Developing a meta-pedagogy

The analysis of data has revealed the incongruity of first order (school) habitus in a second order (university) field. The differences – as well as similarities – in perceptions, and the emphasis placed upon component parts of the participants’ meta-pedagogy, were revealed in Table 2 (pp 127-8). These correlate with the length of time each had spent as teacher educator, reflecting the individual reaction to the disjunctures experienced between (old) habitus and (new) field. This is represented by the innermost circle of Figure 3 (p130). Whilst the reaction to these disjunctures initially may be to fall back on successful practices in the former field, and the (implicit) modelling of these, in time they appeared to prompt a move towards new practice, to a greater or lesser extent. In the case of the most experienced teacher educator, this also appeared to be based on epistemic theory. As acknowledged in the second ring of Figure 3, the values and beliefs underpinning the habitus of teacher educators may have their basis in first order practice, but a recognition of the distinct nature of second order practice opens up possibilities for development of habitus in the new field.

With respect to the data provided by Julie and Steve, and explored in Sections 5.3 - 5.5, the notion of teacher educators recycling their own experiences, practices and habitus for the next generation of teachers is represented in Figure 4, where each of the aspects discussed above legitimises and supports each of the others, and creates a self-perpetuating circle of meta-pedagogical practice.

Figure 4. The potential ‘vicious cycle’ of the privileging of practice

practical wisdom

practitioner culture 'cloning' as

The data provided by Bill – and, to a certain extent, Rachel – suggests that the inevitability of this cycle, with nothing to disrupt it, is potentially broken only by the introduction of new epistemic knowledge – through external sources and/or by framing and reframing one’s own practice, as represented in Figure 5 (below).

Figure 5. Disrupting the cycle

This fracturing would allow for opening the ways to other discourses, which may in turn enable the development of distinct habitus and pedagogical practice for ITE, based on a combination of phronesis and epistemic conceptions of what teaching and learning to teach actually means. This would resonate with Cheng et al’s (2012) reference to “teachers making of personal interpretations of theoretical knowledge” (p782), but here with regard to teacher educators. Similarly, the interim report from BERA (2014) also suggests that teachers should “interrogate their own practice in light of evidence from wider research, as well as drawing on new ideas for inspiration and looking to adapt them to their own settings and context” (p20). However, Bullock’s (2009) exhortation to teacher educators to conduct “careful inquiry into one’s own practice, predicated on the understanding that teaching is a discipline” (p291) lacks the sense of this being a shared enterprise, suggested only by the final word in the sentence. A ‘discipline’ implies a community of practice, and shared understandings, which currently ‘teaching’ does not have, although Cameron & Baker (2004) refer to the possibility of “rethinking the relation between teaching and research in ways that might allow the emergence of a legitimate scholarship of teaching”, which could involve “the development of educationally defensible understandings of the relationship between disciplinary knowledge, pedagogical knowledge, and knowledge of teaching” (p101). All of this points to a view of learning teaching which goes far beyond the current governmental emphasis on “the craft of the classroom” (Wilshaw 2014:4), which could be equated to a “simplified view of teaching…, similar to other craft occupations such as pottery or blacksmithing” (BERA 2014:20).

practical wisdom practitioner culture theory 'cloning' as default approach

In the spirit of Popper (1972, cited in Grudnoff & Tuck 2005:9), who concludes “that our dearly held theories, including those about learning and teaching, are best regarded as conjectures”, these personal theories would need to be ‘tested and re-tested’ in order to be able to move forward. This would apply to teacher educators as well as student teachers, who are expected to become critically reflective practitioners by drawing on wider research and personal evidence, “rather than simply engaging in ‘reflective practice’ on the basis of their own subjective perceptions and personal experience” (McIntyre 1993, cited in BERA 2014:24). The reference earlier in this report to “compelling reasons for…teacher educators to draw on research findings to inform and update their professional knowledge” (p21) must surely also apply to their pedagogical practice within their second order habitus. As Loughran (2006) observes:

In endeavouring to better understand teaching about teaching, it seems inevitable that a concentration on practice must continually resurface, first and foremost, through a focus on our own teaching. (p82)

This focus needs to be related to the new context; in this way, the cycle becomes instead a reflective learning spiral, allowing teacher educators to move on beyond the habitus and practical wisdom gained as teachers, and to reflect upon it with a new perspective. This is represented in Figure 6; however, in terms of developing knowledge and practice, the curve would ideally move in a continuously increasing distance from the centre point.

