This article was downloaded by: [Queensland University of Technology]On: 31 October 2014, At: 23:59Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registeredoffice: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Journal of Education for Teaching:International research and pedagogyPublication details, including instructions for authors andsubscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/cjet20

Flexibility in initial teacher education:implications for pedagogy and practiceLiz Morrison a & Maggie Pitfield aa University of London , UKPublished online: 22 Jan 2007.

To cite this article: Liz Morrison & Maggie Pitfield (2006) Flexibility in initial teacher education:implications for pedagogy and practice, Journal of Education for Teaching: International researchand pedagogy, 32:2, 185-196

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/02607470600655243

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

Flexibility in initial teacher education:

implications for pedagogy and practice

Liz Morrison and Maggie Pitfield*

University of London, UK

This paper focuses on recent and innovative moves towards flexible learning in initial teacher

education programmes in England and Wales, as part of the ‘widening participation’ agenda in

higher education and in response to changes in teacher recruitment patterns. We take as our

perspective our own experience as two course tutors in a higher education institution that

introduced flexible routes into its secondary teacher education programme at the beginning of the

academic year 2002/2003. Using the university’s model for our case study, we have undertaken a

small-scale research project and reviewed the literature describing flexible learning discourses in

higher education, to consider the extent to which concepts of flexibility are being translated into

practice. In particular we highlight some implications for pedagogy and practice that have become

apparent at this early stage in the development of flexible courses and which will have an impact

upon their progress in the future.

Introduction

At the beginning of the academic year 2000/2001 the Teacher Training Agency

(TTA), the key government regulatory and funding body for initial teacher

education in England and Wales, introduced flexible Postgraduate Certificate in

Education (PGCE) courses as a non-traditional route to Qualified Teacher Status,

with a view to widening access to teacher training. Hitherto the traditional pattern in

England and Wales of postgraduate teacher education had been a one-year, full-time

course (September to July), divided into three terms, the content of which

incorporated both academic study, including the development of subject knowledge

for teaching, and professional training. These courses are organised and

administered by the higher education institution (HEI) providers which award the

qualification of PGCE. The professional training element of the courses takes place

in schools that work collaboratively with the HEIs. The TTA requires the HEIs and

the schools to measure students’ progress against a set of ‘Standards for Qualified

Teacher Status’. There are other routes to Qualified Teacher Status and a career in

*Corresponding author. Department of Educational Studies, Goldsmiths College, University of

London, New Cross, London SE14 6NW, UK. Email: m.pitfield@gold.ac.uk

Journal of Education for Teaching

Vol. 32, No. 2, May 2006, pp. 185–196

ISSN 0260-7476 (print)/ISSN 1360-0540 (online)/06/020185-12

# 2006 Taylor & Francis

DOI: 10.1080/02607470600655243

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Que

ensl

and

Uni

vers

ity o

f T

echn

olog

y] a

t 23:

59 3

1 O

ctob

er 2

014

teaching supported by the TTA—for example, the Graduate Teacher Programme

and more recently the Teach First scheme—but these are employment-based routes

which do not lead to a PGCE qualification. Thus, the new flexible courses offer the

only alternative PGCE route.

The TTA’s commitment to the introduction of flexible courses can be viewed at

least in part as a response to ‘the emerging recruitment pattern’ (TTA, 2001, p. 6)

which indicates that many of those now entering teacher training fit the following

profile in one or more ways: they are more mature; in full-time employment but are

looking for career change; have child care responsibilities; have some teaching or

teaching-related experiences; and/or have subject degrees which would ordinarily

not connect to the subjects which make up the National Curriculum for England.

The new courses’ ‘rationale was to provide access to teaching for those who, because

of their personal circumstances, cannot follow a standard postgraduate certificate in

education (PGCE) course’ (Ofsted, 2003, p. 4).

