This article was downloaded by: [North Dakota State University]On: 03 November 2014, At: 21:13Publisher: 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

The different learning opportunitiesafforded student teachers in foursecondary school subject departmentsin an initial teacher educationschool–university partnership inEnglandAlaster Scott Douglas aa Department of Education , Roehampton University , London, UKPublished online: 20 Jan 2011.

To cite this article: Alaster Scott Douglas (2011) The different learning opportunities affordedstudent teachers in four secondary school subject departments in an initial teacher educationschool–university partnership in England, Journal of Education for Teaching: International researchand pedagogy, 37:1, 93-106

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/02607476.2011.547035

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 whatsoeveror howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to orarising out 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

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Nor

th D

akot

a St

ate

Uni

vers

ity]

at 2

1:13

03

Nov

embe

r 20

14

Journal of Education for TeachingVol. 37, No. 1, February 2011, 93–106

ISSN 0260-7476 print/ISSN 1360-0540 online© 2011 Taylor & FrancisDOI: 10.1080/02607476.2011.547035http://www.informaworld.com

The different learning opportunities afforded student teachers in four secondary school subject departments in an initial teacher education school–university partnership in England

Alaster Scott Douglas*

Department of Education, Roehampton University, London, UK

Taylor and FrancisCJET_A_547035.sgm(Received February 2010; final version received September 2010)10.1080/02607476.2011.547035Journal of Education for Teaching0260-7476 (print)/1360-0540 (online)Original Article2010Taylor & Francis3710000002010AlasterDouglasalaster.douglas@roehampton.ac.uk

This article investigates the learning opportunities in school subject departmentsfor student teachers when participating in a postgraduate certificate of education(PGCE) course in England. The paper draws upon data gathered from a year-longethnographic study to explain why learning opportunities were different forstudent teachers in separate school departments. Discussion focuses on threeidentified types of learning (learning by imitation, enculturation and innovation)and analyses how initial teacher education (ITE) resources were used within theschool departments in order to work on student teacher learning. The paperconcludes by highlighting some pertinent issues for ITE, and the implications ofthese for designing ITE programmes in the future.

Keywords: initial teacher education partnerships; school subject departments;student teacher learning

Introduction

In England there are more possible entry options into teaching than any other country(House of Commons Report 2010). The PGCE course, featured in the research onwhich this article is based, is the most popular entry route with 59% of trainees in2007–2008 (DCSF 2008). Its overall structure has most recently been centrallyimposed on higher education institutions (HEIs) by New Labour government policy,and consequently it may appear to encourage a consistent approach to ITE. However,this apparent consistency belies the contested purpose of ITE work. The variety ofpossibilities for student teacher learning in the PGCE is shown in the research findingsdescribed in this article. These illustrate how mentors’ and teachers’ opinions on howthey see their roles with regard to ITE may be influenced by and depend upon the rela-tionships they have within their school and with higher education in ITE partnerships.

The development of ITE partnerships

Circular 3/84 (DES 1984) prescribed requirements to establish a national model ofITE in England and Wales. Professional literature on ITE at that time was character-ised by the dominance of the ‘collaborative model’ (Furlong et al. 1996, 48) and anumber of PGCE courses including those at Sussex University (1965) and LeicesterUniversity (1980) had already established strong links with schools, as well as theOxford Internship Scheme (1987), which was considered to be supporting the central

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

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Nor

th D

akot

a St

ate

Uni

vers

ity]

at 2

1:13

03

Nov

embe

r 20

14

94 A.S. Douglas

ideas of school-based education. Policy-makers’ approval showed little appreciationof the pedagogical principles or resources needed to sustain such school-basedschemes (Judge et al. 1994) but in 1992 imposed a partnership model of ITE acrossthe country into very different situations than those where the models had been devel-oped (DfE 1992). As a consequence, ITE’s university–school partnerships wereformally established as a statutory requirement, but collaborative partnerships whereschools and universities created close working relationships remained ‘exemplaryexceptions rather than the rule’ (Brooks 2006, 380).

In 1992 the majority of teacher education courses in England and Wales werebased on the principle of ‘integration’ (integrating students’ training experience incollege with work in schools) (Barrett et al. 1992). Attempts to make ITE more coher-ent post-1992 have meant that the broad structure of the PGCE course shares overallcharacteristics in different education institutions. Partnership arrangements nowsuggest that some responsibility is given to schools for planning and managing PGCEcourses (including the assessment of student teachers). Regulation stipulates that twothirds of the course takes place in schools and that a minimum of two schools are usedfor each student. The structure of the school experience requires a specificallydesignated school-supervising teacher (mentor) who arranges and co-ordinates theplacement with the higher education institution. In this way:

The partnership (is) characterised by an intention that university teacher educators andmentors work together to enable students as they progress through the programme toanalyse and reflect upon their school experience. (Taylor 2008, 70)

This view is premised on an idea that there is a shared understanding of howstudent teachers learn to teach. However, the way partnerships have been seen tooperate differently suggests that this idea is unfounded (Furlong 2000).

