This article was downloaded by: [Universiteit Twente]On: 29 November 2014, At: 19:55Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registeredoffice: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK
Mentoring & Tutoring: Partnership inLearningPublication details, including instructions for authors andsubscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/cmet20
Student teachers' conceptions andevaluations of ‘theory’ in initial teachertraining (ITT)Andrew J. Hobson aa School of Education, The University of Nottingham, Nottingham,NG8 1BB, UKPublished online: 03 Jun 2010.
To cite this article: Andrew J. Hobson (2003) Student teachers' conceptions and evaluations of‘theory’ in initial teacher training (ITT), Mentoring & Tutoring: Partnership in Learning, 11:3,245-261, DOI: 10.1080/1361126032000138300
To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/1361126032000138300
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
Mentoring & Tutoring, Vol. 11, No. 3, December 2003
Student Teachers’ Conceptions andEvaluations of ‘Theory’ in Initial TeacherTraining (ITT)ANDREW J. HOBSONSchool of Education, The University of Nottingham, Nottingham, NG8 1BB, UK
ABSTRACT This article reports findings from a small-scale study of secondary studentteachers’ evaluations of one-year, postgraduate initial teacher training (ITT) programmesin England [1]. Data were collected via in-depth interviews with 16 student teachers andself-complete questionnaires completed by 224 student teachers from four training courses incentral and northern England. The findings suggest that, in line with studies conductedprior to the shift towards school-based training in the early 1990s, some student teacherstoday remain unconvinced about the utility of ‘theoretical’ components of their trainingcourses. The author examines what some student teachers mean and understand by‘theory’, suggests a three-fold typology of student teachers, relating to their approaches tolearning to teach, and considers some implications for the tutoring process in ITT.
Historical and Empirical Context
Between the 1960s and 1980s Higher Education Institutions (HEIs)—universities,colleges of education and (the then) polytechnics—were the key players in pre-ser-vice teacher training in England and Wales. Whilst some variation existed, ITTprogrammes were, on the whole, developed and run chiefly by HEIs, in whichstudent teachers were based, and schools were places where student teachers wouldgo ‘on placement’ to undertake ‘practicum’. During the same period, research (e.g.Taylor, 1969; Lomax, 1973) consistently found that student teachers valued mosthighly the school-based elements of their courses and were less appreciative of, orcritical of, the college-based and so-called ‘theoretical’ components, most famouslythe study of the academic ‘foundation disciplines’ of the sociology, psychology andhistory of education (cf. HMI, 1979).
During the 1980s and 1990s, successive British governments assumed greatercontrol of the ITT curriculum than governments had ever done before (Wilkin,1999) and placed more emphasis on school-based and ‘practical training’ (Furlong,1995). Most notably the Department for Education Circular 9/92 (DfE, 1992)outlined various ‘competences’ of teaching (relating to subject knowledge, subjectapplication, class management, assessment and further professional development)
ISSN 1361-1267 print; 1469-9745 online/03/030245–17 2003 Taylor & Francis LtdDOI: 10.1080/1361126032000138300
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
iteit
Tw
ente
] at
19:
55 2
9 N
ovem
ber
2014
246 A. J. Hobson
on which ITT courses ‘should focus’, and pronounced that secondary traineeteachers must spend a minimum of two-thirds of their training in schools. Theintroduction of the School Centred Initial Teacher Training (SCITT) scheme (DfE,1993) then made provision for consortia of schools to develop and provide their owncourses of ITT for graduates, and to buy in higher education expertise if and whenthey saw fit (Furlong & Maynard, 1995, p. 23). Such changes, initiated by Conserva-tive administrations, have been consolidated under Labour. The competence-basedapproach has been maintained—albeit with the competences refined and redefinedas ‘Standards’ (DfEE 1997, 1998), and ‘school-based’ or ‘employment-based’routes into ITT have been further encouraged, namely via the Graduate andRegistered Teacher Programmes (GRTP), which enable schools to employ teacherswho are not yet qualified and to support them through an individual trainingprogramme leading to Qualified Teacher Status (QTS).
In some respects, the shift to competence-based and school-based training meansthat student teachers are now getting what they (or their predecessors) alwayswanted, notably less time in HEIs and less ‘theory’. There is no doubt that therestructured courses now allocate little or no time to the formal study of the‘foundation disciplines’ (Beardon et al., 1995). However, the requirement that ITTproviders focus on the competences or ‘standards’ of teaching does not precludeproviders from seeking to facilitate trainees’ development of pedagogical under-standing (Tomlinson, 1995), and the fact that most ITT providers profess to basetheir courses on ‘reflective practitioner’ principles (Barrett et al., 1992; Furlong etal., 2000) suggests at least some focus on assisting student teachers to developunderstanding and intelligent awareness in relation to teaching capability (Fish,1995; cf. Schon, 1983).
Early studies of school-based ITT gave mixed messages about student teachers’evaluations of the ‘new’ courses. Some research suggests that trainees continue tovalue most highly the more ‘practical’, school-based elements of ITT programmesand are sceptical of the value of the (remaining or revamped) theoretical compo-nents. For example, on the evidence of a (1996) survey of student teachers on botha university-led Partnership scheme in England and an Institut Universitaire deFormation des Maitres (IUFM) in France [2], Asher and Malet (1999) state thattrainees:
appreciate most those elements of their courses that deal with the day-to-day practicalities of teaching rather than the principles that underpin them[and] … view with greater or less degrees of antipathy those parts of thetraining process that may be broadly termed ‘theory’. (Asher & Malet,1999, p. 80)
Similarly, Foster (1999) states that the priorities of both English (secondary,Postgraduate Certificate in Education (PGCE)) and French students in his recentstudy were that their courses would provide them ‘with a manual for survival in theclassroom’ (Foster 1999, p. 139).
