activity system was more clearly identified and its complexity acknowl-edged, as seen in the discussions surrounding the pre-service teacher’s learning inthe university tutor’s feedback session. Recent research recommends finding waysto create ‘school based activities that give the trainee and the teacher/mentor oppor-tunities to teach, evaluate and discuss’ (Macrory and McLachlan 2009, 268). Otherresearch goes further and wishes to ensure that such discussions encourage theexploration of ‘different emphases and positions at work... to nurture a reflexiveautonomous and sustainable pedagogical discourse’ (Spendlove et al. 2010, 76).This wish comes from an understanding that is different to one that considers theITE activity system’s object in a less complex way, with its principal motive beingto develop pre-service teachers as able practitioners managing their classrooms, asnoted in many of the mentor interviews in this study. Here, examples of effectiveteaching were often used to elucidate what was possible and desirable in a class-room situation for pre-service teachers at this stage in their training.

The social practices of the school impacted on the ITE activity system’s object.In the change laboratory it was possible for the object to be negotiated (and in thefuture renegotiated) between the participants, thereby enabling a collaborative devel-opment of the activity. In conversation with the university tutor, the pre-service tea-cher’s own interpretations of effective practices were expected to affect herlearning, with the tutor taking a stronger active role in helping to guide the pre-ser-vice teacher’s thoughts in this, using the ITE tool of the feedback session to openthese up for analysis. Identifying how far the object is shared illustrates the multi-voiced nature of ITE activity and indicates the potential importance of the role ofthe school tutor as a facilitator in negotiating the tensions and therefore in affordinglearning opportunities for pre-service teachers.

The strength of the evidence supporting the interpretation of the learning oppor-tunities in the research is recognised in terms of the limitations of doing a smallscale pilot study in one primary school. The participants are not representative andthe data are not viewed as being open to generalisation. However, multiple perspec-tives within one school setting provided rich data that were central to understandingthe complexity of social relations and how ITE roles afforded pre-service teacherlearning opportunities.

Future considerations

An interventionist research model such as developmental work research enables aschool tutor with a researcher to work directly with participants in the school ITEactivity system in order to start to test hypotheses about the conditions for expan-sive learning and see how expansive learning may be encouraged in practice. Open-ing out participants’ thinking by presenting possible tensions and contradictionsobserved in the activity system encourages negotiations on the object of the ITEactivity, and develops a shared understanding of this. This then enables participantsto look closely at the way they use tools in order to mediate work on the systems’objects. A better understanding of practice by analysing the discussion in thechange laboratory workshop in relation to the mirror and window data wascharacterised by an awareness of the multi-voiced nature of ITE. Opening this upfor discussion sought to ‘stimulate a system of possible alternatives’ (Engeström1993, 68) in order to negotiate the object of ITE activity and to develop ITEpractices and consequently pre-service teacher learning opportunities.

European Journal of Teacher Education 13

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Nor

th D

akot

a St

ate

Uni

vers

ity]

at 2

3:13

25

Aug

ust 2

013

The role of the lead school tutor in the pilot study was seen as one that couldpotentially work alongside the university tutor in facilitating DWR and the changelaboratory workshops. Previous research suggests that pre-service teachers’ learningtrajectories should ideally be the joint object of ITE activity (Jahreie and Ottesen2010), and that pre-service teachers need to be able to question and position them-selves rather than be positioned within their learning environment: ‘This is animportant approach because it gives an opportunity to optimize the agency of stu-dent teachers’ (Jahreie and Ottesen 2010, 233). Working in the way described inthe pilot study goes some way to addressing this. Such work would necessitate aparadigmatic shift for participants in the ITE process with a deconstruction of estab-lished norms in order to set the context for future practice. As noted in the previousethnographic study (Douglas 2009) the necessity of negotiating and renegotiatingthe system’s object regularly by all participants is demanding, but this is importantfor creating learning opportunities that help to develop critically aware teachers.

Future research will aim to include the pre-service teachers in the change labora-tory workshops. Further potential development could also exist with school tutorsworking in cross-school DWR change laboratory workshops with university tutorsfacilitating these. There are also growing numbers of pre-service teachers in Eng-land in work-based learning who are not taking part in PGCE courses. Ways of ana-lysing alternative experiences recognising the influence of schools in affecting thekinds of learning available to these pre-service teachers are also needed in order toincrease understanding of the benefits of new and different approaches to ITE. Withless university input in these work-based schemes, school leaders are cruciallyplaced to facilitate such alternative experiences.

Notes on contributorAlaster Scott Douglas is a senior lecturer in education and professional practice and hasworked as a teacher and senior manager in four high schools in the UK. He is a member ofthe Centre for Educational Research in Equalities, Policy, and Pedagogy at the University ofRoehampton, London, and an associate member of the Oxford Centre for Sociocultural andActivity Theory Research at the University of Oxford.