The increasing shift to school-based learning in both PGCE courses and otherroutes into teaching (currently, 15% of all new recruits to teaching enter through eitheran employment-based system or a school-centred programme) (House of CommonsReport 2010) promotes the capabilities of schools to work with unqualified teachers.Arguments for different types of higher education input, and subsequently differentways that schools should work with student teachers, continue in ITE literature(Galton 2001). At the same time such political interference (as well as the volatilefunding regime) has been seen as compromising universities’ autonomy and so hasresulted in a number of HEIs abandoning their PGCE courses altogether, leading toaccusations of the ‘political rape of initial teacher education’ (Gilroy 1992, 5).Noticeably, the diversity of teacher education in the further education sector with itsexcessive number of regulatory bodies has meant that teacher professional practicethere has been less susceptible to centralised influences, although that may wellchange in the near future (Holloway 2009).

Student teacher learning

The situation in ITE in England and Wales with ‘minimum competency models ofteacher training and “non-universitised” alternative training routes’ (Smith andMcLay 2007, 39) can be seen as an isolated position in Europe with regards to studentteacher learning. Overly concentrating on prescribed teaching standards may limit thelearning opportunities for student teachers, as ‘a standards-based technicized approach

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Nor

th D

akot

a St

ate

Uni

vers

ity]

at 2

1:13

03

Nov

embe

r 20

14

Journal of Education for Teaching 95

is unlikely to be responsive either to social contexts or to individual needs’ (Menter2009, 226). In England, schools have some responsibilities for assessing studentteachers against the national standards for the award of Qualified Teacher Status(QTS) (DfEE 1998, revised as Professional Standards for Teachers in England in2007). Edwards and Protheroe (2003) reported that the main concern for theexperience of student teachers in research on two PGCE courses was learning aboutcurriculum delivery, with less attention given to understanding children’s learning.Given little opportunity to work alongside established teachers, student teachersadopted responsibility for teaching too quickly.

Expertise found in school contexts is advocated as being most important forstudent teacher learning because the benefit from learning in schools comes fromusing the expertise of teachers and engaging with them in ‘practical theorising’(Hagger and McIntyre 2006). This is about developing a critical evaluation of ideas asthey arise in the work situation. However, examining difference and promoting debateand inquiry can be difficult when working in ITE partnerships (Smagorinsky et al.2004), and yet ‘in a truly effective collaborative relationship, dissimilarities betweenpartners can in fact fuel the kind of intellectual discourse that interrupts traditionalthinking and fosters the development of the teacher as knower’ (Schulz and Hall 2004,267). This highlights the importance of appreciating the social context of departments,and recognising how these can both afford and constrain learning opportunities.

Implications for teachers in terms of ITE responsibilities recognise how they have‘moved a long way from the peripheral figures depicted by HMI’ (Brooks 2006, 383)but little has been written about how school placements in secondary school subjectdepartments support the learning opportunities of student teachers. The researchreported here aims to address this gap in understanding. As environments for learning,school subject departments have been researched in a number of ways: in relation tothe importance of unity and contestation in the working lives of teachers (Helsby1996), the impact of department leadership (Busher and Blease 2000) and theincreased pressures of performance in managing department activities (Furlong 2005).More recent research has made recommendations on how departments can encouragelearning opportunities in the way they operate (Hodkinson and Hodkinson 2005).

Departments and their subcultures play significant roles in the lives of mostsecondary school teachers and consequently for student teachers learning in them(Smethen and Adey 2005). The importance of subject departments in the organisationof secondary schools has led some researchers to come to the conclusion that to affectchange in the school environment one needs to work with departments (for example,see Siskin 1997; Visscher and Witziers 2004). This is also the case when consideringthe learning opportunities for student teachers. Data generated from interviews withuniversity-based teacher educators responsible for the curricula on a PGCE course(Douglas 2005) indicated that there were differences in the notions of teaching andlearning both within and between school subject departments. This is borne out inother research on teacher and student teacher learning (Britzman 2003). Recentresearch acknowledges how specific contexts can enhance learning by developing thementor’s role and encouraging a broader approach to student teacher learning (Locket al. 2009), and by exploring how a flexible route into teaching on the PGCE courseencourages mentors to view student teacher learning more holistically (Pitfield andMorrison 2009). The present article highlights how different types of learningopportunities are available in school subject departments for student teachers even

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Nor

th D

akot

a St

ate

Uni

vers

ity]

at 2

1:13

03

Nov

embe

r 20

14

96 A.S. Douglas

when they are working in the same school and within the same PGCE partnershipscheme.

Background to the study

This paper derives from a year-long doctoral ethnographic study (2006–2007) explor-ing ITE work with 15 student teachers in four subject departments (geography,history, modern foreign languages (MFL) and science) in one secondary school (for11- to 18-year-old pupils) in the south of England. The research focused on a one-yearPGCE programme at a university. The course has consistently been rated as highlysuccessful in Office for Standards in Education (Ofsted) inspection grades and courseevaluation outcomes. The school in which the student teachers were placed was wellregarded for the way its staff worked with the university, and had many connectionswith the work of the university’s PGCE course, with which it had been involved forover 15 years. The school was designated a ‘Training School’ (DfEE 1999a, b) by theTraining and Development Agency for Schools (TDA), thereby suggesting that thework the school did in teacher development was both extensive and a priority.Designated training schools have developed as a way to enable schools (throughincreased funding) to support training activities in and outside the school with a rangeof partners.