Other studies suggest that student teachers are now more appreciative of theHEI-based and ‘theoretical’ elements of ITT. For example, Holligan (1997) showed
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
iteit
Tw
ente
] at
19:
55 2
9 N
ovem
ber
2014
Conceptions and Evaluations of ‘Theory’ in ITT 247
that trainees on a Primary Bachelor of Education (BEd) programme believed that‘academic studies [were] an essential component of being a professional teacher’(Holligan, 1997, p. 541), whilst Furlong et al. (2000) note that ‘learning in highereducation (what many students still referred to as “theory”) was seen by theoverwhelming majority of our respondents to have a vital role to play’ (Furlong et al.,2000, p. 132). Williams and Soares (2000) offer evidence not only of high levels oftrainee satisfaction with HEI-based work, but also of high levels of support amongsttrainees for ‘training that examines the principles behind the practice of teaching’and ‘learning about how children learn’ (Williams & Soares, 2000, pp. 15–19).
What is not clear from many of the studies reporting student teachers’ evaluationsof their pre-service training is whether different student teachers have conceptualisedthe term ‘theory’ in the same way or, more fundamentally, precisely what studentteachers mean and understand by the term. Michael Eraut (1994) defines educa-tional theory as comprising:
concepts and frameworks, ideas and principles which may be used tointerpret, explain or judge intentions, actions and experiences in educa-tional or education-related settings. (Eraut, 1994, p. 60)
He also distinguishes between public and private theories, in which the former referto ‘systems of ideas’ published in books, discussed in classes, etc., whilst the latterrefer to ideas in people’s minds that they use to interpret or explain experience, andwhich may be private versions of public theories (Eraut, 1994, p. 60).
This article attempts to shed more light on what student teachers might meanwhen they talk about ‘theory’ in ITT, in addition to the value which they attributeto such ‘theory’ in relation to learning to teach. This has important implications forthe work of ITT tutors and mentors in HEIs and schools respectively.
Method
The findings reported below are drawn from data gathered via two methods of datacollection—in-depth interviews and self-complete questionnaires conducted with/by sec-ondary PGCE students in the final few weeks of their ITT courses in 1999. Acombination of purposive and stratified sampling techniques was employed. Ini-tially, four ITT programmes (two university–school ‘Partnership’ courses and twoSCITT courses) were selected on the basis of their proximity to the research baseof the researcher/author. The four providers were located in central and northernEngland. For reasons of comparability the interview sample was drawn from traineesspecialising in the teaching of a single subject area (History) across the four trainingprogrammes. Twenty trainees were invited to participate in the end of courseinterviews (13 Partnership and 7 SCITT trainees) [3], from which 16 interviewswere successfully completed (10 Partnership, 6 SCITT; 11 female, 5 male).
Questionnaires were administered to History specialist trainees in all four trainingprogrammes and to student teachers across all (14) subject specialisms in two of theprogrammes (one Partnership and one SCITT). Student teachers involved in theinterviews were also asked to complete questionnaires for purposes of cross-method
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
iteit
Tw
ente
] at
19:
55 2
9 N
ovem
ber
2014
248 A. J. Hobson
triangulation. In total, 224 questionnaires were returned (208 from Partnershiptrainees, 16 from SCITT trainees), which represented an overall response rate of63% (62% response from Partnership trainees and 76% response from the relativelysmall SCITT sample). Of the 224 questionnaires sent out, 83 were returned by maletrainees (37%) and 141 by females (63%). Completed questionnaires were returnedby 15 of the 16 interviewees.
The specific method of interviewing employed was the ‘hierarchical focusing’interview technique (Tomlinson, 1989), a particular version of a part-structuredinterview which seeks, on the one hand, to gain in-depth accounts and to ensurecoverage of various aspects of the researcher’s agenda, and, on the other hand, toinfluence informants to the minimum extent necessary. Hierarchically focusedinterviews thus begin with a relatively general question or prompt (in this case: ‘I’dlike you to briefly describe the various components of your training course and to tellme how valuable you feel the various components have been’). Where intervieweesdo not spontaneously cover areas in which the researcher is interested, the inter-viewer gradually introduces more specific prompts to ensure that such areas arecovered (e.g. ‘Perhaps you could now talk about the university-based elements of thecourse’ or ‘How valuable, if at all, did you find such elements?’). The interviewswere conducted in an informal setting and participants were assured ofconfidentiality and anonymity. On average, they took approximately 50 minutes tocomplete.
The questionnaire posed a number of specific, fixed-response questions related tothe content of the interviews, such as their evaluations of various aspects of courseprovision, including ‘learning from trial and error in the classroom’, ‘planninglessons with a university tutor’ and ‘having school-teachers/mentors observe yourlessons and provide feedback’.
The interviews were conducted prior to the administration of the questionnairesurvey in order that the specific issues and terminology featured in the questionnairewould not influence the framing and content provided by respondents in theirinterviews.
The findings reported in this article are based upon main themes emerging froman initial inductive/grounded analysis of the 16 interview transcripts. In relation tothe generation of categories arising from such analysis, inter-rater reliability checkswere undertaken on the application of selected categories to the 16 interviewees.Questionnaire data were analysed in relation to the findings emerging from theanalysis of the interview transcripts. The questionnaire data are thus reportedselectively, primarily in order to comment on whether the conceptions and evalua-tions of the 16 History-specialist interviewees might be typical of those of therelatively larger sample of student teachers across all subject specialisms.
