The teacher educator’s contribution: subject and pedagogic knowledge

Initial teacher education needs to cover not just critical reflection but also subject and pedagogic knowledge (Zgaga, 2013). McCulloch (SCETT, 2011) points out that the contribution of Higher Education to teacher education has provided the basis for academic standards, helped to develop subject knowledge, established routes to professional status and generated frameworks for teacher education to understand its purpose: its underlying theories, values, general mission, foundations from the past and its vision for the future.

51 However, given the reduced time available in university and the exhortations of successive government reports, including Carter (2015), to teach subject knowledge, teacher educators need to make decisions as to what to cover and what to sacrifice. It has become necessary to be selective about what is taught and some compromises have to be made. For example, Heywood and Parker (2010), judging it impossible to teach all aspects of primary science to teacher trainees, were forced to make the decision to focus on certain topics only. Meanwhile, university tutors who might offer a range of viewpoints and models as sources for critical reflection for emergent professionals, have had to cut down what they can offer within the restricted contact time with students now available to them. Hence, teacher educators need to consider what counts as the knowledge that teachers need. This has had an impact not only on what they do in their day-to-day jobs, but also on their professional identities and their perceptions of self within the academy.

2.3.3.1 Subject knowledge

Neo-conservative views on the curriculum surfaced during the government of Margaret Thatcher. These were particularly embraced by Michael Gove, in his role as Secretary of State for Education (2010-2014). Influenced by Hirsch’s (1998) claims that education is about enculturation of a core of knowledge learned by drill and repetition, Gove instigated a new ‘back to basics’ curriculum in 2013 (DfE, 2013). Implicit in Hirsch’s ideal is the idea of passing on, or transmitting, discrete packets of knowledge, translated in the curriculum into a prescribed list of knowledge that pupils in schools should learn. Hence, there is an implication that teacher educators should ensure that trainees are also in possession of these cultural markers of knowledge. Examining the impact of the neo-conservative voice on education in the 1980s, Furlong et al (2000) report that ITT courses at that time were accused of being intellectually weak and overly concerned with topics such as race, sex and class and even ‘anti-imperialist’ education. To combat this, the neo-conservative remedy was for initial teacher education to develop professionals who are themselves experts in their own subject area. If the politicians require our cultural heritage to be passed on to our children, the primary task for initial teacher education, from this perspective, is therefore to develop professionals in their own subject area. This is reflected in the focus

52 on strengthened ITT content in terms of more subject knowledge in Educational Excellence

Everywhere (DfE, 2016)

However, one of the key arguments for the university at the centre of ITT is that students need to go beyond the possession of basic subject knowledge as envisaged in the ‘back to basics’ curriculum, with its focus on transmission and rote learning. The university’s pivotal role in ITT stems from the fact that students can gain specialist subject knowledge for

teaching, which includes an understanding of connections within and between subjects,

based on research. It also addresses the nature of knowledge itself, providing a forum, in which students’ existing knowledge can be explored, enriched, extended and problematized (Beach & Player-Koro, 2012).

Indeed, the fact that successive governments have sought to legislate what should be taught in schools and ITT reflects the fact that knowledge, power and ideology are inextricably linked (Foucault, 1972). As Apple(1999:5) noted: ‘…education is not a neutral activity; it is intimately connected to multiple relations of domination and subordination…’ Those who have power can determine what counts as knowledge. Ellis (2007:450) points out that, though subject knowledge is conceptualised as entirely context free and stable, the reality is that there are social processes and paradigmatic shifts involved. The nature and content of what is seen as knowledge is a mechanism of the distribution of power (Lyotard, 1984; Hilferty, 2008). This has consequences for teacher education: as Hellgren (1988) notes, if subject and pedagogic knowledge is regarded as a given body of facts, bound by traditions, amounting to ‘pedagogical cookbook recipes and routines’, as well as authoritative laws, rules and regulations about classroom activities, teacher education will be static and conservative.

2.3.3.2 Pedagogical knowledge

Darling Hammond (1999) identifies a need for the teacher to have knowledge of the curriculum and of appropriate resources that can support children’s learning and understanding within this alongside pure subject knowledge. Similarly, Beach and Player- Koro (2012) identify two parts to teacher education: firstly, knowledge of the subjects and,

53 secondly, knowledge of how teaching is shaped in relation to pupil learning. They claim that subject studies are not abridged copies of disciplines, though they are built on this knowledge, and that teacher educators have a very specific role in ensuring that their students have the knowledge of both elements. Ball, Hoover Thames and Phelps (2008) elaborate further on the specific content knowledge that teachers need. They point out that, though teachers need to know and understand the subject area in the same way as others, there is also a particular body of subject knowledge, which they identify as specialised content knowledge that the teacher needs. A significant element of teaching involves rendering one’s own knowledge accessible to pupils. Teachers need subject specific pedagogical knowledge, bridging content knowledge and practice. Shulman (1987) aimed to reframe the study of teacher knowledge in ways that attended to the role of both content and pedagogical knowledge in teaching.

In the current climate of performativity, there is a tension between preparing students for the requirements of the current National Curriculum, with a relatively narrow focus on subject knowledge, and focusing more broadly on the pedagogy and theories underlying their subject discipline. While the current focus remains on students in ITT in England acquiring subject knowledge, the place of pedagogical subject knowledge in rendering this subject content accessible, meaningful and relevant to learners is downplayed. This is in contrast to the importance that the OECD place on pedagogical knowledge. Guerriero (2017) asserts that it is this pedagogical knowledge, of content and learners, that enables experienced teachers to make the decisions in the classrooms. Moreover, she contends that teacher educators hold a crucial role in contributing to the professionals’ pedagogical knowledge base, as they hold specialist knowledge of both theory and practice. Recognising the importance and value of this would elevate the status of a profession which has sometimes struggled to have its expertise recognised as ‘academic enough’ to count as professional.

Much of the contemporary debate about what is taught in the university centres on whether the focus should be on knowledge or skills, specifically those that are evidenced within the Teaching Standards. Biesta (2013a) expresses concerns about the functional

54 nature of this kind of approach. A focus on acquiring the necessary skills can lead to an artificial breaking down of knowledge into component parts that can become a tick list that that privileges technical, measurable skills over knowledge. Meeting the Teachers’ Standards as a series of statements about subject knowledge, planning, teaching and assessment denies the complexity of the process. Biesta (2004) sees what he terms ‘learnification’ as a driving force behind this piecemeal approach. His view is that, currently, education is described predominantly in terms of ‘learning’ whilst teaching is reduced to mere ‘facilitation of learning’. He sees teaching as far more than this. It is something that takes learners beyond what they may be expected to acquire as part of their natural development and through exposure to experience alone. Moreover, Biesta argues that ‘learning’ is a process term, saying very little about relationship, purpose and direction, lacking in any sense of purpose (2012). Without a sense of purpose, he asserts that there may be learning but not education (2015). ‘Learning’ he points out, ‘must be about learning something,’ (2013:126). Education is designed so that children learn particular things for particular reasons (2015). Rather than a focus on transmitting knowledge or modelling skills in ITT, he calls for a more virtue-based conception of teacher education, where individuals are judged holistically, rather than against a tick box list of skills. He talks about the importance of wisdom and professional judgement, as opposed to skill sets. He thus underlines the issue of changing values in ITT. In the final section of this review, I consider the issue of revaluing and devaluing in ITT and the impact on teacher educators.