The impetus to reconfigure PGCE courses so that they are more responsive to the

needs of students also arises out of a period of teacher shortage in England and

Wales, in particular subjects and geographical areas, and a corresponding change in

enrolment patterns, where 56% of recruits are now over 25 and one in four is over 30

(Revell, 2004). One of the assumptions behind the move towards flexibility was that

these more mature students would have different requirements and expectations of a

PGCE programme. Also, as Kirkpatrick (1997, p. 161) points out, there are sound

economic reasons for HEIs to attempt to reach this group, given ‘the decline in

funding levels … and the consequent need to generate income from other sources’.

Put simply, the HEI that responds positively to the TTA’s promotion of flexible

PGCE courses, and successfully attracts those students unable to commit to a full-

time course, is able to access further vital TTA funding.

Although financial considerations had a part to play, the motivation for setting up

the flexible PGCE programme at Goldsmiths College, University of London, went

beyond the merely economic. As a key initial teacher education provider for London

schools with a genuine commitment to its inner London community, Goldsmiths

had a clear rationale for the introduction of the flexible courses. Thus, by meeting

student expectations and needs with regard to flexibility, greater access to the

teacher education courses available at a local college could be provided.

In 2002/2003 flexible secondary PGCE courses in design and technology,

English, modern foreign languages (community languages) and science were duly

added to the suite of courses offered by the college. At the inception of the flexible

programme these subjects were all recognised by the TTA as areas of teacher

shortage, particularly for many schools in the London urban environment and with

which Goldsmiths College is in partnership. The explicit aim, therefore, was to

widen the recruitment base by attracting onto these flexible courses more mature

students who are already domiciled in the London area, and as such are more likely

to teach in ‘local’ schools on completion of their training. This last point also

recognises that teachers at the beginning of their career usually cannot afford to

settle in areas of high cost housing, a major cause of recruitment and retention

186 L. Morrison and M. Pitfield

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Que

ensl

and

Uni

vers

ity o

f T

echn

olog

y] a

t 23:

59 3

1 O

ctob

er 2

014

problems, particularly in shortage subjects, for many inner and outer London

schools.

Attempts to define flexible learning in the context of initial teacher

education

Although the TTA provided workable guidelines for the new PGCE courses (TTA,

2001), we felt it was also important to consider how existing models of flexible

learning could inform the development of the flexible PGCE programme at

Goldsmiths. On the international scene flexible teacher education programmes

incorporating aspects of distance and open learning have been established for some

time, with evidence of considerable growth in the last decade (Robinson & Latchem,

2003). These were a product of the impetus to extend and expand existing levels of

teacher education provision in response to a variety of different needs and contexts

(Rumble, 1989), but were not particularly applicable to the situation in the UK. In

fact, until relatively recently the Open University had been the only HEI in the UK

offering a distance learning, though not recognisably flexible, route into teaching.

This is perhaps unsurprising in a small country which has good communications and

is well served by HEIs offering teacher education courses.

It is also true that the notion of flexibility is not a new phenomenon in other areas

of higher education, for example, in Bachelor and taught Masters’ degrees, but there

is still considerable debate surrounding the definition of flexible learning. This is

because it is a ‘multi-faceted and evolving rather than a unitary homogenous

phenomenon’ (Kirkpatrick, 1997, p. 164), and as such is often dependent on

context. For the relatively new flexible PGCE courses this is particularly true, as

concepts of flexibility are still being constructed. In related fields, however, courses

have already been re-conceptualised in terms of greater flexibility, and this has led to

some useful analyses of the dimensions (Collis et al., 1997; Collis & Moonen, 2001),

discourses (Kirkpatrick, 1997), and implications (Johnston, 1999) of flexibility.

Whilst the resulting models are not directly applicable to flexible PGCE structures,

common elements are nevertheless identifiable.