Findings
Student Teachers’ Criteria for Evaluating their ITT Courses [4]
The most striking feature to emerge from a grounded analysis of the interview datawas that the main criteria for trainees’ evaluations of different aspects of their
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
iteit
Tw
ente
] at
19:
55 2
9 N
ovem
ber
2014
Conceptions and Evaluations of ‘Theory’ in ITT 249
training was the perceived relevance of those aspects to classroom teaching. Of the16 interviewees, 13 gave clear indications that they evaluated the different parts oftheir courses in terms of their practical applicability to classroom teaching. Thefollowing excerpts from three of the end of course interviews illustrate the point:
Some of the stuff that they were telling us I was thinking ‘yeah it’s all verywell you teaching us this theory, yeah Vygotsky fine and Bruner yeah OK,but let’s see it in action in classes, you know can I relate that to what I’mdoing in classes? … I found it difficult to relate some of the informationinto a class environment … I didn’t see the relevance of some elements ofit. (SCITT trainee)
Some of those [Professional Studies] lectures were wonderful, some ofthem I had pages and pages of notes from that were really useful … I thinkthat probably the thing that they had most in common was actually relatingit directly to what we were going to do … in [our] main placement or …when [we] get a job … (Partnership trainee)
The Special Educational Needs [course] was much more kind of relevant… You could adapt it to a teaching situation much more readily I think.(Partnership trainee)
Student Teachers’ Preference for School-based, ‘Practical’ Components of ITT
It tends to follow, from student teachers’ criteria for evaluating their courses, thatmost interviewees valued the time they spent in schools more highly than the othercomponents of their ITT programmes. Fourteen of the 16 interviewees madestatements to this effect. School-based experiences were valued most highly becausethey tended to provide student teachers with more ‘practical’ advice and feedbackwhich could be applied to their teaching attempts. In addition, many trainees wereparticularly appreciative of their school-based experiences where they perceived theirteacher-mentors to be approachable and ‘available’ [5].
The interviewees’ preferences for the school-based and ‘practical’ components oftheir training courses were shared by the vast majority of survey respondents. Heretrainees were asked to state how valuable they found various aspects of courseprovision to their development as teachers. The percentage responses are sum-marised in Table I.
Of the 12 aspects of course provision which the student teachers were askedabout, four aspects were regarded as ‘very valuable’ by 60% or more of respondentsand all of these involved ‘practical work’ in schools: learning from trial and error inthe classroom (item a, 91%); having schoolteachers/mentors observe their lessonsand provide feedback (item i, 81%); planning lessons with a schoolteacher/mentor(item h, 62%); and watching schoolteachers teach (item d, 60%). Lower proportionsof trainees were convinced of the value of working with university tutors in the areasmentioned, whilst only 8% of respondents indicated that ‘reading books on
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
iteit
Tw
ente
] at
19:
55 2
9 N
ovem
ber
2014
250 A. J. Hobson
TABLE I. Percentage responses to questionnaire item 4: ‘How valuable did you find the followingin training to be a teacher?’
Little Quite VeryNo value value valuable valuable
a learning from trial and error in the classroom 0 0 9 91b reading books on educational theory/research 5 40 47 8c being given specific strategies for teaching different 0 4 49 47
subjects/topicsd watching schoolteachers teach 0 5 36 60e watching video materials showing and explaining 7 41 39 13
the teaching of your subjectf planning lessons with your fellow students/trainees 5 19 44 33g planning lessons with a schoolteacher/mentor 0 4 35 62h planning lessons with a university tutor 4 24 54 18i having schoolteachers/mentors observe your 0 2 17 81
lessons and give feedback afterwardsj having university tutors observe your lessons and 1 7 40 51
give feedback afterwardsk having your teaching video-recorded and then 4 25 29 42
watching/discussing this with a tutor or mentorl teaching alongside teachers or tutors and getting 0 7 38 55
their guidance and feedback
educational theory and research’ had been very valuable, with 45% stating that thiswas of little or no value to them in training to be a teacher. Deeper insights intostudent teachers’ conceptions and evaluations of course ‘theory’ were provided viathe interviews.
Student Teachers’ Conceptions and Evaluations of ‘Theory’
Of the 16 trainees who were interviewed towards the end of their ITT course, 10made unprompted references, in those interviews, to ‘theory’ or ‘theoretical work’.The following excerpts from the end of course interviews provide an illustration ofaspects of course provision that trainees classed as ‘theory’.
Work at university … the theory side [included] … talking about account-ability … looking at LEAs and governors and OFSTED. (SCITT trainee)
Professional Studies, Subject Method and Curriculum Studies [comprised]the theoretical side of things done on, if you like, a part-time basis or at theuniversity. (Partnership trainee)
The theory side of it is quite helpful … the National Curriculum …children with bad behaviour and stuff like that. (Partnership trainee)
As some of the previous and some of the following quotations indicate, intervie-wees tended to associate ‘theory’ with those aspects of their courses which wereundertaken at university in general (cf. Furlong et al., 2000) or with ‘Professional
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
iteit
Tw
ente
] at
19:
55 2
9 N
ovem
ber
2014
Conceptions and Evaluations of ‘Theory’ in ITT 251
Studies’ sessions in particular. Of the 16 interviewees, 10 made unpromptedreferences to such an association.
[T]hey [university lecturers] highlighted the theoretical side of teaching.(SCITT trainee)
If I had taken a university-based course I would have enjoyed the theoryand coped well with the academic side. (SCITT trainee)
[I]n the university you [spent] a morning and afternoon, plus anothermorning, and sometimes another afternoon, so there was quite a lot ofteaching going on there … actually quite a lot of theoretical discussionwhich I suppose is what the university is there to do. (Partnership trainee)
Whilst there was some variation in student teachers’ conceptions of ‘theory’, mostinterviewees appeared to subscribe to a fairly broad conceptualisation of ‘theory’which incorporated what Eraut (1994) referred to as ‘public’ and ‘private’ theories,but which also included ‘talking about practice’ in quite general terms. Traineestended to conceptualise course provision as comprising ‘practice’ (which involvedwork in schools, especially school classrooms, and explicit practical advice aboutwhat to do in schools/school classrooms) and ‘theory’ (pretty much all other aspectsof course provision). Applying this broad definition of theory to a further analysis ofthe interview transcripts, trainees were placed into three different categories accord-ing to their indications of the value of such ‘theory’ (inter-rater reliability 81%) [6].