The data were generated by asking two research questions:

(1) What are the opportunities for student teacher learning as constructed indifferent departments in one school?

(2) To what extent and why are these learning opportunities constructeddifferently?

These questions were addressed through participant observation of 62 meetingsbetween student teachers and their mentors (school teachers with specific supervisionresponsibility for student teachers), 27 meetings between university tutors, mentorsand student teachers, 52 lesson observations with feedback sessions from mentors, 61interviews with participants involved in ITE (mentors, teachers, student teachers,university tutors and senior school managers) and numerous occasions observingsocial interaction in subject department ‘team rooms’. The data set comprises exten-sive field notes written in situ, transcripts of recordings of formal meetings such asinterviews and numerous documents. Data were initially generated iteratively in orderto be open to the situation. Gaining familiarity with the field guided initial data gener-ation noting all aspects that seemed relevant to the learning opportunities of studentteachers in order ‘to record as much as possible of what is perceived to be relevant tothe research project so that there is a record that can be used later in the analysis andwriting process’ (Walford 2009, 127).

The strength of the evidence supporting the interpretation of the learningopportunities in ITE in the research is recognised in terms of the limitations of doingethnographic work in a small number of subject departments in one secondary school.The departments are not representative or viewed as samples to be generalised to agreater population, but can be seen as prototypes in that their histories and staff havebeen investigated by a single researcher and co-created as case studies. The fourschool departments had important atypical features, relationships and situations, butthey were mainly chosen as an opportunistic sample owing to them being the only

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Nor

th D

akot

a St

ate

Uni

vers

ity]

at 2

1:13

03

Nov

embe

r 20

14

Journal of Education for Teaching 97

departments at the research school that took part in the university’s PGCE course.However, multiple perspectives within one school setting and extensive observationprovided rich data that became central to understanding the complexity of socialrelations and how ITE roles afforded student teacher learning opportunities.

Methodology

Familiarisation was partly influenced by an interactive approach outlined byHuberman and Miles (1994). The initial coding was arranged into wide-rangingorganisational categories and this reduced the data further. ATLAS.ti software wasused to label the transcribed field notes and interview transcripts with categories thatcould then be extracted and arranged into data sets, which were then further reducedto bullet points in order to create synopses around initial codes. Transcripts of semi-structured interviews were considered alongside observation field notes and documen-tation when analysing the learning opportunities for student teachers in the schoolsubject departments. Data were generated separately and at different times with theresearcher’s perspective as interviewer, observer and document analyser deciding ondata selection and reduction. Matrix displays were utilised before a more rigorousinductive process was then carried out in order to develop ideas about the studentteacher learning opportunities in the four departments. Displaying the data in differentformats, as in a tabulated style with columns given for each of the four departmentswas used in order to reduce the data sets further and aid a comparison across thedepartments. This also sliced up the data and offered other possibilities for consider-ing the main categories, with some new categories emerging from doing this. Forexample, when exploring how mentor meetings compared across departments, ideasabout how the mentors considered their own learning emerged.

Interpretations of specific areas were developed in analytic memos with longerpapers produced comparing and contrasting different ITE activities in differentdepartments, for example looking at how lesson observations were structured. Conse-quently, general procedures adopted for analysing data for the subject departmentanalysis were by immersion in the data with the aim of generating areas for collationand comparison. (See Douglas (2009) for a full explanation of the analytic frameworkused in the research.)

Findings and discussion

How participants used the HEI’s ITE resources, for example PGCE course handbooks,lesson plans, student teacher reports, lesson observation feedback forms and how theydiscussed teaching and learning with the student teachers were explored in each of thesubject departments. The findings concentrate on identifying how participants viewedthe purpose of the ITE work as well as their beliefs about student teacher learning. Theimpact of the school/university partnership also influenced how resources were usedand this was seen in how far the school departments took responsibility for the learn-ing of the student teachers as opposed to relying on external measures of validation.Different types of learning were identified in relation to ITE in the subject depart-ments. These are explained in the following sections. The data are representative ofthe research as a whole, although for the purpose of this article they relate to the firstlong school placement, which took place from September to April in the research year.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Nor

th D

akot

a St

ate

Uni

vers

ity]

at 2

1:13

03

Nov

embe

r 20

14

98 A.S. Douglas

Learning by imitation

The geography department

The emphasis in mentor meetings (where there was one student teacher) was on plan-ning lessons rather than reflecting on work done in previous classes. The mainresource used for the meetings was the relevant scheme of work, and the mentor usedthe key questions in this to suggest areas to be discussed for structuring lesson plans.Therefore, the onus was on future practice rather than gaining an understanding byscrutinising the practice that had already taken place. Filing lesson observationsummaries and checking up on how current classes were going was part of ‘touchingbase’ at the beginning of mentor meetings in order to get an overview of how thestudent teacher was feeling. However, this was not seen as significant in developingthe student teacher’s learning, as it was believed by the mentor that this would be bestenhanced through practice.