For example, the assertion from Collis and Moonen’s dimensions of flexibility that

education can be made more flexible by introducing learner choice in different

aspects of the learning experience (Collis & Moonen, 2001) is of relevance to the

emergent flexible PGCE courses. Kirkpatrick (1997), in her examination of flexible

learning discourses, has identified this impetus towards a more student-centred

approach as coming from several different directions: not only does such an

approach aim to attract more students into higher education on the grounds of

equity and access, it also ensures that the HEI is able to respond to economic and

political imperatives. These are certainly amongst the key factors—meeting student

needs, improving access, economic considerations and responding to government

priorities—responsible for the increased attention given to flexible learning by

HEIs, and which were present at the point when the TTA was promoting flexible

PGCE courses. In the specific field of teacher education we were able to draw upon

Flexibility in initial teacher education 187

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Que

ensl

and

Uni

vers

ity o

f T

echn

olog

y] a

t 23:

59 3

1 O

ctob

er 2

014

the contribution of Cleminson (2000). He attempted at the planning stage for

flexible PGCE courses to open a debate on the challenges involved and how

these might be met, particularly those issues arising from the individualisation of

courses.

Flexibility in our teacher education courses has been defined by a number of

measures. For example, it allows us to take a more student-centred approach, with

an individual training plan that is negotiated and then reviewed at key points during

the course. There is some flexibility in course entry and exit points, deadlines for

completion of modules are to some extent self-imposed and there are opportunities

to organise work and/or child care commitments around self-study modules. Flexi-

bility is also offered in terms of start dates (September or January) and increased

time is allowed for completion of the PGCE (up to two years). Finally, recognition of

prior relevant experience can lead to exemption from particular aspects of the PGCE

course.

The research

In order to examine critically the concept of flexibility as proposed by the TTA and

interpreted by our own HEI we undertook a small-scale research project. We wanted

to look generally at those aspects of the course that students were finding sufficiently

flexible and whether there were areas which required a more flexible approach. In

gathering such information we were able to monitor and evaluate a programme

which is at an early stage and has no precedent, in order to inform ongoing course

development.

We surveyed the science and English students finishing in the spring and summer

of 2000. These students were from the first two cohorts to have followed a flexible

PGCE programme at Goldsmiths College. We asked the students to complete an

exit questionnaire which explored their perspectives on the flexibility offered in the

key areas—the college administrative procedures, the college-based course, and the

school-based experience. The questionnaire asked the students to rate the different

aspects of these areas on a 1 to 5 scale with 1 being totally inflexible or inaccessible to

5 indicating total flexibility or accessibility. At the end of the questionnaire there was

an opportunity for the students to give any other comments about the course. Ten

students responded to this questionnaire.

We decided to probe students’ reasons for selecting a flexible rather than a full-

time PGCE route into teaching and what their expectations of flexibility were. Early

in their course we asked the 20 students starting on the programme in January 2004

to complete a tick box questionnaire which again afforded the students the

opportunity to elaborate on their answers if they wished to. We already knew from

our records that all these students fitted the TTA profile in one or more ways. For

example, 10 were career switchers, nine had personal responsibilities and/or child

care commitments which led to their selection of a flexible course, and seven had a

settled base in the area. All except two were over 25, five were between 30 and 35,

three between 36 and 40, and one was over 40.

188 L. Morrison and M. Pitfield

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Que

ensl

and

Uni

vers

ity o

f T

echn

olog

y] a

t 23:

59 3

1 O

ctob

er 2

014

The timing of the survey was relevant as the January 2004 group of students was

the fourth to embark upon the flexible PGCE programme, and by this time the

courses were reasonably well established and recruitment was healthy. Also, the

choice of January rather than September starters was deliberate, enabling us to

explore whether any of the students in the sample had opted for a flexible course

primarily because it offered a January start date, in contrast to the September start

date for the full-time PGCE.

To explore further the students’ attitudes to self-study they were also asked about

their plans at the point of entry to the programme, for example, the amount of time

they expected to take in completing the course, and the manner in which they

intended to tackle the self-study materials (on a regular daily basis, in blocks of time

with gaps in between, only at weekends). Another question asked the students to

consider whether the balance of self-study and college-based sessions as published in

the course handbook was likely to meet their needs, or whether they would welcome

the option to reduce the number of self-study tasks by attending more college

workshops, if these were made available.

