My personal narrative writing (Appendix A) presents a view of my subject knowledge development from early formative experiences, through teacher training and into my first year of teaching. However, I am aware that this writing offers just a fraction of the many stories I could have told and that the narrative I have presented may serve multiple purposes. These include my pleasure in recalling specific memories woven into a coherent narrative with its own timeline, and the telling of a story which illustrates my understanding of subject development. It is also a way of letting the past speak to the present to energise my thinking by making connections which generate new ideas. However, my reading is beginning to challenge the notion that these connections are simple and straightforward. I am increasingly aware that interpretive methods of analysis may actually limit and constrain by attempting to fix meaning rather than explore ambiguity. Richardson (2008:477) explores the ‘blurred genres’ of ethnographic research, combining creative and analytic approaches which ‘invite people in and open spaces for thinking’ allowing them to explore the uncertainties of the social world. The texts that I and the research participants have created are both complex and ambiguous. I am aware that they can also be analysed in ways that reveal what Richardson and St.Pierre (2005:961) describe as the ‘competing discourses’, so that language itself becomes ‘a site of exploration and struggle’. This thinking is further explored in Chapter 3.
As I consider my writing in Appendix A, I realise that I offer a strong sense of my subject knowledge development as part of a ‘community of practice’ (Lave and Wenger, 1991) that was socially as well as professionally motivated. My writing also reveals the levels of support I received as a beginning teacher and the variety of support networks that were available to me. Whilst some of these networks were formalised, there is also a sense of the individual route that my learning took. Smith (2001:74) explores the possibility that the development of subject knowledge is:
71
… highly dependent on the social relationships found in the field of ITE and the dispositions of student teachers and their mentors to use such relations to access subject knowledge.
Burn, Childs and McNicholl (2007) draw on Hodkinson and Hodkinson’s (2005) concept of an ‘expansive learning environment’ in identifying factors within a department that combine to promote the effective development of subject-specific pedagogical knowledge. This point then raises the question of how subject knowledge development is articulated by student teachers, their subject mentors and university tutors and whether this is something that can be planned for or whether in fact, this learning is ‘unplanned and serendipitous [without] preset objectives or easily identifiable outcomes’ (Hodkinson and Hodkinson, 2005:122).
To a certain extent the content of the subject, English, in state schools in England, has been prescribed since 1988 through the national curriculum. Furthermore, the micro-management of pedagogical approaches through government initiatives, reinforced through inspections, has been a feature of secondary English departments since 2001. Alongside this has been a government emphasis on teachers’ subject knowledge which has focused on content knowledge as a fixed commodity, ‘having physical presence and volume’ (Ellis, 2007:450). Thus it could be argued that English teachers’ subject knowledge has been defined through the texts and authors and grammatical terminology listed in the national curriculum (Gordon, 2012). Certainly, the Carter Review of Initial Teacher Training (DfE, 2015:26) stresses that subject knowledge development should be ‘sharply focused’ on the content knowledge of the national curriculum and exam syllabi, and recommends that it ‘should be addressed systematically, through a process of auditing and tracking with specific on-going input to address subject knowledge gaps’. The discourse surrounding this approach is one that suggests that knowledge is conceived as ‘some third thing – to be grasped, held, stored, manipulated and wielded’ (Davis and Sumara, 1997 cited in Ellis, 2009:10). In this discourse, knowledge is fixed and separate from the individual and the context in which learning takes place. As it remains stable and the same for everyone, it can
72
be audited, and because the precise type and amount of knowledge have been prescribed, gaps can be identified to be remedied.
Poulson (2001) has identified this approach as a deficit model of teacher subject knowledge development, a point supported by Evans, Hawksley, Holland and Caillau (2008). This sense of deficit comes from what Ellis (2007:450) terms ‘Objectivism – or what we might call the knowledge-as-thing problem’. It offers the idea that teacher subject knowledge can be compartmentalized, quantifiable and therefore assessable. As Edwards, Gilroy and Hartley (2002 cited in Ellis, 2009:9) note:
The very question ‘What is teacher knowledge?’ presupposes an answer that will provide some sort of objective list of knowledge … Such a knowledge-base would be objective in that it was unchanging, a source of certainty, providing a firm foundation for clear-cut unconditional statement about teacher knowledge and the justification for a single and unchanging national curriculum for teacher education.