The learning style adopted by the mentor therefore appeared to resemble atraditional apprenticeship model, where skills were outlined, discussed and displayedin anticipation of them being copied and mastered. The student teacher readilyacknowledged that he wanted to emulate the mentor’s style of teaching, believing itto be exemplary, and stronger than any other seen in the department. The mentor,being very enthusiastic about her teaching, found it hard to explore the studentteacher’s ideas as a way of examining his developing understanding of pedagogy.Instead, she gave lesson ideas from her own teaching: the student teacher admittedthat being given resources and explicit ways of using them made it more difficult forhim to consider lesson ideas afresh. Hence, the mentor was the key person in thestudent teacher’s planning work, and the mentor meetings were heavily relied uponfor doing this, with the HEI’s ITE resources not used as part of a process of meaning-making at all.

Contestable aspects of pedagogical issues in research literature were less debatedor considered particularly relevant for detailed discussion in the geography depart-ment. These were felt to belong more to the ITE work in the university. The head ofdepartment believed that staff were in agreement on how to teach geography in that‘we don’t have anyone that wants to do anything that would be radically opposed. Wereally do respect the issues based inquiry geography. I don’t have anyone who doesthe old-fashioned geography’ (interview, 5 February). The student teacher wasencouraged to observe lessons that demonstrated how this approach could be maderelevant to pupils. Therefore, there were no apparent tensions between the work of thetutor and the department staff. However, there was little evidence of teamwork withregards to collaborative teaching and learning, and owing to some delicate relation-ships amongst the staff, a hesitant approach to ITE learning opportunities was evident(for example, gently reminding teachers to observe lessons). Hence, the HEI’s ITEresources were often treated as reminders in order to encourage participation from allmembers of staff.

Leaving internal reflections to the student teacher’s private thoughts, there wasless emphasis on the student teacher as an individual, and more of a focus on himgaining opportunities to learn by working with successful practitioners in a form oflearning transfer. The department staff did not voice reasons for wanting to beinvolved in ITE beyond the fact that they had always had student teachers andbelieved there were some benefits to be had from having more staff in the department.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Nor

th D

akot

a St

ate

Uni

vers

ity]

at 2

1:13

03

Nov

embe

r 20

14

Journal of Education for Teaching 99

However, this was seen as ‘a risk’ by the head of geography (5 February), andprevious difficult experiences had made the head of department wary of the demandsof working with novices. Consequently, it was made clear that the organisation ofdepartment matters meant that ITE should not impact on other department work.

Learning by enculturation

A form of learning by enculturation was evident in both the MFL and sciencedepartments (each with two student teachers). Curriculum coverage tended to takepriority with little discussion on teaching and learning in the department ITE work.However, there were differences noted in the department practices.

The MFL department

An important reason for using the HEI’s ITE resources in the MFL departmentappeared to be for accountability. The university provided the resources and it wasexpected that they would be used as evidence in the student teacher portfolios to showwhat they had done in their school placement. The MFL teachers tended to viewlesson plans, observation summaries and evaluation sheets as an administrative part ofthe department’s ITE work, with their completion necessary for gaining the universitytutor’s approval. Therefore, they were not used in order to initiate discussions butwere primarily seen as representations of the PGCE course and, like the PGCE coursehandbook, were often viewed as belonging to the university.

Teachers appreciated the structure the university provided as it helped them, andgave the onus to the student teachers:

We get the long list of all the different criteria you know, the this, that and the other andI have to say I read once five years ago, and I am not going to have the time to learn themall so I have to rely on the [student teacher] to do that. I will comment and say ‘tick thisbox’. (Interview with MFL teacher, 7 June)

Considering feedback in terms of how boxes can be ticked points, at least in part,to an instrumental use of evaluation in as far as the way the course requirementsneeded to be evidenced. This teacher’s history of working with student teachers meantthat initial understandings of the PGCE course criteria had not been revisited andconsequently were not used actively when discussing lessons with student teachers.Verbal feedback was used to evaluate the teaching and learning, rather than scrutinis-ing lesson plans and observation summaries, and looking at how the use of thesereflected student teachers’ thinking. Consequently, student teachers were expected totake the lead with regards to stipulating the lesson objectives in order that they metwhat was needed for their portfolios, but they were fairly passive when discussing thelessons with teachers, rarely elucidating on their decisions. This meant that they didnot openly contribute to their own learning when evaluating pedagogical ideas asintended in the design of the HEI’s ITE resources.

When the mentor wrote her reports after the university tutor visits they operated asa rubber stamp on progress once this had been agreed with the tutor. Similarly, otherof the HEI’s ITE resources were sidelined with lesson observation summaries, forexample, given a low status and not looked at by the mentor at all. The mentor concen-trated on meeting the requirements of the course, carefully managing the relationship

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Nor

th D

akot

a St

ate

Uni

vers

ity]

at 2

1:13

03

Nov

embe

r 20

14

100 A.S. Douglas

between the university and the school. The student teachers did not feel it appropriateto challenge or question suggestions and evaluations even as a way of reconcilingconflicting ideas between staff. As one teacher commented, ‘they [student teachers]didn’t question us… there was never any problem’ (interview with MFL teacher, 7June). Instead, they were encouraged to take on advice for specific classes, whilstcontemplating their own way of working with pupils. This approach to evaluatinglearning meant detailed discussions on pedagogy arising out of particular contextswas not available to the student teachers, or considered beneficial for the teachingstaff.