A mixed mode approach

The findings from the questionnaires are tentative due to the relatively small size of

the sample. However, they do indicate that the part of the course over which the

tutors have most control is meeting student needs and expectations, and endorse our

decision to adopt a mixed mode approach. This is defined by Robinson and

Latchem as a ‘programme studied through a combination of on-campus and self-

study periods’ (2003, Table 2.2, p. 37). It was quickly established at the planning

stage as the favoured organisational and instructional method for the non-school-

based parts of the flexible PGCE courses. It was selected for several reasons, and in

keeping with many distance learning programmes which incorporate face-to-face

contact with tutors and other students at residential schools or occasional local

workshop sessions, it is the pattern that has prevailed. Certainly this approach allows

for some economies of scale in the teaching of particular elements of the programme,

although it means that the timing of the college-based sessions is decided on a ‘best

fit’ basis, taking account of the fact that students are moving at different paces

through the course. However, in the exit questionnaires all the students indicated

that they found the siting of the college workshops within the course as a whole

appropriate and no impediment to flexibility (rating this part of the course as either

‘flexible’ or ‘entirely flexible’).

Furthermore, in the ‘other comments’ section of the questionnaire, eight out of

the 10 students who responded mentioned the importance and/or accessibility of

the college-based workshops and tutorials. Whilst they appreciated the flexibility

that self-study afforded them, they also valued the in-college sessions and the

opportunities provided by these to interact with and learn from other colleagues.

Students’ observations ranged from the general, ‘The course met my expectations

for flexibility’ and ‘I have been very impressed with the flexibility of this course’, to

Flexibility in initial teacher education 189

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Que

ensl

and

Uni

vers

ity o

f T

echn

olog

y] a

t 23:

59 3

1 O

ctob

er 2

014

the more specific, ‘Self study materials were varied and explicit and taught courses/

workshops a particular bonus for liaison with fellow PGCE students’, and ‘(without

opportunities) to share ideas and experiences, one can be quite isolated on a flexible

course where there isn’t much interaction between students’. There is an implicit

understanding here that a totally flexible course structure would not meet their

needs. Even though they are graduates, students cannot be expected to display the

expertise or confidence that they will need for teaching every aspect of their chosen

discipline. As there is ‘wide consensus that our students learn a great deal from each

other’ (Cleminson, 2000, p. 117), in terms of their subject knowledge for teaching,

this collaboration with fellow PGCE students allows for some sharing of subject

knowledge and micro-teaching experience.

Attendance at workshops is also particularly appropriate for teacher education,

given that teaching is at heart a collegiate profession. In schools in England and

Wales teachers are organised into ‘teams’, for example, department or faculty teams,

pastoral teams, management teams, working parties, and so on, ensuring that

curriculum innovation and debate of key issues occur most often in this context. On

a full-time PGCE course such collaborations are replicated and ‘rehearsed’ during

the group activities in which students are regularly asked to participate. As flexible

route students encounter similar but adapted activities as part of the self-study units

or modules and complete these on their own to individually planned timetables, the

rationale for a mixed mode approach is that even a limited opportunity for face-to-

face contact is of advantage to them. It gives them scope, through collaboration, for

critical engagement with course content and discussion of current issues in

education.

Another factor in pursuing a mixed mode approach concerns the issue of student

retention and how a sense of belonging in terms of the students’ interactions with the

HEI contributes to this. In a recent review of theoretical models of student retention

in higher education, Yorke found that ‘A range of writers … have in various ways

emphasized the importance to a student of feeling that they are a member of an

academic community’ and ‘developing this is a particular challenge when the

student is remote from the provider’ (Yorke, 2004, p. 26). There is a further reason,

beyond the academic realm, why this sense of belonging is important to the student.

The social interaction provided by the college-based sessions is of equal value, as ‘in

most systems, provision is made for students to interact with tutors and other

students as a means of support’ (Robinson & Latchem, 2003, p. 29).