• Three trainees (2 Partnership, 1 SCITT) indicated that the ‘theory’ they experi-enced on their ITT course was of no value or virtually no value to their develop-ment as teachers;
• Eleven trainees (8 Partnership, 3 SCITT) indicated that the theory was of somevalue but of less value than the more ‘practical’ aspects of course provision;
• One (Partnership) interviewee indicated that the theory was very valuable or moreor less on a par with more practical aspects.
One interviewee was judged to be ‘unclassifiable’ on this question.A cross-method triangulation exercise examined whether participants’ interview
and questionnaire responses were consistent. For each of the 15 interviewees whoreturned questionnaires there was found to be no inconsistency between theircategorisation (on the basis of their interview statements) regarding their concep-tions of the value of ‘theory’ and their response to end of course questionnaire item(4b), on the value of ‘reading books on educational theory and research’.
A comparison between the responses of the interviewees and those of non-interviewees to the same end of course questionnaire item on the value of ‘readingbooks on educational theory and research’, suggests that on this issue the inter-viewees are fairly representative of the larger group of (224) Secondary PGCEstudents across all subject areas. A total of 86% of interviewees and 87% of allnon-interviewee questionnaire respondents indicated that ‘reading books on educa-tional theory/research’ was either ‘quite valuable’ or of ‘little value’. As we saw in
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
iteit
Tw
ente
] at
19:
55 2
9 N
ovem
ber
2014
252 A. J. Hobson
Table I, only 8% of all 224 questionnaire respondents stated that this had been ‘veryvaluable’, whilst 5% indicated that it was of ‘no value’.
The questionnaire data are of limited value, however, in helping us to understandstudent teachers’ evaluations of the utility of theory. On the one hand, the itemreferred to above may tell us as much about trainees’ perceptions of reading as itdoes about their beliefs regarding the value of course theory. On the other hand, thequestionnaire data do not tell us whether or not trainees viewed course theory aspotentially relevant to the practicalities of teaching and learning. Detailed analysis ofthe interview transcripts was able to provide an answer to this question for most ofthe interviewees.
Student Teachers’ Perceptions of the Utility of Theory
An analysis of the 16 interview transcripts suggests that most interviewees could begrouped into one of three categories in relation to their approaches to learning toteach and their beliefs about the utility of course theory. These have been termed:
1. proceduralist apprentice;2. education-oriented apprentice;3. understanding-oriented learner.
Each category is described below and part-illustrated with extended quotations fromstudent teachers who fell into each category.
Proceduralist apprentice. The main or sole concern of a ‘proceduralist apprentice’is to be given procedures and strategies that s/he can use in the classroom, plus timeto practise these, together with feedback and advice on where they are ‘going wrong’and how they might ‘do it differently’. The proceduralist apprentice demonstrateslittle interest in developing a broader knowledge and understanding of the currenteducational system and practice, and little or no interest in developing an under-standing of the rationale for the teaching strategies that s/he might employ. In short,(s)he wants to know what to do in schools (especially school classrooms) but is nottoo interested in why.
I don’t think I’ve learned anything new from university from what I havelearned in school … I would say that I’m still carrying on the philosophiesand practices that I picked up in my first practice and from my mentor inthe first practice … you know just basic rules and principles about teaching.I mean manners, discipline and expect the kids to queue up outside aclassroom quietly before I let them in, stuff like that … I’m not interestedin the philosophy and the politics … Quite a lot of the [Subject Methodcourse] was a total waste of time … From my point of view it’s just … letssit here with [tutor] and watch him churn off loads of psychological OHPsabout how to approach teaching. No interest whatsoever … If you’reapproaching teaching a subject, like say the Black Death, Key Stage 3 forexample, they [tutors] should be saying ‘this is how it should be taught’ …
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
iteit
Tw
ente
] at
19:
55 2
9 N
ovem
ber
2014
Conceptions and Evaluations of ‘Theory’ in ITT 253
‘here’s some good ideas you can use to teach this topic’. But the way theydid it was too general … I stopped taking notes after the first week … Itdoes give you some background knowledge but … I stopped taking a notepad after lecture 2. I just couldn’t see the point … It’s politics, its bullshit.It’s not practical. (Partnership trainee)
Understanding-oriented learners. In contrast, ‘understanding-oriented learners’ be-lieve that it is important to learn or gain: (a) a repertoire of teaching techniques andstrategies, (b) a critical understanding of the educational system and educationalpractice, and (c) an understanding of teaching and learning, such as why certainteaching and learning strategies may or may not be appropriate in different contexts.Whilst the ‘proceduralist apprentice’ identified above showed very little interest inthe ‘theoretical’ work encountered in university, and would gladly have donewithout it altogether, the extended quotation provided below suggests that thisstudent teacher sought to actively engage with and deliberate upon different aspectsof ‘theory’, and use it (or some of it) as a means of reflecting on and seeking toimprove her/his own practice.