The science department

Opportunities for enhancing student teacher learning in the science department weregoverned by demands for completing the ITE paperwork. This became the main focusof discussions and was time consuming, and allowed little room for student teacheragency when participating in learning opportunities. The HEI’s ITE resources wereviewed as means in themselves rather than as part of a process to explore studentteacher learning. This closed down discussions and did not encourage debate onindividual thinking. Information was imparted as a one-way process, and the complex-ity inherent in pedagogy was often hidden behind codified standards whose criteriawere less contestable. Meeting QTS standards became the priority in lesson feedbackand this was sometimes prioritised before an understanding of why the standardsneeded to be met. General conversations personalising the required standard to theviewpoint of the student teachers rarely occurred. For the student teachers, this meantthat specific university ITE resources (in this case observation feedback forms)appeared somewhat threatening, as they were being used explicitly as monitoringdevices.

Learning by innovation

The history department

Innovation was encouraged in the ITE work in the history department where onestudent teacher worked in the teaching placement. Concentrating on the studentteacher’s learning and on the learning of all participants allowed for development, asthe teachers, mentor and student teachers interpreted what was happening and thenworked in newly informed ways as a result of their interpretations. The emphasis onexperimentation and debate in department practices, modelled by the head of depart-ment and the mentor, promoted learning as a means of development. Questioningways of working opened up discussions in order to address the variety of perspectivesin the department, and the reasons behind their ways of working. The outcomes ofthese discussions were often used in the ‘ideas slot’ in department meetings in orderto present new ideas or to explain how new ideas had worked in the classroom. Newways of working sometimes replaced previous ways, for example:

The head of history asks [teacher] to tell everyone about her pod cast idea – a fantasticidea, it can be put onto the web site. They [the pupils] record it themselves and thendownload one another doing their talks. Better than always writing everything.[Teacher], put together the technical support and let us know – it would be brilliant todownload them. (Field notes, 26 February)

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Nor

th D

akot

a St

ate

Uni

vers

ity]

at 2

1:13

03

Nov

embe

r 20

14

Journal of Education for Teaching 101

Feedback from other teachers contributed to discussions and suggestions for waysforward. Action plans designed to further the work were suggested before revisitingthe ideas at future meetings.

The student teacher referred to her learning as ‘a never ending journey through atunnel’ (field notes, 25 April) highlighting her perception of learning as a continualexploration. She acknowledged how she was made to think ideas through carefully,and how she was encouraged to challenge her own perceptions of what teachinginvolved. It was evident that the mentor was also considering issues afresh in discus-sions with the student teacher, and this enhanced a genuine sharing of ideas. Thementor borrowed and valued new materials as much as did the student teacher. Thementor did not act as an expert and viewed learning as a complex process: ‘I guessteaching isn’t the kind of thing where you tell somebody this is what you do and thenthey go and do it and it works. It is much more imprecise’ (interview with historymentor, 23 January). Differences of opinion were considered vital for the developmentof the work in ITE and in the department in general. Accepting that learning to teachis difficult and not straightforward acknowledged that an apprenticeship approach orone that relied upon learning through transfer was not viable.

Discussion

Superficially, learning opportunities for student teachers may have seemed to besimilar, as each PGCE student and subject department were taking part in the sametraining course, identified by government approved ‘standards’ and checked forcompliance by its inspection arm. However, when looking at how learning opportuni-ties were constructed, it was clear that there were considerable differences in the kindsof learning afforded the student teachers, and consequently the potential for these inhelping student teachers respond to different classroom contexts. Where studentteacher learning was seen in similar ways to the learning of all practitioners ascontinuing, and specifically in relation to its context, then the purpose of the ITE workwas more clearly identified and its complexity acknowledged, as seen in the discus-sions surrounding the student teachers’ learning in the history department. A concen-tration on learning for all staff meant that student teacher learning was seen as just onepoint on their learning trajectory. Such department practices complement Engeström’s(1999) expansive learning cycle, and suggested that new learning was possible anddesirable for everyone, with teaching practices not necessarily set in any firmlydefined ways.

As was evident from early on in the year, the head of department acknowledgeddifferent ways of teaching history and spurred the student teacher on to experimentand ‘go for it’ even though ‘things can go catastrophically wrong’ (interview, 9February). The desire for teachers to push themselves to take risks in the belief thatpupils would benefit, and teaching and learning be enhanced was seen as a reciprocalquality that could only improve the history department’s success. Noticeably, therewas less day-to-day emphasis on meeting QTS standards which freed up possibilitiesfor experimentation. The enthusiasm with which teachers discussed positive benefitsof new teaching strategies opened up possible collaborative and innovative workingpractices for the student teacher, and the HEI’s ITE resources were used as a meansfor debating aspects of teaching and learning. This view was different to one thatconsidered the ITE work in a less complex way, with its principal motive being to

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Nor

th D

akot

a St

ate

Uni

vers

ity]

at 2

1:13

03

Nov

embe

r 20

14

102 A.S. Douglas

develop student teachers as able practitioners managing their classrooms, as noted inmany of the conversations in the other departments. Here, examples of effective teach-ing were used to elucidate what was possible and desirable in a classroom situation forstudent teachers at this stage in their training.