However, it remains to be seen whether the weighting of college-based sessions

within our mixed mode model is sufficient to meet the needs of the 12 students who

identified in the entry questionnaires the January start date as a key factor in their

decision to pursue a flexible PGCE course. These students had either missed the

deadline for application to a full-time course the previous September or were not

prepared to wait until the following September to start a full-time PGCE. If students

opting for a flexible course have done so by default and therefore view the teaching

and support model as ‘second best’ in comparison with that of the full-time pro-

gramme, this may prove a significant factor in the drop-out rate. It will be important,

190 L. Morrison and M. Pitfield

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Que

ensl

and

Uni

vers

ity o

f T

echn

olog

y] a

t 23:

59 3

1 O

ctob

er 2

014

therefore, for the HEI to keep the situation under review with future intakes as there

may be implications for flexible course selection procedures.

Whilst it might have been anticipated that for students on the flexible PGCE

programme the social interaction and support provided by the workshop days would

be unnecessary, as they are successful graduates, used to managing the demands of

studying, more mature in years, settled in location and with well-established social

networks, both the entry and exit surveys tell a different story. In the entry

questionnaires, for example, students were asked if they would like the opportunity to

complete parts of the self-study modules through attendance at college workshop

sessions. The majority (18 out of 20) said they would welcome this opportunity and

of these over half explicitly cited as a reason the social aspect of learning. Comments

such as ‘Teaching is a social activity and therefore it is important to do as much

learning as possible in a social environment’ were not untypical. Other reasons given

alluded to the importance of peer support in maintaining motivation, the need to

discuss experiences with others in the same situation, the desire to learn directly from

‘specialists/experts’, the usefulness of group revision of topics, and from a design

and technology student, the fact that this subject is ‘hands on’. Two students in this

group felt that they would like to attend additional college sessions even given the

difficulties posed by work and family commitments. Of the two students who did not

wish to attend additional workshops, one expressed an absolute preference for self-

study, and the other did not know at that point what for her would be the ideal

balance between taught sessions and self-study. She also felt that there would be too

much unnecessary travel involved to warrant her attendance at additional workshops.

These findings are in accord with the assumption made by the course tutors that

face-to-face teaching of, and support for, flexible PGCE students is desirable, and

that it will be a key factor in keeping the drop-out rate to a minimum. The

assumption is predicated upon ‘the held beliefs of the participating teachers’

(Errington, 2004, p. 39), particularly our knowledge of what ‘works’ in terms of

course content, delivery and student support on the traditional PGCE courses, and

there is some external evidence to support our view. For example, a team funded by

the Higher Education Funding Council for England conducting interviews with

senior managers in six HEIs that had good student retention rates, even though the

institutions’ entry profiles suggested that retention would be a problem, found that

one of the indicators of success was ‘a recognition of the importance of the social

dimension in learning activities’ (Yorke, 2004, p. 22).

The professional training element of a PGCE course offers a further perspective

on the need for such a support mechanism. As external social networks will not

necessarily have an understanding of the very particular pressures, such as manage-

ment of pupil behaviour, which face the trainee teacher, the sharing of experiences

and discussion of strategies with fellow students can provide a specialised source of

support. Thus, the work that is done as part of the school-based training to develop a

student’s teacher identity is being supported here in the college-based sessions; and

this is also important in terms of the integration of the various elements of the course

into a coherent whole.

Flexibility in initial teacher education 191

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Que

ensl

and

Uni

vers

ity o

f T

echn

olog

y] a

t 23:

59 3

1 O

ctob

er 2

014

Reviewing the student experience of flexible PGCE programmes, specifically the

opportunities provided for social support and professional development through

interaction with fellow students, is important. ‘If the student experience is ‘‘got

right’’ at an affordable cost (no mean challenge), then the chances of student

persistence are likely to be enhanced’ (Yorke, 2004, p. 30), and student retention is

undeniably a significant issue for both the HEI provider and the TTA.