It’s important to understand the PGCE course as a Partnership withschools, it’s not just a thing where university tutors hand you over toschools. It really is a hand-in-glove relationship all the way through … Inthe first term [there was] quite a lot of theoretical discussion … a lot ofdiscussion about the nature of History or ‘what do we mean by differen-tiation?’ or ‘what is the National Curriculum?’ … If it wasn’t for thatpreparation or briefing that you’re given in that first term, I don’t thinkyou’d be as well-equipped to judge your practice and reflect upon it andbuild on it, if you were just in a school just sort of following practical advice… I think that main placement is inconceivable without approaching it witha certain ideological framework … I’ll try and explain that by the course-work. I particularly looked at discipline as an issue, and there was acomment made on the common course at the beginning of term which was‘discipline is a by-product of effective teaching’. It’s very inspiring and youthink you go in and prepare a great lesson, and you tell the kids it’s excitingand fantastic, and they all go ‘Yes, Sir’, and as a result they’re incrediblywell-behaved, and they think and they’re alert and occupied throughout thewhole lesson, and you’ve been effectively teaching. And your pay-off, yourreward, is this well-ordered class. And then of course you go to theseschools and you’ve first of all got to get them to sit down and listen to youbefore you can give them all the amazingly interesting stuff, so you startthinking ‘that’s all a load of rubbish isn’t it … By-product? It can’t be.’ Andyou think that discipline is your means to your end really, it’s what you doto get them sitting down and getting on with the work, and survival tactics.But at the end of it all, thinking about it and reflecting on it for this work,he’s right but not in the way I first thought, because what he’s saying is thatthe effective teacher is the teacher who piles all the good things into the
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
iteit
Tw
ente
] at
19:
55 2
9 N
ovem
ber
2014
254 A. J. Hobson
lesson, who thinks thoroughly about the nature of their class, thinksthoroughly about the tasks that they can set for that class, the dynamics ofthat class, and does produce the very best differentiated materials andunderstands the layout of the class, where to put the desks and how tostart. And what he’s talking about in it being a by-product of teaching isproviding a level of planning which you did not originally envisage, so atthe end of the day, yes, the university input has given you a way ofeffectively reflecting on that and improving your practice. So when I go toa school at the end of it, I’ve got a much better understanding of how toapproach planning for lessons … The university input has given you a wayof effectively reflecting on and improving your practice … I think that theuniversity is helpful because I can’t imagine that it’s not helpful to think ofeducation in a slightly more philosophical way—‘What is the wider con-cern? What is child psychology or motivation? Where is that coming from?’(Partnership trainee)
Education-oriented apprentice. Trainees categorised as ‘education-oriented appren-tices’ form something of a hybrid and lie between the positions of the proceduralistapprentice and the understanding-oriented learner. Like the proceduralist appren-tice, they are predominantly concerned with being given a repertoire of strategiesthat they can use in the classroom, plus the opportunity to practise these and gainfeedback, yet for various reasons they feel that they should also acquire a certainamount of ‘background knowledge’ about teaching and education. They do not,however, attach much importance to the idea of understanding teaching and learning,such as the rationale for employing particular teaching and learning strategies. Theyappear to conceptualise a clear demarcation between ‘theoretical’ and ‘practical’work and do not appear to think that it is necessary to understand the rationalebehind the ‘practice’.
The university based part of it I thought was pretty useful to start with …like teaching and telling us things about like the National Curriculum andthings like … Just the fact that you come in and not really knowing thatmuch and they basically tell you everything you need to know when you gointo your first practice. [So] the theory side of it is quite helpful … but thenagain when you actually go in there [the classroom] that hasn’t actuallytaught you how to deal with it, it’s just made you aware of certain issues.I think you learn more from your own mistakes than anything else … It’sobviously a practical-based job and so therefore the practice that I did isgoing to be far more beneficial than the theory side of it. (Partnershiptrainee)
The essential difference between education-oriented apprentices and understand-ing-oriented learners is that the former believe that it is important for studentteachers to acquire some ‘background’ or ‘theoretical’ knowledge in addition to the‘practice’, whilst the latter believe that, beyond merely serving as ‘background
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
iteit
Tw
ente
] at
19:
55 2
9 N
ovem
ber
2014
Conceptions and Evaluations of ‘Theory’ in ITT 255
knowledge’, some ‘theory’ is of value in informing their practical work in schools andin assisting them to develop their practical capability.
Having discussed the categorisations outlined and illustrated above, two indepen-dent raters analysed the interview transcripts and, where they felt it was possible,placed the 16 trainees into one of the three categories. There was initial agreementin 13 of the 16 cases (81%). After further discussion of the three interviewees onwhich there was not initial agreement, the two raters were able to agree on all 16cases. It was concluded that:
• One of the interviewees (a Partnership trainee) demonstrated a proceduralistapprentice outlook;
• Ten trainees (7 Partnership, 3 SCITT trainees) demonstrated an education-ori-ented apprentice approach;
• Three interviewees (1 Partnership, 2 SCITT trainees) indicated an understand-ing-oriented approach to their ITT.
Two interviewees (both following Partnership courses) were judged to be ‘un-classifiable’ on the basis of their interview transcripts.
‘Intrinsic’ and ‘extrinsic’ education-oriented apprentices. Whilst the ten education-ori-ented apprentices identified above all indicated that they felt that courses shouldprovide some ‘theory’ as ‘background’ or as ‘additional’ information to the morepractical advice and experience, further analysis of the interview transcripts revealedthat there were differences between these interviewees in relation to why they feltthat courses should provide such ‘background’ knowledge or information. On theone hand, most (eight of the ten) educated-oriented apprentices indicated that theyfelt that the ‘theory’ was actually intrinsically of value to them, as teachers, asillustrated in the following excerpts:
The seminars were very good as they got you to think a lot and providedinformation about the National Curriculum and citizenship, etc. (Partner-ship trainee)
I learned quite a lot from Professional Studies … I learned about howSpecial Educational Needs work … how the pastoral system in schoolswork and why it’s there and things like that that I just wouldn’t have knownotherwise. (Partnership trainee)
I think some of the Professional Studies lectures were really good …because we all needed to know the legal framework and how schools work.The Citizenship one I thought was really good … ones about sixth formeducation and the way that different courses were being run. I think that’sone thing that you can miss out in school, just going along the GCSE Alevel route and then not knowing about other routes to university, GNVQsand things like that. (Partnership trainee)
In contrast to the education-oriented apprentices referred to above, two of theinterviewees who had been placed into this category indicated that they did not feel
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
iteit
Tw
ente
] at
19:
55 2
9 N
ovem
ber
2014
256 A. J. Hobson
that the ‘theory’ was valuable in itself or valuable to them as teachers, but that it was‘necessary’ for them to have it for other, extrinsic reasons. The following exceptsfrom the end of course interviews provide an insight into the extrinsic motivationsof these particular trainees.
