Developing knowledge for teaching and skills

Evidence presented and discussed in sections 5.6.1 and 5.6.2 on pages 138 and 139 showed that the CA model enabled both the mentors and the trainees in CS2 to work collaboratively and develop one another’s expertise. Collaboration enabled the mentors and the trainees to take up the role of MKO whilst jointly reflecting on their teaching and their language skills. As the mastery of linguistic and teaching skills developed, the support provided by the MKO gradually faded away thus allowing the mentors and trainees to be engaged in a process of inquiry as a tool for professional development. In CS2, CA fostered creativity, imagination and experience to transform teaching whilst moving trainees and mentors from supported legitimate peripheral participation towards a more central and independent participation in a community of learning. The experience in CS2 portrayed the features of an expansive learning environment, which according to Hodkinson & Hodkinson (2005, p.68) presents ‘a wide-ranging and diverse opportunities to learn in a culture that values and supports learning’, including an authentic learning context and participant activity, the enactment of different roles and individual and collective reflection.

Following the views of Lave & Wenger (1991), Jaworski (2006) and Arnseth (2008) as discussed in chapter two, trainees in CS2 developed their membership of a community of learning (the school) by engaging in a process of critical inquiry and collaborating with the other members (the mentors and the pupils), which resulted in ‘learning-to-develop learning’ (Jaworski 2006, p.191).

On the other hand, the trainees in CS3 followed a model of restricted apprenticeship, discussed in section 6.4.1 on page 159, where three processes were clearly identified: (a) observing the MKO, (b) imitating the MKO’s practice and (c) reflecting on own teaching to identify targets to reproduce the MKO expertise. The mentors (the MKO) modelled both teaching skills and subject knowledge and the training programme followed a sequential syllabus, ranging from lesson observations to team teaching, eventually leading to an independent management of teaching and learning in the classroom. Reflection was mostly prompted by the mentors who encouraged the development of teaching expertise. The learning environment in CS3 was highly controlled by the mentor and the training programme was normally planned in a sequence ranging from the acquisition of basic to more complex teaching skills. This approach was fragmented and appeared disconnected from the reality of the classroom as the developing

175

teaching expertise did not take into account the multiple intricate situations arising from the diverse nature of interactions in the learning environment, which in CS2 were part of the training curriculum. The expectations in CS3 contrasted very clearly with those in CS2 as the trainees were required to imitate mentors’ performance with an emphasis on reproducing their practice rather than developing their own.

The restricted apprenticeship model in CS3 relates to Harrison & McKeon’s (2008) argument. They argue that a mentor-led training is characterised by a paucity of role model or modelling of required practices, reliance on trial and error learning without any attempts to interrogate practice, a lack of personal vision, low personal confidence and competence and a dependency on institutional objects for the acquisition of professional content knowledge.

The training model in CS3 resembled a more traditional apprenticeship where what the trainees learned was external to them with very limited opportunities to access and be able to learn the internal mental processes of the mentors (the experts). Consequently, tacit knowledge, or the

thinking of experts, as indicated by Collins et al (1991), was not made clear to the trainees, who

were regarded as the novices. Both roles -those of expert and novice- remained consistent throughout the study as neither the trainees nor the mentors moved away from the peripheral participation. Wenger (1991) argues that in the move towards full participation in tasks members of a community change their identity, which is a process in permanent construction. The table below offers a summary of the discussion.

176

Table 28 A comparison of outcomes between case study two and case study three Areas Strategy-based approach

Case Study Two (CS2)

Presentation, Practice, Production Case Study Three (CS3) Training

approaches

Cognitive apprenticeship.

Collaborative model where trainees and mentors engaged in the development of skills in a holistic manner transforming learning and teaching.

Mentors and trainees alternated roles of MKO and both were seen as learners by one another.

Focus on inquiry by becoming engaged in reflection-in-action where tacit knowledge (PCK) was articulated in words, discussed and shared. This promoted reflection and inquiry which was incorporated into the practice of the community.

Intricacies of classroom interactions were part of the workplace curriculum.

Traditional apprenticeship.

Restricted model where the mentor is the expert. Trainees observed mentors and reproduced practice by developing a sequenced set of skills.

Acquisition of teaching skills was regulated by the mentor.

Mentors were seen as the expert practitioners who the trainees had to imitate. The aim was to acquire the mentors’ expertise and the focus of reflection was on the mentors’ practice.

Emphasised the fragmentation of professional practice by breaking it down into isolated skills without taking into account the complexities of teaching and learning.

Learning setting Encouraged cultural and linguistic knowledge with pupils and members of staff actively engaged in supporting one another.

Pupils’ non-attendance and low level class disruption interfered with teaching and learning.

L2 teaching and learning aims

Identification and use of L1 strategies to learn an L2 using talk partners.

Production of L2 based on accurate pronunciation and grammatical accuracy.

Advantages

Developed L2 subject knowledge and increased teaching confidence. Developed pupils’ autonomy and kept them on task and engaged.

Focus on collaborative learning through the use of talk partners. Encouraged learning inquiry and individual and social cognition.

Provided a clear framework for planning and teaching.

Developed pupils’ four language skills consistently.

Focus on transmission of knowledge and pre-planned incidents and outcomes.

Disadvantages

Placed high cognitive demands on pupils. Reliance on the same partner for learning.

Limited pupils’ interest in L2. Formulaic use of L2.

Repetitive tasks leading to pupils being disengaged.

177 Learning

Outcomes

Developed reading skills quicker than listening and writing skills.

Speaking skills were the least developed.

Speaking was the most developed skill. More pupils achieved better in reading, listening and writing skills.