Emerging issues for HEIs and course tutors

In order for flexible courses to thrive, therefore, the university has to acknowledge

that increased flexibility has implications not only for institutional culture, but also

for tutor pedagogy and practice. If, as Errington proposes, ‘The ‘‘infrastructure’’ for

flexible learning innovation exists as much at the level of dispositions as it does on

any physically resourced plane’ (2004, p. 45), then tutors’ teaching beliefs and dis-

positions can be as important as resourcing and workload factors in the shaping of

these courses and in determining the nature and degree of flexibility. The satis-

faction for us, as course tutors, in terms of re-affirming the more traditional aspects

of our teacher identity through face-to-face teaching of workshop sessions with the

whole cohort, and sometimes with different cohorts brought together, undoubtedly

had a direct influence on our decision to pursue a mixed mode approach.

However, the widening participation agenda in the post-compulsory sector, and

demands for ‘institutional flexibility and competitiveness in the search for increased

efficiency and effectiveness’ (Nicoll & Harrison, 2003, p. 23), with their accom-

panying performance review requirements, have impacted significantly on teacher

identity. Rather than defining pedagogy as ‘the act of teaching together with its

attendant discourse. It is what one needs to know, and the skills one needs to

command, in order to make and justify the many different kinds of decisions of

which teaching is constituted’ (Alexander, 2004, p. 11), performance review pro-

cesses tend to focus on the technical aspects of teaching. They utilise a prescribed list

of generic competencies, which ‘may help constitute a limited and theoretically

impoverished description of academic capability’ which does not acknowledge ‘the

complexity and diversity of the everyday work of teachers’ (Nicoll & Harrison, 2003,

p. 24). It becomes even more difficult to quantify or define the ‘everyday work’ of

tutors on flexible courses through review mechanisms, given the changes to

traditional practices necessitated by the introduction of flexibility.

Thus it is important for the institution to recognise and make provision for the

very real shift of emphasis, both organisationally and pedagogically, affecting tutors.

Because flexible PGCE courses are student-centred, tutors must adopt a respon-

sive approach to planning and teaching, in order to meet individual student needs.

Each student is, in effect, following an individualised programme at their own pace.

Furthermore, precisely because ‘The concept of a ‘‘cohort of students’’ will be ill-

defined’ on flexible PGCE courses (Cleminson, 2000, p. 118), this does not allow

for the usual economies of scale of the standardised programmes, which provide an

almost identical timetable of experiences for all students in the cohort.

192 L. Morrison and M. Pitfield

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Que

ensl

and

Uni

vers

ity o

f T

echn

olog

y] a

t 23:

59 3

1 O

ctob

er 2

014

Such a shift goes to the heart of teacher identity, as ‘a decrease in the amount of

face-to-face contact between teachers and students’, in terms of timetabled teaching

sessions, can remove ‘an important source of teacher satisfaction’ (Kirkpatrick,

1997, p. 167), but without the accompanying advantage of a reduction in workload.

In practice, the opposite is the case. Workload is actually increased by ‘More-

tailored training’ which ‘can be more time and effort consuming than standardised

approaches for the instructor’ (Collis et al., 1997, p. 211). For example, the tutor

becomes responsible for teaching students and offering support on a highly

individualised basis, and there are considerable organisational demands in tracking

the progress of students who are all at different stages, a concern acknowledged by

a TTA representative at a conference for flexible providers in July 2004.

Any consideration of the ways in which flexibility affects working practices for

tutors has to take account of a dimension that is unique in higher education to

teacher education programmes. This is the management of the partnership with

schools. We have found that the introduction of flexibility has impacted on tutors’

workload in this area, and clearly further research into partnership issues needs to be

undertaken.

This is not to say that the changes necessitated by the introduction of flexibility

are all negative or that problems are insurmountable. One example of attempts to

problem-solve in a practical way can be found in the response of the Goldsmiths

College flexible PGCE tutors, who are in the minority on the Secondary Programme,

to the issue of isolation caused by our different working patterns. This phenomenon

has been explored by Johnston in the context of the adoption by some HEIs of flexible

employment practices and contracts when flexible courses have been introduced,

which for the tutors can affect ‘collegiality and sense of belonging to and being valued

by the organisation’ (Johnston, 1999, p. 59). For the flexible course tutors at

Goldsmiths College a sense of isolation was created not by the casualisation of

working practices, but by the threat to the collegial aspects of our role from follow-

ing different timetables and even term dates to those of our colleagues on the full-

time courses. We have certainly found it to be the case that a sense of belonging in

terms of our interactions with the HEI is just as desirable for tutors as it is for

students, and to address issues around collegiality and isolation we have set up a flexi-

ble tutors’ team. Thus, the team meets to develop key generic aspects of the courses

as well as to organise and administer the flexible programme. In addition, members of

the team sit on other department committees to ensure that flexible course interests

are represented more widely across the PGCE Programme as a whole.