Professional Studies, two-hour lectures once a week … [were] intended tocover general professional issues such as funding and school structure andpolicy … Much of this seemed irrelevant to my development as a teacher.It was more of a legal necessity. (SCITT trainee)
Professional Studies I think would obviously have to be done whether youremember any of it or not. I presume it is part of the regulations that youhave to know about wider professional issues … I could have done withoutthe essays, but therefore I couldn’t pass the course … I think if I had todecide what was staying on the course and what was going ProfessionalStudies would stay on because you can relate it to the wider issues. If yougo into the staff room and someone might be talking about something and,you know, you’re not just sat there feeling like an alien thinking ‘what thedevil are they talking about?’ (Partnership trainee)
It should be pointed out that the two extrinsic education-oriented apprenticesreferred to here are the same two trainees who, along with the proceduralistapprentice quoted above, indicated that ‘theory’ had no value/virtually no value totheir development as teachers. This is entirely consistent. The two trainees did notthink that ‘theory’ was valuable to their development as teachers but thought thatthey should nevertheless be given the information, e.g. because it was a legalrequirement or in order that they wouldn’t ‘feel stupid’ in the staff-room.
Unfortunately it is not possible to tell whether the apprenticeship and understand-ing-oriented outlooks and approaches described here, as held by the interviewees,are typical or representative of those held by a larger group of student teachers,notably because the questionnaire data do not allow the depth of insight intotrainees’ conceptions that is afforded by the interviews.
Discussion
Empirical Context
In relation to student teachers’ evaluations of their school-based ITT courses, thefindings of the research study presented here concur with some recent studies (e.g.Foster, 1999; Asher & Malet, 1999) which, as reported in the background sectionabove, suggest that most student teachers continue to value the practical andschool-based elements of their courses most highly, and are less appreciative and, insome cases, critical of more ‘theoretical’ and HEI-based components of theircourses. The findings thus add a note of caution to the more optimistic conclusionsof those studies which suggest that, under the new arrangements for ITT, studentteachers are more appreciative of the ‘theoretical’ and university-based componentsof their courses (e.g. Holligan, 1997; Williams & Soares, 2000).
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
iteit
Tw
ente
] at
19:
55 2
9 N
ovem
ber
2014
Conceptions and Evaluations of ‘Theory’ in ITT 257
One possible explanation for the apparent disparities in the findings of the variousstudies is that the findings reported in some of the studies may not be representativeof all trainees on the courses from which the data were gathered. Certainly thepresent study can make no claims to representativeness or generalisability. Anotherexplanation is that the divergent findings of the different studies may reflect genuinedifferences between the outlooks of student teachers following different ITT pro-grammes, outlooks which may have been affected by trainees’ contrasting experi-ences on those programmes. There might also be general differences between theoutlooks of student teachers on postgraduate training courses and those followingundergraduate programmes, or between those taking primary as opposed to second-ary courses. It may thus be significant to note that both Asher and Malet’s (1999)study and the research of Foster (1999) were, like the research reported here, basedon the evaluations of student teachers on postgraduate, secondary programmes,whilst Holligan’s (1997) research was based on primary BEd trainees. That said, theresearch of Williams and Soares (2000), which reports the strongest support of allfor student teachers’ appreciation of ‘theoretical’ work and which appears to differmost markedly from the findings of the present study, was (like the present study)based entirely on the evaluations of secondary trainees on four postgraduate ITTprogrammes.
However, whilst Williams and Soares’ findings tell us that the vast majority oftheir survey respondents indicated that it was important to ‘learn about how childrenlearn’ and ‘examine the principles behind the practice of teaching’, what such datacannot tell us (assuming the data are valid) is why trainees thought such aspects wereimportant—for example, whether they felt it important to use such knowledge toinform or reflect on their teaching. The findings of the present study suggest that thesurvey responses of Williams and Soares’ sample are compatible with the approachesof both understanding-oriented learners and education-oriented apprentices, whereeducation-oriented apprentices also felt that trainees should gain such ‘backgroundinformation’ about teaching and education but not in order that it might inform theirclassroom practice.
The distinction, in the present study, between proceduralist apprentices andeducation-oriented apprentices, on the one hand, and understanding-orientedlearners, on the other, appears to relate to the finding, in the recent Modes ofTeacher Education (MOTE) study, that some trainees conceptualised ‘reflection’ asa kind of ‘lay activity’ in which they would discuss and share their experiences withtheir peers or teachers in school, whilst other trainees (akin to understanding-ori-ented learners) saw reflection as more of:
… a critical process, reviewing personal experience in the light of otherforms of professional knowledge [including] … principles derived frompractice; the findings of research; theoretical insights derived from the‘foundation’ disciplines, etc. (Furlong et al., 2000, p. 138)
Further research might usefully be conducted, involving a larger and morerepresentative sample of student teachers on different types of training programme,to examine: (1) whether the three categories of student teacher described in this
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
iteit
Tw
ente
] at
19:
55 2
9 N
ovem
ber
2014
258 A. J. Hobson
article provide an exhaustive account of student teacher’s conceptions of the utilityof theory in ITT; (2) the relative proportions of student teachers who fall into therespective categories; (3) how well the three-way typology of student teachersidentified in this research relates to other important distinctions, such as thosebetween ‘deep’ and ‘surface’ learning (e.g. Biggs, 1979; Entwistle, 1981).