References

Darling-Hammond, L., and J. Bransford. 2005. Preparing teachers for a changing world.San Francisco: Jossey Bass.

Department for Children Schools and Families (DCSF). 2008. School workforce in England(Revised) Table A1: Recruitment to initial teacher training college based courses,2003/04 to 2008/09 (provisional). London: DCSF.

Department for Education (DfE). 1992. Initial teacher training, secondary phase (Circular9/92). London: DfE.

Department for Education (DfE). 1993. Initial teacher training for primary school teachers:New criteria for courses (Circular 14/93). London: DfE.

Department for Education (DfE). 2010. The importance of teaching: The schools’ whitepaper. London: DfE.

Douglas, A.S. 2009. How do secondary school subject departments contribute to the learningof student teachers? DPhil diss., University of Oxford.

Douglas, A.S. 2010. What and how do student teachers learn from working in different socialsituations of development in the same school? In Cultural–historical perspectives onteacher education and development: Learning teaching, ed. V. Ellis, A. Edwards, andP. Smagorinsky, 30–44. Abingdon: Routledge.

Douglas, A.S. In press. Capturing the object of initial teacher education by studyingtools-in-use in four school subject departments. Research Papers in Education.

14 A.S. Douglas

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Nor

th D

akot

a St

ate

Uni

vers

ity]

at 2

3:13

25

Aug

ust 2

013

Edwards, A. 2010. Being an expert professional practitioner: The relational turn in exper-tise. London: Springer.

Edwards, A., and L. Protheroe. 2003. Learning to see in classrooms: What are student teach-ers learning about teaching and learning while learning to teach in schools? BritishEducational Research Journal 29, no. 2: 227–42.

Elstad, E. 2010. University-based teacher education in the field of tension between theacademic world and practical experience in school: A Norwegian case. EuropeanJournal of Teacher Education 33, no. 4: 361–74.

Engeström, Y. 1993. Developmental studies of work as a test bench of activity theory: Thecase of the primary medical care practice. In Understanding practice: Perspectives onactivity and context, ed. S. Chaiklin and J. Lave, 64–103. Cambridge: Cambridge Uni-versity Press.

Engeström, Y. 1999. Activity theory and individual and social transformation. In Perspec-tives on activity theory, ed. Y. Engeström, R. Miettinen, and R.L. Punamaki, 19–38.Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Engeström, Y. 2007. Putting Vygotsky to work: The change laboratory as an application ofdouble stimulation. In The Cambridge companion to Vygotsky, ed. H. Daniels,M. Cole, and J. Wertsch, 363–82. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Engeström, Y. 2008. From teams to knots: Activity–theoretical studies of collaboration andlearning at work. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Furlong, J. 2008. Making teaching a twenty-first century profession – Tony Blair’s big prize.Oxford Review of Education 34, no. 6: 727–39.

Hutchinson, S. 2011. Boundaries and bricolage: Examining the roles of universities andschools in student teacher learning. European Journal of Teacher Education 34, no. 3:177–91.

Jahreie, C.F., and E. Ottesen. 2010. Construction of boundaries in teacher education: Analyz-ing student teachers’ accounts. Mind, Culture, and Activity 17, no. 3: 212–34.

Leont’ev, A.N. 1981. The problem of activity in psychology. In The concept of activity inSoviet psychology, ed. J.V. Wertsch, 37–71. New York: Armonk NY.

Macrory, G., and A. McLachlan. 2009. Bringing modern languages into the primarycurriculum in England: Investigating effective practice in teacher education. EuropeanJournal of Teacher Education 32, no. 3: 259–70.

Murray, J. 2008. Towards the re-articulation of the work of teacher educators in highereducation institutions in England. European Journal of Teacher Education 31, no. 1:17–34.

Silverman, D. 2005. Doing qualitative research. London: Sage.Smith, K., and M. McLay. 2007. Curates’ eggs? Secondary trainee teachers’ experience of

the Graduate Teacher Programme and the Postgraduate Certificate in Education Journalof Education for Teaching 33, no. 1: 35–54.

Spendlove, D., A. Howes, and G. Wake. 2010. Partnerships in pedagogy: Refocusing ofclassroom lenses. European Journal of Teacher Education 33, no. 1: 65–77.

Zeichner, K. 2010. Rethinking the connections between campus courses and fieldexperiences in college- and university-based teacher education. Journal of TeacherEducation 61, no. 1/2: 89–99.

European Journal of Teacher Education 15

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Nor

th D

akot

a St

ate

Uni

vers

ity]

at 2

3:13

25

Aug

ust 2

013