It is also true that flexibility in some instances has ‘acted as a stimulant for staff

development, particularly with regard to skills in new technology’ (Johnston, 1999,

p. 57), as the Goldsmiths flexible PGCE team is currently receiving some internal

funding to develop further a virtual learning environment for use with students. It is

hoped that this will facilitate communication between students as well as streng-

thening their links with the HEI.

Nevertheless, the issue of workload (and the knock-on effects as regards course

innovation) remains a crucial one, in this case for both full-time and flexible PGCE

Flexibility in initial teacher education 193

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Que

ensl

and

Uni

vers

ity o

f T

echn

olog

y] a

t 23:

59 3

1 O

ctob

er 2

014

tutors, particularly in the light of the current funding arrangements for higher

education in the UK. Research-active universities access a crucial source of

government funding via the Research Assessment Exercise of the Higher Education

Funding Council for England, and at the moment the pressure is building in these

institutions in preparation for the next Research Assessment Exercise in 2007.

Although in education departments funding for initial teacher education comes via

the TTA, nevertheless PGCE tutors in research-active universities are expected to

produce and publish the same amount of research as lecturers in other departments.

Yet the former are timetabled to teach up to 12 weeks longer per academic year, as

PGCE programmes necessarily follow the same term dates as schools rather than

those of the shorter university terms.

The degree of individualisation required of flexible PGCE programmes

compounds the problem for course tutors who are research-active. Brown (2003,

p. 4) recognises that a good higher education system ‘is distinguished by staff

engagement in research and scholarship’, and Blake et al. (1997) endorse this

assertion in the context of teacher education. Whilst we would fully support these

views there are serious tensions for us in attempting to weigh the competing

demands of flexible working patterns and a student-centred approach to teaching

and learning against participating in and producing quality research. It is clear,

therefore, that at an institutional level this is an issue which has to be addressed,

particularly as ‘the time burden on the instructor and support provider will become

constraints on the goal of flexible support for the learner’ (Collis et al., 1997, p. 211).

Thus, as more flexible PGCE courses are developed, it is even more important to ask

the question, ‘How flexible is flexible?’, and to consider ways in which student

expectations of flexibility and the HEI’s research demands on the tutor can be

balanced within the context of available resources.

Conclusion

The findings from our case study suggest that the definition of flexibility in PGCE

courses, just as in other areas of higher education, is mutable and depends on

context and purpose. In our own institution a mixed mode instructional approach

has been adopted on all four of the flexible PGCE courses which at this stage

appears to be meeting student needs in a sufficiently flexible way. However, within

the different subjects there are aspects individual to each course, and the courses

have developed to meet the specific needs of those studying in the different subject

areas. These variations have in some cases placed a further limitation on flexibility

and in others have increased student choice. For example, in design and technology,

to meet particular practical and health and safety requirements, students must join

additional college-based sessions which are actually part of the full-time course

calendar. In compensation, the tutors have built in a greater degree of choice else-

where, by allowing students to ‘mix and match’ full-time taught sessions with flexible

self-study modules as appropriate to their particular circumstances at different

points in the course.

194 L. Morrison and M. Pitfield

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Que

ensl

and

Uni

vers

ity o

f T

echn

olog

y] a

t 23:

59 3

1 O

ctob

er 2

014

Looking more widely at flexibility in initial teacher education, with the introduc-

tion of flexible PGCE programmes by an increasing number of HEIs, it appears that

the demands of flexibility, for example, on tutor time, may already be receiving

closer consideration. At the TTA conference for flexible providers in July 2004 a

significant development was the recognition by a number of institutions that flexible

course tutors require initial support via the allocation of a period of ‘start up’ time.