This view of teachers’ subject knowledge development is contested strongly by Hodkinson and Hodkinson (2005) but is evidenced, for example, in Teaching Standards in the countries of the UK (DfE, 2011d; GTC Scotland, 2015; DfES Wales, 2011), Australia (AITSL, 2011) and New Zealand (EC New Zealand, 2017). Not all countries have adopted national teaching standards but where they have, the standards become a method of assessment by which knowledge for teaching is judged.
The largely vague wording of such standards masks the underlying difficulty of defining knowledge in this way. For example, in demonstrating good subject and curriculum knowledge, what is meant by ‘good’ and secure? How much knowledge is enough knowledge (Gordon, 2012:378)? The use of imperatives in such documentation: know, acquire, learn, demonstrate, and so on, reinforces the
73
dominant discourse around teacher subject knowledge, in particular that knowledge is available and out there to acquire; once it is gained, it is located within the individual and can be clearly seen. Britzman (1991:227-230) makes the point that, in this discourse, the teacher is seen as the expert and all learning depends on the teacher having ‘enough’ essential knowledge to teach successfully.
The assumption that an outstanding graduate will make an outstanding teacher provides a further view of knowledge as acquisition (Hodkinson and Hodkinson, 2005). This assumption is strengthened by the fact that bursaries across all the routes into Initial Teacher Training are currently allocated to beginning teachers on the basis of their degree classification (NCTL, 2017). However, the correlation between what a teacher knows and the way they apply that knowledge in the classroom is not straightforward (Grossman, Wilson and Shulman, 1989; Britzman, 1991; Poulson, 2001; Banks, Leach and Moon, 2005; Green, 2006; Stevens et al., 2006; Ellis, 2007; Gordon, 2012). Nor does an initial subject degree provide the breadth of subject knowledge for teaching (Blake and Shortis, 2012; Carter, 2015).
There have been many attempts to delineate and define the complexity of teachers’ subject knowledge and to identify the component parts to understand the way they interact to create subject-specific pedagogical knowledge for teaching (Burn, Childs, McNicholl, 2007). Gordon (2012) provides a good overview of the literature in the field. Many of the studies use Shulman’s (1987) work on the seven categories of knowledge as their starting point: content; general pedagogical knowledge; curriculum; pedagogical content; learners and their characteristics; educational contexts; educational ends, purposes and values. Green (2006:118) goes on to cite a model by Grossman et al. (1989) which is more complex and analytical in its reflexive positioning of the teacher in relation to different aspects of subject knowledge, encompassing: content knowledge; substantive knowledge(s); syntactic knowledge; beliefs about subject matter.
Gordon (2012:378) notes that all the studies suggest that ‘understanding the complexities of teaching extends beyond observation of expert practice’ and there
74
needs to be a synthesis of what is being observed and how this fits into the student teacher’s knowledge base and their knowledge of context. This counters ideas of teaching as craft, which is learnt through apprenticeship.
Grossman et al. (1989) point to studies which have identified how teachers ‘interweave their prior knowledge of subjects with immediate knowledge of classroom realities to provide “action-relevant” knowledge’ (Grossman et al., 1989:26, citing Calderhead and Miller, 1985) so that their initial subject knowledge per se is enriched by knowledge of student, curriculum and teaching context. This idea that teachers’ subject knowledge needs to be transformed into pedagogical subject knowledge is picked up by Stevens et al. (2006) and by Green (2006:113) who refers to the ‘fundamental issue that scholarship and pedagogy must interact’, recognising that ‘any academic discipline functions around an essentially dichotomous, dialogic structure’. He cites Dewey’s (1903) words:
Every study or subject thus has two aspects: one for the scientist as a scientist; the other for the teacher as a teacher. These two aspects are in no sense opposed or conflicting. But neither are they immediately identical (Dewey, 1903 cited in Green, 2006:114).
Green, (Ibid.) goes on to comment:
The teacher and the learner are frequently in obverse relationships with the subject they share: their knowledges and experiences of the subject are connected but functionally differentiated. It is through effective pedagogic practice that the two knowledges come together to enable new learning for both teacher and student.
Banks, Leach and Moon (2005) and Ellis (2007) both produce models of subject knowledge development which explore a process of learning that is dynamic and
75
situated. Banks, Leach and Moon (2005:336) discuss the differences between subject knowledge, school knowledge and pedagogy and see the interaction between the three as a dynamic interplay:
A teacher’s subject knowledge is transformed by his or her own pedagogy in practice and by the resources which form part of his or her school knowledge. It is the active interaction of subject knowledge, school knowledge and pedagogical understanding and experience that brings teacher professional knowledge into being.