Figure 6. A reflective learning spiral for teacher educators (adapted from Belfiore 1996)

In Bourdieusian terms, the self-questioning brought about by engagement in the new field, and the subsequent disjunctures in habitus they will have experienced, are an important part of developing the new identity (see Figure 3, p130). Whilst three of the participants (Rachel, Julie and Steve) referred to

the impact of their community of practice on the development of their habitus and pedagogical practice, it is not known to what extent these colleagues’ practice was based on epistemic theory or phronesis – and therefore if the effect of fossilisation of practice may have been compounded. The possibility that whole communities of practice in universities may be stifling – rather than supporting and encouraging – the development of meta-pedagogical practice is a discomforting thought, but one that could be considered in further research. Whilst Husbands (2011) suggests that, in the current shift towards more school-based ITE, schools alone are not “able to explore the research base, synthesise the research evidence and cull the insights on which changing practices depend” (p9), this study raises the uncomfortable question of whether university-based teacher educators are applying this even to their own pedagogical practice. This is particularly apposite in light of Noble-Rogers’ (2012, cited in Tamvakis 2014:11) suggestion that “(e)ntirely school-based training risks replication of established orthodoxies and institutional conservatism” (my emphasis). Although this observation from Taylor (2008) also refers to school communities, and school-based ITE, it could be applied to faculties of education:

While communities of practice succeed if they have the ability to continue to reproduce themselves by passing on skills and knowledge to the next generation, it is through contradictions that we generate learning. (p66)

It would appear that Bill may have actively sought out these contradictions. His engagement with the literature specifically regarding ITE, and with epistemic theory, appeared to have enabled him to develop his habitus and pedagogical practice in the field of ITE as distinct from that as a school teacher. In this, he appeared to have experienced a similar ‘journey’ to Bullock (2009) in developing practice as a teacher educator, who describes it thus: “Context matters because it shapes our perceptual knowledge – our phronesis….My epistemic knowledge was created as a result of an inquiry into the nature of my own practice” (p302). However, although this may have increased Bill’s individual cultural capital, without engaging in ‘collective knowledge construction’ (Loughran 2006), the impact on the body of teacher educators would be minimal.

The marked differences between the participants’ pedagogical practice, as represented in the outermost ring of Figure 3 (p130), appeared to have been caused by whether or not they had thought through the question of how student teachers learn to teach, and how they may (or may not) translate ‘theory’ into practice in the classroom. Whilst the first of these may seem to be a very basic requirement for the teacher educator’s developing professional knowledge and understanding, there appear to be contradictory messages regarding this, based on some misguided notions and limited evidence. As Bronkhorst et al (2011) comment, “there is little attention to teaching student teachers about learning to teach” within the literature, and they suggest that a variety of issues need to be addressed in ITE, “starting with what actually constitutes learning in learning to teach” (p1128). This deceptively simple notion is paramount to developing shared understandings of a pedagogy of ITE.

5.7 Chapter conclusion

In this chapter, it has been argued that the wealth of practical wisdom and experience accumulated by teacher educators during their time as school teachers may, in fact, inhibit the development of a distinct pedagogy of ITE – both as individuals, and therefore across the sector more widely. A re- examination of what is meant by ‘theory and practice’ in ITE, and how this was interpreted, helped to reveal vast differences amongst the participants in both attitudes towards and knowledge about public theory. This could be seen to have determined their approach towards theorising their pedagogical practice. The data appeared to highlight three aspects which emerged from this, impacting to a greater or lesser extent upon how the meta-pedagogy was enacted by each of the participants: the practitioner culture; the privileging of practical wisdom above other forms of knowledge; and ‘cloning’ as a default approach in terms of meta-pedagogical practice.

The analysis of data suggests that, in the absence of injections of new knowledge of theory or insights about teaching and learning to teach, university-based teacher educators may be recycling, or ‘regurgitating’, their own experiences and practices for the next generation of teachers. It could be argued that, without theorising their pedagogical practice, it would not be possible for teacher educators to go beyond their own experience, and develop a new habitus for the new field.This is the area where the key findings are located. They demonstrate that the practitioner culture appears to be detrimental to teacher educators’ practice, reflecting a fossilisation process.

An apparent emphasis on the practical aspects of teaching may restrict their vision of what learning to teach entails, and of how their meta-pedagogical practice might be expected to bring this about. In the absence of a willingness to engage with any theoretical base for teaching and learning to teach, and to acknowledge the subject matter as ‘teaching’, not only may teacher educators’ own practice become fossilised (remaining essentially rooted in their curriculum-focused school practice and habitus), but that of their student teachers may be little more than attempted imitations of this. These points have been drawn out in more detail, and the role of episteme and phronesis explored as potential enablers of the development of a shared meta-pedagogy, and increased cultural capital.