Knowledge about teaching is objective

The consequence of treating knowledge about teaching as if it is fixed, objective, external to the knower, and held by a few ‘experts’ (whose job it is to pass it on) pervades the whole experience of learning to teach. In this section, I re-visit some of the literature explored in Chapter 4 through the lens of this causal mechanism.

Drawing on my own experience of teaching and teacher education, I am of the view that knowledge about teaching is best understood as being situated in particular social and cultural contexts (Kelly, 2006; Putnam & Borko, 2000) and that effective teacher education needs to help student teachers make sense of the cultural context in which they are teaching (Taylor, 2008). The focus on ‘knowledge for practice’ (Cochran-Smith & Lytle, 1999) and examinations which require

125 the recall of this knowledge, limits the opportunities for student teachers to develop a vision for effective teaching that is appropriate for the context, to analyse and discuss teaching and to acquire ‘knowledge of practice’ (Shulman & Shulman, 2007). The finding that knowledge of teaching is considered to be objective, is therefore consistent with view that teacher preparation courses in SSA are generally considered to be too theoretical and not as effective as they could be (Dembele & Miaro-II, 2013; Moon & Umar, 2013b; Vavrus, 2009; Verspoor, 2008).

In this institution, my data show that learning to teach is presented as a set of rules and is presented as unproblematic; the assumption is that if you follow the rules you will be a good teacher. Teaching is treated as something that is done by teachers and is not linked to learning, and the tests and examinations used to decide if a student qualifies means that many of the skills and attributes of effective teachers are not assessed. However, TP is taken seriously, with many tutors travelling large distances to visit students in their schools; time is devoted to micro- teaching, with every student having at least two opportunities to teach their peers; and one assessment task involves the production of a teaching resource, which is then donated to the partner school. I suggest that this indicates that there is some scope for change. Strengthening these activities through assessment criteria that focus on learning as well as teaching and

improving the quality of supervision (as suggested by Stephen) could help students develop their ‘knowledge of practice’ and ‘knowledge in practice’.

PCK combines different forms of knowledge about teaching. It cannot be prescribed, or reduced to a few simple rules, and has to be interpreted for context (Cochran-Smith & Lytle, 1999). The view of knowledge about teaching as being objective and unproblematic perhaps explains the lack of interest in PCK and the fact that there is currently no place in the curriculum at this institution for the discussion of how to teach particular topics.

The reductionist approach – breaking teaching down into parts which can be mastered separately – that was evident in the ‘guide to micro-teaching’, and in Paxima’s interviews, has been noticed elsewhere. In Ghana, Akyeampong (2017) reports that college lecturers took some sound ideas about the use of teaching and learning materials and group discussions and reduced them to a set of procedures which students were expected to learn and reproduce. This approach leads to missed opportunities for developing a holistic understanding. For example, in the course outline in this institution, theories of learning come at the end, after the section on teaching strategies. The latter would make more sense if they are located within ideas about learning. It also means that teaching is not problematised. TEs do not see themselves as problem-solvers and therefore do not train their students to be problem-solvers (Paxima interview).

126 This view of knowledge impacts on the research carried out in this department, which is carried out in a positivistic paradigm (departmental journal). This series of large-scale studies usually concludes that the ‘intervention’ has worked, yet the ideas behind the interventions are not incorporated into the course outlines. The way in which information about the teaching

approaches that have been tested is presented, suggests a view of learners (student teachers) as ‘a blank page’. Rather than being supported in interpreting general principles for their context, student teachers are given detailed lists of behaviours they need to adopt.

Akyeampong (2017) suggests that there needs to be a ‘paradigm shift in teacher educators’ practices of teaching methods courses and their vision of good teaching’ (p201). This study suggests that the paradigm shift required concerns the nature of knowledge about teaching. Once it is acknowledged that there might be more than one way to support learning in a particular context, and that TEs, teachers and student teachers have equally valid contributions to make to the discussion, a more critical approach to practice, including their own, will follow. Without this paradigm shift there is a danger that the ‘form’ rather than the ‘substance’ (Brodie, Lelliott, & Davis, 2002) of LCE will be implemented, and that pre-service teacher education will not prepare teachers for the real world.

Schweisfurth identifies a number of ‘barriers’ to the successful implementation of LCE

(Schweisfurth, 2011). In Chapter 4, I suggested that these could be conceptualised in terms of a lack of ‘coherence’ and the challenge of securing ‘cognitive participation’ in pedagogic change (May & Finch, 2009). Re-visiting these in the light of the findings, I argue in Table 7.1 that all of them are underpinned by a view of knowledge about teaching which is objective, fixed and unproblematic.

127

Table 7.1: Schweisfurth’s ‘barriers’ LCE (2011) and the link to the first causal mechanism

Barrier to change Link to causal mechanism

An over-ambitious and under-resourced reform programme

Cognitive dissonance between the reform (LCE) and current practices make pedagogic change demanding for teachers. LCE is based on a view of knowledge about teaching as socially constructed in a particular cultural context. Teachers need resources and training to understand the implications of this.

Local conditions (large classes and a lack of resources) which make it very demanding for teachers

Initial teacher education focuses on ‘knowledge for teaching’ with very little discussion of local conditions, or the ‘how’ of LCE. There are expectations around

developing teaching resources, but nothing, for example, on teaching large, multi-lingual classes.

When student teachers get jobs the ‘rules’ they have learnt often don’t work in practice and they have not been trained as problem- solvers.

Inadequate teacher education and a lack of motivation from teachers

Contradictions in the form of attitudes which see teachers as ‘experts’ and learners as ‘empty vessels’

LCE assumes learners bring prior experiences and learning to the classroom and that they have contributions to make. ‘Knowledge for practice’ is in the hands of experts, to be handed down to STs. Data from David in particular confirmed that these teacher educators see themselves as experts, which discourages challenge, discussion and consideration of alternative approaches. An inappropriate curriculum and examination

system

The focus is on ‘knowledge for practice’ which can be examined. The result is that the emphasis is on this, at the expense of other forms of knowledge about teaching. The data show that aspects of effective teaching go unexamined. Passing the exam, requires the recall of knowledge for practice.

These ‘barriers’ mask the underlying social reality (Checkland et al., 2007) that knowledge about teaching cannot be considered to be objective and fixed, and it is this that is preventing progress with respect to LCE. Our work in the TESSA network shows that where teachers engage with TESSA OERs, real progress can be made (Stutchbury et al., 2018). Problems do not disappear, but our evidence suggests that the problems – and potential solutions – are owned by the teachers rather than being presented as excuses.

128