In the geography, MFL and science departments, learning opportunities wereviewed in terms of exposing student teachers to effective practices with them thenexpected to adopt these once an understanding of their effectiveness was appreciated.In the history department, the student teacher’s own interpretations of effectivepractices were expected to influence her learning, with the history staff taking anactive role in helping to guide the student teacher’s thoughts in this, using the HEI’sITE resources to open them up for analysis. Giving agency to student teachers byencouraging them to participate in pedagogical debates challenges ‘traditional waysof ownership of knowledge’ (Taylor 2008, 84) and enables all thinking to be exposedfor questioning. Examples of learning by imitation or enculturation sometimesappeared to be successful within the learning context, but with few alternativeviewpoints expressed or choices as to how teaching and learning practices could bevaried, the context was not being fully interpreted or its complexity fullyacknowledged.

Consequently, the student teachers were not learning in a way that would helpthem when working in another context. The importance of new learning taking place,as opposed to learning by imitation, is that it ensures that student teacher learning isnot simply about being inducted into established department practices. Distinguishingbetween learning and enculturation was indicated by the presence of alternative inter-pretations of learning situations, enabling choices to be made in how student teachersacted as a result of their interpretations. This was more important than student teachershaving access to ‘exemplary practices’, as it allowed for ‘capacity within (the) teachereducation system for critically examining the meaning of experience’ (Ellis 2010,105). Ellis describes the often impoverished nature of student teacher experience inschools by suggesting that much of the learning is viewed as knowledge transfer,accepting an acquisition metaphor of learning (Sfard 1998).

This research highlights that where all participants were open to learning, and opento allowing space for agency in order for learning to happen, possibilities for learningby innovation were evident. Although the four departments in the study are not repre-sentative or viewed as samples to be generalised to a greater population, it is a concernthat these subject departments evidently afforded very different learning opportunitiesfor the people working within them. That the subject departments have been seen towork so differently with student teachers despite being in the same school and partic-ipating in the same PGCE course suggests that an account of this inconsistency needsto be taken when designing the ITE programme. Seeing student teachers who arelearning how to engage in the social practices of school departments recognises thesituated nature of learning. How this is related to the learning of general principles,from, for example, department team room and mentor conversations can be related toVygotsky’s (1978) idea of spontaneous and scientific concepts where:

Spontaneous concepts are learned through cultural practice and because they are tied tolearning in specific contexts, allow for limited generalisation in new situations; scientificconcepts are learned through formal instruction and, because they are grounded ingeneral principles, can more readily be applied to new situations. (Smagorinsky et al.2003, 1399)

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Nor

th D

akot

a St

ate

Uni

vers

ity]

at 2

1:13

03

Nov

embe

r 20

14

Journal of Education for Teaching 103

The challenge for departments which offer opportunities for engagement in theirsocial practices is to enable learners to see relationships between spontaneous andscientific concepts and to take from them experience; mature concepts that will enablethem to interpret and work in other settings. Acknowledging that existing andexpected ways of working in school departments may constrain learning suggests thatchallenge and disagreement about learning teaching can open up new and innovativelearning opportunities.

It is therefore desirable for the university and the school to help student teacherscritically engage with the social practices of school departments, in order to developteachers who are able to work with change, as they will go on to work in other schooldepartments throughout their career. This analysis gives examples of learning oppor-tunities and also shows how and why differences in the kinds of teacher learning werepossible. Departments that were open to change through questioning and challengingtheir viewpoints on pedagogy as well as those expressed by student teachers gaveagency to student teachers by encouraging them to participate in pedagogical debates.This enabled their thinking to be exposed for questioning too. Variations in how thedepartments worked in ITE were considered in terms that went beyond previousdescriptions of department cultures as individualistic or collegial (Hargreaves 1994)or as strong or weak departments (Talbert and McLaughlin 1994). By analysing thesocial practices that influenced ITE learning opportunities, greater understanding wasgained of how ITE practices have evolved.

Strong collective department cultures with cohesive and supportive staff, andconfident beliefs in the success of the departments’ ways of working were seen in boththe science and MFL departments. However, as was highlighted in the MFL depart-ment, the focus in ITE was often not on pedagogical matters, which meant that studentteachers were not automatically exposed to debates on teaching and learning. Anoutward display of unity with an apparent strategic compliance by some of the teach-ers as described by Lacey (1977) appeared to account for accepted but little discusseddifferent points of view on approaches to pedagogy. Alternatively, department work-ing practices strongly influenced by collective debates on teaching and learning wereseen in the science department, but these were not a priority in ITE and therefore werenot readily apparent to student teachers. A weaker department community with a frac-tured culture and a less confident staff outlook with concerns of ‘territorial wrangling’(Paechter 1995), as noted when a number of staff felt that some aspects of the geog-raphy curriculum were being taken over by new schemes of work in science, was iden-tified in the geography department. However, a lack of debate on teaching andlearning in ITE prevented change in the geography department ITE practices with aconsequent lack of development in the student teachers’ learning opportunities.