Implications
If it might be concluded that some student teachers are completing their ITTcourses with a lack of appreciation for the theoretical components of their training,then it is seems likely that many such trainees have failed to achieve the learningoutcomes intended by many course providers. As the course handbook of one of theproviders in the present study stated:
The practical competences which all teachers need, and which schoolexperience should give, have theoretical backgrounds and some consider-ation of these is necessary to the training … There should be no apology forinsisting that the task of a teacher cannot be reduced to a set of mechanicaland unthinking actions …
Two key questions arise. Given evidence which suggests that many studentteachers may be sceptical about the potential benefits of the ‘theoretical’ compo-nents of their training when they first begin their courses (Hobson & Tomlinson, 2001),the first question concerns whether all training providers and ITT course tutors aredoing enough to challenge student teachers’ preconceptions about what learning toteach ought to involve. Whilst learners’ preconceptions are notoriously resilient andresistant to change (Zeichner & Liston, 1987; Duit, 1996; Fosnot, 1996), somestrategies for modifying the preconceptions of learners in general and studentteachers in particular have met with some success (Feiman-Nemser et al., 1987;Korthagen, 1988; Hollingsworth, 1989).
The second key question concerns whether or not it is beneficial, in the first place,for student teachers to gain an understanding of ‘theoretical’ knowledge such that itmight inform their practice. Whilst more research is needed on this question, anumber of sources of evidence suggest that embracing ‘theoretical’ knowledge whichunderpins practice is indeed beneficial to student teachers’ initial learning andsubsequent professional development. For example, research reported by Furlongand Maynard suggests that:
… although it is possible to ‘act like a teacher’ simply by following routinesand recipes established by others, becoming an effective teacher demandsa deeper understanding of the processes involved in teaching and learning.(Furlong & Maynard, 1995, p. 168)
Secondly, Holligan’s (1997) study of student teachers following a primary BEdprogramme in Scotland, found that those students who were judged to have a betterunderstanding of the HEI-taught educational studies course were also judged to bemore effective in the classroom (though we should be wary of assuming a causal
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
iteit
Tw
ente
] at
19:
55 2
9 N
ovem
ber
2014
Conceptions and Evaluations of ‘Theory’ in ITT 259
connection on such a complex issue). Finally, Bransford et al. (2000), reviewingseveral studies, note that developing a metacognitive approach to learning, includingreflecting on what worked and what did not work in the classroom, and why,increases the degree to which students are able to transfer their learning to newsettings and events.
Acknowledgements
The author would like to acknowledge the support of the Economic and SocialResearch Council (ESRC), who funded the research reported here, and would liketo thank Peter Tomlinson and Angi Malderez (University of Leeds), and AlisonKington (University of Nottingham) for comments made on an earlier version of thisarticle.
Notes
[1] The term ‘secondary’ is normally used to refer to the compulsory phase of schooling forpupils aged 11–16, although some ‘secondary’ pre-service teacher training courses alsoinclude preparation for the teaching of 16- to 18-year-olds. The terms ‘student teacher’,‘trainee teacher’ and ‘trainee’ are used interchangeably in this article.
[2] Becoming a secondary teacher in France currently involves a two-year postgraduateprogramme, the first year consisting largely of academic study, on which students must passan examination (concours), and the second consisting of a school placement. Study at theIUFM includes work on classroom management, motivation and how people learn (Foster,1999).
[3] The same 20 student teachers had completed interviews at the beginning of their ITTcourses (Hobson & Tomlinson, 2001), from an initial, target sample of 25 (18 Partnership,7 SCITT; 13 female, 12 male).
[4] An outline sketch of the course content of the ITT courses that the interviewees andquestionnaire respondents had been following is provided in the Appendix.
[5] Detailed findings relating to the same student teachers’ evaluations of their school-basedmentoring are presented in Mentoring and Tutoring, 10(1) (Hobson, 2002).
[6] This indicates that there was initial agreement between the two judges regarding theapplication of the three categories in 13 of the 16 cases. The figures provided are basedupon 100% agreement following the discussion of those cases in which there was not initialagreement.
References
ASHER, C. & MALET, R. (1999) Initial teacher training in the post-reform period: a sample ofopinion in England and France, Compare, 29(1), pp. 71–83.
BARRETT, E., BARTON, L., FURLONG, J., GALVIN, C., MILES, S. & WHITTY, G. (1992) Initial TeacherEducation in England and Wales: a topography, Modes of Teacher Education (MOTE)Project. Interim Report (London, University of London, Goldsmith College).
BEARDON, T., BOOTH, M., HARGREAVES, D. & REISS, M. (1995) School-led initial teacher training,in: T. KERRY & A. SHELTON MAYES (Eds) Issues in Mentoring (London, Open UniversityPress).
BIGGS, J. (1979) Individual differences in study processes and the quality of learning outcomes,Higher Education, 8, pp. 381–394.
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
iteit
Tw
ente
] at
19:
55 2
9 N
ovem
ber
2014
260 A. J. Hobson
BRANSFORD, J.D., BROWN, A.L. & COCKING, R.R. (2000) How People Learn: brain, mind, experi-ence, and school (Washington, National Academy Press).
DEPARTMENT FOR EDUCATION (DFE) (1992) Initial Teacher Training (Secondary Phase), Circular9/92 (London, Department for Education).
DEPARTMENT FOR EDUCATION (DFE) (1993) School Centred Initial Teacher Training (SCITT): Letterof Invitation (London, Department for Education).
DEPARTMENT FOR EDUCATION AND EMPLOYMENT (DFEE) (1997) Requirements for Courses of InitialTeacher Training, Circular 10/97 (London, Department for Education and Employment).
DEPARTMENT FOR EDUCATION AND EMPLOYMENT (DFEE) (1998) Requirements for Courses of InitialTeacher Training, Circular 4/98 (London, DfEE).
DUIT, R. (1996) Preconceptions and Misconceptions, in: E. DE CORTE & F.E. WEINERT (Eds)International Encyclopaedia of Developmental and Instructional Psychology (Oxford, Pergamon).
ENTWISTLE, N. (1981) Styles of Learning and Teaching (New York, John Wiley).ERAUT, M. (1994) Developing Professional Knowledge and Competence (London, Falmer Press).FEIMAN-NEMSER, S., WILLIAMSON MCDIARMID, G., MELNICK, S.L. & PARKER, M. (1987) Chang-
ing beginning teachers’ conceptions: a description of an introductory teacher educationcourse, paper presented at the Annual Conference of the American Educational ResearchAssociation, 20–24 April, Washington, DC.