Providing the lynchpin for this interplay and informing the process are the ‘personal subject constructs’ (Ibid.) of the teacher. They are critical of Shulman’s work and contest the notion that professional knowledge is ‘a static body of knowledge, lodged in the teacher’s mind’ (Banks, Leach and Moon, 2005:333), creating a teacher-centred pedagogy which focuses on skills and knowledge the teacher has, rather than on the process of learning. However, their focus on the three elements of knowledge which combine to create professional knowledge, still distinguishes between the types of knowledge, suggesting that they can be defined and categorised. They draw on the work of Verret (1975) and Chevellard (1991) to provide an exploration of the differences between ‘school English’ and the subject as a discipline, which they define as ‘subject knowledge’. Their model of English teachers’ professional knowledge would certainly suggest clear distinctions between English studied as an academic discipline and English as a school subject.
Leach (2000) is also struck by the fact that student teachers rarely connect their study of English as an academic subject with their practice as English teachers. So, for example, although most will have encountered literary theory to a greater or lesser extent in their degree, they do not necessarily draw on this knowledge in developing their own understanding of English as a school subject. Instead, they revert initially to a view of English inculcated through their own experience of being taught GCSE or A level. Leach’s (2000) conclusions are that this narrow and rather
76
traditional view of English, which is often literature-based, is not challenged as student teachers progress through their placements, as English departments have little time or inclination to re-examine or re-position their own thinking in the face of constant pressure to perform for league tables and Ofsted inspections. Thus a narrow and potentially reductive view of English might be perpetuated unintentionally by the practitioners themselves.
This potential lack of challenge raises a number of interesting issues. Hodkinson and Hodkinson (2005) recognise the centrality of the mentor–student teacher dialogue in developing subject knowledge and McNamara (1995:59) identifies that the most important factor ‘is the quality and suitability of the advice and support that students receive and their capacity to reflect on it and incorporate it in their own teaching’. Smith (2001:74) concurs with this point and goes on to add that, ‘knowledge about subject knowledge acquisition may be distinct from or complementary to, subject knowledge for teaching itself’. Maynard and Furlong (1995) found that teachers did not necessarily make connections between their classroom teaching and planning, and key ideas within their subject. Evans et al. (2008:17) noted that many of the Subject Mentors questioned in their sample found it difficult to articulate the ways in which supervising a student teacher had developed their own subject and pedagogic knowledge or to articulate the ways in which they had drawn on Continuing Professional Development (CPD) to develop this aspect of their practice. However, Turner-Bissett (2001) whilst recognising contextual factors that might prevent this happening, assumes that ‘expert’ teachers should be explicit in their thinking and planning. Hodkinson and Hodkinson (2005:115) explored this aspect of teachers’ learning, recognising that individual learning is a by-product of everyday interaction in the classroom, where teachers are ‘constantly adjusting and modifying their practice, in response to actions, reactions, interactions and activities in the classroom, and in anticipation of approaching situations’. They cite Beckett and Hager (2002) who refer to this type of learning as ‘embodied judgement making’, moving beyond reflection to draw on the immediacy and emotion of the situation as well as reasoned response. In Hodkinson and Hodkinson’s (2005) study, teachers found it difficult to describe
77
this learning, supporting Smith’s (2001) findings and suggesting that Turner-Bisset’s (2001) view leans more to a view of knowledge that is quantifiable and commodified.
In the light of this, how easy might it be for subject mentors working with student teachers to be explicit in their thinking and planning when they are discussing subject knowledge? Gordon (2012:387) found evidence that mentors were able to share their planning process with student teachers to provide insight into the ‘dynamic nature of subject knowledge’. However, Lock, Soares and Foster (2009), working with a group of Science student teachers and their mentors, identified that written lesson feedback often concentrated on classroom management issues and provided little indication of ways of developing subject specific pedagogy. This persisted even when mentors had been asked to write specifically about subject development.
In 2007, Ofsted published a report into Employment-Based Routes into Teaching (Graduate Training Programme) 2003-06. In its key findings, it noted that:
… school-based trainers frequently have insufficient time to fulfil the demanding subject training responsibilities they are expected to shoulder. Trainees often take steps to remedy the gaps in their training and this contributes positively to the standards they achieve (Ofsted, 2007:4).