When student teachers were given agency from the outset they were more likelyto answer hard pedagogical questions and interpret situations automatically withoutnecessarily expecting direct instruction or advice on how to work in given situations.This process encouraged knowledge for practice, useful for working in a variety ofsituations, as opposed to knowledge of practice, which is specific to the departmentand school context (McLaughlin and Talbert 2001). The research illustrated how ITEpractices were not just about disseminating knowledge to novices, as this was onlyuseful for student teachers to a limited degree, but how ITE should be about newlearning, and how this could be gained when teachers worked collaboratively. It wasparticularly noticeable in the history department that a variety of sources were

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Nor

th D

akot

a St

ate

Uni

vers

ity]

at 2

1:13

03

Nov

embe

r 20

14

104 A.S. Douglas

accessed when discussing contestable ideas, for example educational research litera-ture and practices in other schools. This was in contrast to tips and advice that hadbeen gained from experience in working in the research school, which was oftenforwarded in other departments.

Conclusion

Emulating exemplary practices or following teachers’ advice for specific teachingsituations does not enable student teachers to appreciate the complexity of peda-gogical contexts. Previous research highlights the considerable influence of theschool setting and the social practices of school departments on student teacherlearning (Cook et al. 2002). This suggests that it is important that more criticalstances than just those coming from a university PGCE course are apparent inorder to engender debates on the learning situation. Acknowledging tensions andembracing variation in pedagogical ideas in order to enhance the purpose of ITEwork aids learning opportunities by exposing for discussion the thinking of allthose involved in ITE. The HEI’s ITE resources should be used to scrutinise thethinking of student teachers, accepting that complexity in the teaching processmakes it necessary to view learning as more than just meeting centrally prescribedstandards (Menter 2009).

There is an often expressed desire in ITE to replicate expert teachers (Hogan andGopinathan 2009). This suggests the importance of having a ‘one size fits all’ under-standing of pedagogy, which can be rolled out across different contexts. The problemwith an expert/novice approach to student teacher learning is that learning can tooeasily be seen as transferable (from the expert to the novice) rather than jointlyconstructed. If the aim is for teachers to be expert in all contexts then recognising thedifferences in these is essential. Therefore, this research suggests it would be prefera-ble to talk in terms of expert learners of teaching and learning rather than expert teach-ers, as this acknowledges the difference between teaching situations and the changesthat take place within them.

ReferencesBarrett, E., L. Barton, J. Furlong, C. Galvin, S. Miles, and G. Whitty. 1992. Initial teacher

education in England and Wales: A topography. London: University of LondonGoldsmiths College.

Britzman, D.P. 2003. Practice makes practice: A critical study of learning to teach. Albany:State University of New York Press.

Brooks, V. 2006. A ‘quiet revolution’? The impact of training schools on initial teachertraining partnerships. Journal of Education for Teaching 32, no. 4: 379–93.

Busher, H., and D. Blease. 2000. Growing collegial cultures in subject departments in second-ary schools: Working with science staff. School Leadership and Management 20, no. 1:99–112.

Cook, L., P. Smagorinsky, B. Konopak, and C. Moore. 2002. Problems in developing aconstructivist approach to teaching: One teacher’s transition from teacher preparation toteaching. The Elementary School Journal 102, no. 5: 389–413.

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.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Nor

th D

akot

a St

ate

Uni

vers

ity]

at 2

1:13

03

Nov

embe

r 20

14

Journal of Education for Teaching 105

Department for Education (DfE). 1992. The new requirements for initial teacher training(secondary phase). Circular No. 9/92. London: HMSO.

Department for Education and Employment (DfEE). 1999a. Teachers – meeting the challengeof change. London: HMSO.

Department for Education and Employment (DfEE). 1999b. Better training. London:HMSO.

Department of Education and Science (DES). 1984. Initial teacher training: Approval ofcourses. Circular 3/84. London: HMSO.

Douglas, A.S. 2005. An exploratory study of how Oxford University PGCE CurriculumTutors articulated their understandings of ‘internship’ in a research interview situation.MSc diss., Department of Education, University of Oxford.

Douglas, A.S. 2009. How do secondary school subject departments contribute to the learningof beginning teachers? In Knowledge, values and educational policy: A criticalperspective, ed. H. Daniels, H. Lauder, and J. Porter, 263–72. Abingdon: Routledge.

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

Ellis, V. 2010. Impoverishing experience: The problem of teacher education in England.Journal of Education for Teaching 36, no. 1: 105–20.

Engeström, Y. 1999. Innovative learning in work teams: Analyzing cycles of knowledgecreation in practice. In Perspectives on activity theory, ed. Y. Engeström, R. Miettinen,and R.L. Punamaki, 377–406. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Furlong, J. 2005. New Labour and teacher education: The end of an era. Oxford Review ofEducation 31, no. 1: 119–34.

Furlong, J., L. Barton, S. Miles, C. Whiting, and G. Whitty. 2000. Teacher education intransition: Re-forming professionalism? Buckingham: Open University Press.

Furlong, J., G. Whitty, C. Whiting, S. Miles, L. Barton, and E. Barrett. 1996. Re-definingpartnership: Revolution or reform in initial teacher education? Journal of Education forTeaching 22, no. 1: 39–55.