FISH, D. (1995) Quality Learning for Student Teachers: university tutors’ educational practices(London, David Fulton).
FOSNOT, C.T. (Ed.) (1996) Constructivism: theory, perspectives and practice (New York, TeachersCollege Press).
FOSTER, R. (1999) School-based initial teacher training in England and France: trainee teachers’perspectives compared, Mentoring & Tutoring, 7(2), pp. 131–143.
FURLONG, J. (1995) Do teachers need universities?, Inaugural Lecture, 27 February, University ofSwansea, Swansea.
FURLONG, J. & MAYNARD, T. (1995) Mentoring Student Teachers: the growth of professional knowledge(London, Routledge).
FURLONG, J., BARTON, L., MILES, S. & WHITTY, C. (2000) Teacher Education in Transition:re-forming professionalism? (Buckingham, OUP).
HER MAJESTY’S INSPECTORATE (HMI) (1979) Developments in the BEd Degree Course: a study basedon fifteen institutions (London, Her Majesty’s Stationary Office).
HOBSON, A.J. (2002) Student teachers’ perceptions of school-based mentoring in initial teachertraining (ITT), Mentoring & Tutoring, 10(1), pp. 5–20.
HOBSON, A.J. & TOMLINSON, P.D. (2001) Secondary student-teachers’ preconceptions, experi-ences and evaluations of ITT—a UK study, paper presented at the British EducationalResearch Association Annual Conference 13–15 September, University of Leeds, Leeds.
HOLLIGAN, C. (1997) Theory in initial teacher education: students’ perspectives on its utility. Acase study, British Educational Research Journal, 23(4), pp. 533–551.
HOLLINGSWORTH, S. (1989) Prior beliefs and cognitive change in learning to teach, AmericanEducational Research Journal, 26(2), pp. 160–189.
KORTHAGEN, F.A.J. (1988) The influence of learning orientations on the development of reflectiveteaching, in: J. CALDERHEAD (Ed.) Teacher’s Professional Learning (London, Falmer Press).
LOMAX, D.E. (Ed.) (1973) The Education of Teachers in Britain (London, John Wiley).SCHON, D. (1983) The Reflective Practitioner (New York, Basic Books).SHULMAN, L.S. (1986) Those who understand: knowledge growth in education, Educational
Researcher, 15(2), pp. 4–14.TAYLOR, W. (1969) Society and the Education of Teachers (London, Faber and Faber).TOMLINSON, P.D. (1989) Having it both ways: hierarchical focusing as research interview method,
British Educational Research Journal, 15(2), pp. 155–176.TOMLINSON, P.D. (1995) Understanding Mentoring: reflective strategies for school-based teacher
preparation (Buckingham, Open University Press).
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
iteit
Tw
ente
] at
19:
55 2
9 N
ovem
ber
2014
Conceptions and Evaluations of ‘Theory’ in ITT 261
WILKIN, M. (1999) The Role of Higher Education in Initial Teacher Education, UCET OccasionalPaper No. 12 (London, Universities Council for the Education of Teachers).
WILLIAMS, A. & SOARES, A. (2000) The Power of Partnership: a study of the role of higher educationin secondary postgraduate initial teacher training (London, Association of Teachers andLecturers).
ZEICHNER, K. & LISTON, D. (1987) Teaching student teachers to reflect, Harvard EducationalReview, 57(1), pp. 23–48.
Appendix: ITT course content
An analysis of course literature, reinforced by data gathered via the interviews, revealed that allfour courses which the research participants were following (whether school–university Partner-ship programmes or school-centred programmes) shared a broadly similar format comprisingthree main, inter-related elements:
1. School-based experience, in which trainees tended to work closely with assigned ‘teacher-tutors’or ‘mentors’, who were responsible for the provision and facilitation of a suitable programmeof classroom experience, for observing, reviewing and evaluating the work of students andproviding feedback, for assessing trainees’ acquisition of competences, and for counselling andtarget-setting.
2. Subject method courses, in which groups of trainees worked with subject specialists (universitytutors on Partnership courses and school teachers on SCITT courses), who were broadlycharged with assisting trainees to develop their subject matter knowledge and ‘subjectpedagogical knowledge’—‘ways of representing and formulating the subject that make itcomprehensible to others’ (Shulman, 1986, p. 9).
3. Professional studies lectures and/or follow-up seminars, which covered topics such as thedevelopment of comprehensive schools, the National Curriculum, promoting positive behav-iour in schools and teaching children with learning difficulties. These courses were deliveredpredominantly either by university tutors (on Partnership courses and on one of the twoSCITT programmes, which specifically ‘bought in’ the services of a local university for thispurpose) or by schoolteachers, with a small number delivered by visiting speakers, such as localheadteachers.
All of the courses made attempts, to varying degrees, to link the content of the three elementsoutlined above. For example, one of the Partnership courses assigned trainees to ‘Link Tutors’,who were responsible for relating the content of Professional Studies lectures to work beingundertaken in schools.
The course literature suggested that each of the four programmes aimed to equip studentteachers not merely with ‘the practical competences’ of teaching but also with a correspondingunderstanding of teaching and learning, with the necessary ‘theoretical background’ and with theability to reflect on their teaching. That said, each of the four programmes appeared to provideonly a limited amount of what Eraut (1994) termed ‘public theory’, such as consideration of howpeople learn. Perhaps surprisingly, such aspects appeared to be covered most comprehensively byone of the SCITT programmes, which devoted a number of Professional Studies sessions tocoverage of Vygotskian, Brunerian and Piagetian theory.
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
iteit
Tw
ente
] at
19:
55 2
9 N
ovem
ber
2014
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
iteit
Tw
ente
] at
19:
55 2
9 N
ovem
ber
2014
Recommended