The point about lack of time is echoed by Hodkinson and Hodkinson (2005:125) and they raise a further point, supported by Smith (2001) about the impact of individual dispositions and past experiences on teacher subject knowledge development, which might mean that individual student teachers might not necessarily remedy gaps.
However, a central plank of the government reforms to Teacher Training in England (DfE, 2011a) is the premise that teachers are better trained in schools rather than
78
universities and the intention that a greater number of student teachers will be training for longer periods in schools following more school-based routes. The issue here is how far mentors in schools feel supported and prepared to develop their student teachers’ subject knowledge?
The Carter Review of Initial Teacher Training (DfE, 2015) makes no recommendation about which is the most effective route into teaching but does put the development of subject knowledge and more effective mentoring, at the heart of its findings. There is recognition that ‘the resource allocated to mentoring should reflect the importance of the role’ (DfE, 2015:59). Clearly, much depends on the opportunities presented by the school learning environments (Smith, 2001; Burn, Childs and McNicholl, 2005; Hodkinson and Hodkinson, 2005; Stevens et al., 2006).
Ellis (2007) makes the point that the emphasis on subject knowledge as a given (and usually gained through a university degree), which needs to be transformed in practice into subject knowledge for teaching, has provided weight to arguments by those who seek to remove teacher training from universities and locate it solely in schools. He also argues that the emphasis on pedagogical knowledge for teaching has drawn attention away from the more complex issues of how teachers develop their subject knowledge.
Hodkinson and Hodkinson (2005) have explored this process through their work on expansive and restrictive learning environments. Their study showed that how teachers learn can be varied and complex and at times, as Burn et al. (2007) also discovered, unpredictable. They recognised the importance of the individual and how professional identity is forged within the collaborative culture of the school and department. Their findings are interesting in that whilst they identify the importance of collaborative, communities of practice (Lave and Wenger, 1991) they place equal importance on the learning practices of the individual, recognising that each individual will respond differently to the same opportunities and
79
circumstances. They note that this is ‘antithetical to dominant views of learning as acquisition within the audit culture’ (Hodkinson and Hodkinson, 2005:123).
Such thinking is also explored by Davis and Sumara (2000:824) who present a ‘nested’ approach to knowledge development drawing on the concepts of fractal geometry. They note that learning is complex, tends not to happen in straight lines and so is difficult to represent within graphs and grids. They argue that the images, metaphors and visual referents that guide curriculum planning, belong to the geometry of Euclid whose formal, logical arguments are entrenched in academic thinking and how we represent learning:
So dominant is this geometry that the unruly and organic are often surprising and even unwelcome. What tend to be preferable are narratives of control, predictability and efficiency such as is demanded by Plato’s logic and embodied in Euclid’s images.
Their ideas explore not just the recursive nature of learning but its inter- relatedness and rejection of boundaries. They note that the thinking that underpins fractal geometry is ‘not a renewed effort to colonize the disorderly, but an appreciation of the universe as complex, ever-unfolding, self-transcending, and relational’ (Davis and Sumara, 2000:827).
80
Figure 4: ‘A visual interpretation of the nestedness of bodies (and the discourses that address these bodies). The image is intended to highlight the self-similarity of the complex evolutionary dynamics at play across the levels and the scale independence of the forms that emerge at each level’ (Davis and Sumara, 2000:838).
Ellis (2007; 2009) draws on the ideas of Davis and Sumara (2000), Lave and Wenger (1991) and Hodkinson and Hodkinson’s (2005) work on expansive learning, to reconceptualise the process of student teachers’ subject knowledge development and propose a model that is fluid, dynamic and contextually situated. In this model the three dimensions: ‘culture, practice and agents are mutually constitutive and interdependent and knowledge is seen as potentially emergent in the relationships between them’. Thus, subject knowledge is created and shaped collectively and individually according to setting so that knowledge is not fixed but part of a ‘dynamic process of change arising out of competing claims and contestation originating fundamentally out of practices in multiple settings’ (Ellis, 2007:457).
Drawing on Lave and Wenger’s (1991) ideas of legitimate peripheral participation, the beginning teacher draws on communal knowledge but also shapes that knowledge through a process of ‘creative displacement of usual practices and the
81
development of new knowledge’ (Ellis, 2007:458). In this way a sense of professional identity is formulated that is in itself not stable or fixed but subject to