Stage Three – Dealing with Difficulties

Again, there were a number of examples that were in line with Furlong and Maynard’s (1995) description of the Dealing with Difficulties stage. Some

participants began to gain classroom control. They appeared to feel under pressure to impress colleagues, and to be upset by their criticism. They sometimes seemed concerned about their performance as a teacher, for example, thinking about giving clear instructions and developing questioning.

As the course progressed some participants expressed more confidence than they had done in December – perhaps Kathryn (January) and Zoe (April), in particular. For example, when Zoe reviewed her action plan in January, she wrote:

Pupils became more used to my teaching style – they recognised when I was waiting for quiet and acted accordingly.

Trying to raise my voice over a class isn’t needed.

Keep expectations constant and make clear to students when they are/are not meeting them.

However, where Furlong and Maynard (1995) suggested that their PSTs adopted teaching styles that were designed to control pupils, some of my participants adopted other approaches. Kathryn appeared to have used a pupil management approach in which she had developed ‘class-built expectations’ with her Year 7 class (February, written review of action plan). This is an approach in which expectations are openly negotiated with pupils (Pollard, 1985). Such approaches are less controlling, since expectations are not imposed by the teacher exerting their power over the pupils. Zoe, too, seemed to have found a solution that did not require her to be more controlling (Apr review of Jan action plan). Her teaching issue had been pupils wandering around the classroom. Rather than imposing seatwork, Zoe had adopted more active teaching approaches ‘letting students take control of activities and learn independently’. Furlong and Maynard (1995) might characterise these as a means of reconciling a wish to have warm relationships with the pupils with the need to have order.

Wanting to impress other teachers is best exemplified by Paul. In his December AL set, in which he was concerned about having too many targets, he was keen to demonstrate that he was taking on board teachers’ advice, and to show that he was being proactive and reflecting on his teaching. Dean asked him what was the worst thing that could happen and Paul responded:

Everyone hates me. I go to apply for a job there and they don’t want me because I didn’t listen to them when I was a trainee.

As noted previously, Kathryn described crying when she was given feedback by a teacher, and needing to develop a thicker skin, suggesting that my participants, too, were upset by criticism (4.3.2). Kathryn also mentioned concern about her tutor visit in the December reflective journal:

Tutor X came. I was very apprehensive beforehand. Although my mentor had helped me plan the lesson and I was prepared, it was still very stressful.

According to Furlong and Maynard (1995), another characteristic of the Dealing with Difficulties phase was to focus on teaching strategies and classroom

organisation, rather than on what makes teaching and learning effective. Examples within the data may include:

• Concern about questioning (Dean – January AL set; Rachael – April AL set) • Needing to organise pupils’ working groups for practical work (Connor –

January AL set; Rachael – January AL set)

• Needing to give clear step-by-step instructions for practical work (Rachael – January AL set), or clear guidance for completing an internet research task (Emily – January reflective journal)

• Focusing on timing and pace (Paul – January AL set), or task completion (Paul – April AL set)

There is a possibility, however, that Dean’s and Rachael’s interest in questioning suggests that they were beginning to think about learning.

There was only one notable difference between my data and Furlong and Maynard’s (1995) suggestions for this stage. Furlong and Maynard mention PSTs’ reluctance to differentiate, not wanting to upset children by making them aware of their

differences. Perhaps owing to the time that has elapsed since their research, and changes education in England in the intervening period, there was evidence of participants differentiating from the beginning. An earlier example was CM adapting a lesson for a pupil with ADHD (5.6).

Finally, Furlong and Maynard (1995) suggest that some PSTs blame the system, rather than taking responsibility, at this stage. Kathryn was most vocal in her criticism of the placement school, in the autumn reflective journal. I am not certain that Kathryn’s criticism was unjustified, however. Where Kathryn was critical of the class teacher, it was because s/he had intervened in ways that Kathryn had found

undermining. She also said was dealing with large class sizes of up to 32 pupils, where there were too few stools. She said staff morale was low owing to a

restructuring exercise that had taken place. Her experience was of ‘no school policy’ on CBM, which assuming there was a policy tends to suggest that there was an implementation difficulty. Meanwhile, Kathryn had attended a meeting with the headteacher, during which s/he appeared out of touch with the reality of pupils’ behaviour. Kathryn also reported that the Year 10 group moved around to different classrooms, so it was difficult to introduce a suitable seating plan. The number and nature of these criticisms suggest a school (or science department) that was not functioning particularly well. However, by the end of placement, Kathryn appeared to reconcile herself to the situation:

I was sad to leave placement A. They made me feel so welcome and they were supportive. There were issues within the school but I settled in well.

In this section, I have suggested that there were similarities in the development of the participants with PSTs in Furlong and Maynard’s (1995) research. Some participants began to gain classroom control. They appeared to feel under pressure to impress colleagues, and to be upset by their criticism. They sometimes seemed concerned about their performance as a teacher, for example, thinking about giving clear instructions and developing questioning.

Overall, I suggest that my participants were slow to develop in comparison with the trajectory reported. Fuller and Brown (1975, cited by Furlong and Maynard

(1995:76)) suggest that the Personal Survival phase ‘may last for one or two weeks’. Furlong and Maynard (1995:92) also appear to suggest that PSTs were ready to move on ‘to consider the quality as well as the value of what and how children learn’ sooner than was observed for my participants. They wrote that this can happen ‘after the first few weeks of survival and confusion, having now attained basic control, competence and confidence in teaching skills and strategies’ (Furlong and Maynard, 1995:94). The data suggest that my participants were in the survival phase longer than that – certainly throughout the first placement for many of the participants (October to January), and on into April for CM. I consider a possible explanation in the next section.

6.4 Why might participants have found it difficult to develop CBM?