Thus, in one institution each tutor responsible for a flexible PGCE course had been

given a week ‘off timetable’ to write the course materials, and in another case tutors

from the different subject areas were allocated time to work collaboratively in

developing a virtual learning environment specifically for use on the flexible courses.

It remains to be seen whether such institutional support will continue beyond the

setting up stage, to tackle the re-definition and re-negotiation of course tutors’

working patterns, although this would appear to be crucial to the success of flexible

PGCE courses. There are considerable challenges for the HEIs that introduce

flexibility into their PGCE programmes, but it should be possible, if a somewhat

complex matter, to think ‘through the negative implications of flexibility without

rejecting the process itself, so that we can face the foreseen and unintended

consequences arising and take responsibility for mitigating them’ (Johnston, 1999,

p. 65). Only with a clear institutional vision ‘about the kinds and degrees of flexible

learning support they are willing and/or able to resource’ (Errington, 2004, p. 42),

backed up by the appropriate policy-making, can the HEIs realise the full potential

of flexibility in their PGCE programmes.

References

Alexander, R. (2004) Still no pedagogy? Principle, pragmatism and compliance in primary

education, Cambridge Journal of Education, 34, 7–33.

Blake, D., Hanley, V., Jennings, M. & Lloyd, M. (1997) The role of the higher education tutor in

school-based initial teacher education in England and Wales, Teachers and Teaching: Theory

and Practice, 3, 189–204.

Brown, R. (2003) What future for higher education?, Higher Education Review, 35, 3–22.

Cleminson, A. (2000) New Routes into science teaching: Implications for ITT providers. In

SCIcentre 2000 and ASET Conference Research and Practice in Secondary Science Initial Teacher

Training (Leicester, SCIcentre, University of Leicester), 115–119.

Collis, B. & Moonen, J. (2001) Flexible learning in a digital world, experiences and expectations

(London, Kogan Page).

Collis, B., Vingerhoets, J. & Moonen, J. (1997) Flexibility as a key construct in European training:

experiences from the TeleScopia Project, British Journal of Educational Technology, 28,

199–217.

Errington, E. (2004) The impact of teacher beliefs on flexible learning innovation: some practices

and possibilities for academic developers, Innovations in Education and Teaching International,

41, 39–47.

Johnston, R. (1999) Beyond flexibility: issues and implications for higher education, Higher

Education Review, 32, 55–68.

Kirkpatrick, D. (1997) Becoming flexible: contested territory, Studies in Continuing Education, 19,

160–173.

Nicoll, K. & Harrison, R. (2003) Constructing the good teacher in higher education: the discursive

work of standards, Studies in Continuing Education, 25, 23–35.

Flexibility in initial teacher education 195

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Que

ensl

and

Uni

vers

ity o

f T

echn

olog

y] a

t 23:

59 3

1 O

ctob

er 2

014

Ofsted (2003) Flexible postgraduate initial teacher training (HMI 1766) (London, Stationery Office).

Revell, P. (2004, September 7) Qualified success: The teacher training agency celebrates its 10th

birthday this term with a new, upbeat advertising compaign. But it still faces serious

challenges, Education Guardian, 2–3.

Robinson, B. & Latchem, C. (2003) Teacher education through open and distance learning (London,

Routledgefalmer).

Rumble, G. (1989) The role of distance education in national and international development: an

overview, Distance Education, 10, 83–106.

Teacher Training Agency (TTA) (2001) Designing training to meet individual needs (London,

Teacher Training Agency).

Yorke, M. (2004) Retention, persistence and success in on-campus higher education, and their

enhancement in open and distance learning, Open Learning, 19, 19–32.

196 L. Morrison and M. Pitfield

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Que

ensl

and

Uni

vers

ity o

f T

echn

olog

y] a

t 23:

59 3

1 O

ctob

er 2

014