Galton, M. 2001. The missing foundation of teacher education. In New teacher educationfor the future: International perspectives, ed. Y. Cheong, K.W. Chow, and K.T. Tsui,69–88. Netherlands: Kluwer.

Gilroy, D.P. 1992. The political rape of initial teacher education in England and Wales: A JETrebuttal. Journal of Education for Teaching 18, no. 1: 5–22.

Hagger, H., and D. McIntyre. 2006. Learning teaching from teachers: Realizing the potentialof school-based teacher education. Maidenhead: Open University Press.

Hargreaves, A. 1994. Changing teachers, changing times. London: Cassell.Helsby, G. 1996. Defining and developing professionalism in English secondary schools.

Journal of Education for Teaching 22, no. 2: 135–48.Hodkinson, H., and P. Hodkinson. 2005. Improving schoolteachers’ workplace learning.

Research Papers in Education 20, no. 2: 109–31.Hogan, D., and S. Gopinathan. 2009. Knowledge management, sustainable innovation and

pre-service teacher education in Singapore. In Policy and politics in teacher education:International perspectives, ed. J. Furlong, M. Cochran-Smith, and M. Brennan, 107–22.London: Routledge.

Holloway, D. 2009. Reforming further education teacher training: A policy communities andpolicy networks analysis. Journal of Education for Teaching 35, no. 2: 183–96.

House of Commons. 2010. Training of teachers, fourth report of session 2009–10. London:Children, Schools and Families Committee, the Stationery Office.

Huberman, A., and M. Miles. 1994. Data management and analysis methods. In Handbook ofqualitative research, ed. N. Denzin, and Y. Lincoln, 428–44. Thousand Oaks, CA: SagePublications.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Nor

th D

akot

a St

ate

Uni

vers

ity]

at 2

1:13

03

Nov

embe

r 20

14

106 A.S. Douglas

Judge, H., M. Lemosse, L. Palne, and M. Sedlak. 1994. The university and the teachers.Wallingford, Oxfordshire: Triangle Books.

Lacey, C. 1977. The socialization of teachers. London: Methuen.Lock, R., A. Soares, and J. Foster. 2009. Mentors’ written lesson appraisals: The impact of

different mentoring regimes on the content of written lesson appraisals and the matchwith pre-service teachers’ perceptions of content. Journal of Education for Teaching 35,no. 2: 133–43.

McLaughlin, M.W., and J.E. Talbert. 2001. Professional communities and the work of highschool teaching. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Menter, I. 2009. Teachers for the future, what have we got and what do we need? In Changingteacher professionalism: International trends, challenges and ways forward, ed. S.Gewirtz, P. Mahony, I. Hextall, and A. Cribb, 157–69. London: Routledge.

Paechter, C. 1995. Subcultural retreat: Negotiating the design and technology curriculum.British Educational Research Journal 21, no. 1: 75–87.

Pitfield, M., and L. Morrison. 2009. Teachers’ experience of mentoring on a flexible initialteacher education programme: Implications for partnership development. Journal ofEducation for Teaching 35, no. 1: 19–32.

Schulz, R., and C. Hall. 2004. Difficulties in promoting inquiry in teacher education partner-ships: English and Canadian perspectives. Journal of Education for Teaching 30, no. 3:255–69.

Sfard, A. 1998. On two metaphors for learning and the dangers of choosing just one.Educational Researcher 27, no. 2: 4–13.

Siskin, L. 1997. The challenge of leadership in comprehensive high schools: Schools’ visionand departmental divisions. Educational Administration Quarterly 33: 604–23.

Smagorinsky, P., L.S. Cook, and T. Johnson. 2003. The twisting path of concept developmentin learning to teach. Teachers College Record 105, no. 8: 1399–436.

Smagorinsky, P., L.S. Cook, C. Moore, A. Jackson, and P. Fry. 2004. Tensions in learning toteach: Accommodation and the development of a teaching identity. Journal of TeacherEducation 55, no. 1: 8–24.

Smethem, L., and K. Adey. 2005. Some effects of statutory induction on the professionaldevelopment of newly qualified teachers: A comparative study of pre- and post-induction experiences. Journal of Education for Teaching 31, no. 3: 187–200.

Smith, K., and M. McLay. 2007. Curates’ eggs? Secondary trainee teachers’ experience of theGraduate Teacher Programme and the Postgraduate Certificate in Education. Journal ofEducation for Teaching 33, no. 1: 35–54.

Talbert, J.E., and M.W. McLaughlin. 1994. Teacher professionalism in local school contexts.American Journal of Education 102: 123–53.

Taylor, A. 2008. Developing understanding about learning to teach in a university–schoolspartnership in England. British Educational Research Journal 34, no. 1: 63–90.

Visscher, A., and B. Witziers. 2004. Subject departments as professional communities?British Educational Research Journal 30, no. 6: 785–99.

Vygotsky, L.S. 1978. Mind in society. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Walford, G. 2009. The practice of writing ethnographic field notes. Ethnography and

Education 4, no. 2: 117–30.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Nor

th D

akot

a St

ate

Uni

vers

ity]

at 2

1:13

03

Nov

embe

r 20

14