Theory-practice tension

Participants may also have been experiencing the “theory-practice tension” in their second order role, which Berry (2009) suggests is characterised by “feelings of conflict between personally developed knowledge generated through experience and, abstract, theoretical knowledge” (p308). This tension between phronesis and episteme is said to pervade the professions, but to be particularly acute for teacher educators. The tension is located in the peculiar nature of the ITE habitus and field, and the disjunctures experienced by those making the transition from school to HE. There was evidence of this with Julie talking overwhelmingly of teaching her (practical) subject, despite acknowledging that she was teaching student teachers to teach, and in her referring to incorporating theory in her pedagogy whilst illustrating this with examples of what might be seen as practical wisdom from invited speakers. Also, Steve did refer to the existence of theories which may have impacted upon his practice, although his habitus seemed to be based on a combination of practical wisdom and convenience. Rachel demonstrated depth of understanding of effective teaching and learning approaches, but had difficulties in relating this to a theoretical knowledge base. Whilst she appeared to privilege practical wisdom as essential, she seemed to recognise that there was a need to move beyond this (talking of ‘deconstructing our pedagogy first, and then…reconstructing a pedagogy’); therefore, it could be that practical wisdom was acting for her as a ‘dead weight’, and disrupting the development of first to second order habitus. Similarly, whilst McKeon & Harrison (2010) found some of the teacher educators in their study were familiar with and could articulate a theory-oriented

approach to their meta-pedagogy, others demonstrated little or no recognition. Swennen et al (2008) suggest that “the theoretical knowledge of teacher educators may be limited, and perhaps confined to their specific specialisation” (p538). This apparently counter-intuitive finding was also identified in Lunenberg et al’s (2007) study:

The finding that the teacher educators did not link their practice with theory is remarkable in view of the fact that establishing such links is a key issue in teacher education. This disturbing finding seems to confirm…that teacher educators tend to ignore public theory, relying instead on common sense, personal experience and implicit theory. (p597)

This may mean that the habitus becomes fossilised, as teacher educators do not deviate from their familiar patterns and understandings of practice – whether or not these underpin effective ways to teach teaching. If the disjunctures between (the new) field and (former) habitus do not create self- questioning, then transformation is unlikely to happen; without “openly confronting their practice and questioning their taken-for-granted routines and rationales”, Martin & Russell (2009) suggest that “there is little likelihood of change” (p323). This may partially explain why research (Murray 2006) shows that teacher educators may not focus on student learning until after three years in the role, focussing instead on themselves and their own performance. Whilst practical wisdom becomes instinctive, the nature of epistemic theory means it has to be engaged with actively; the model of ITE professionalism demonstrated by Julie and Steve appeared to severely hamper theoretical engagement. This in turn limits the scope to expand and deepen knowledge, and to transform habitus.

From the interviews, it appeared that Julie and Steve recognised a need to think about what they did (which certainly appeared to ‘work’), but not about why they did it, in the second order field. Julie’s observation,‘ I think we do evolve a way of doing things. We find out what works and we sort of just

stay with it’, reflects Korthagen’s (2001) observation that

(m)ost teacher educators are used to and happy with one particular view of teacher development… Over the years they have developed their personal way of working and feel comfortable with it. (p12)

This was exemplified by Julie’s apparent lack of awareness of a theoretical base to her own pedagogy with regard to whether she took a constructivist approach. She ponders about her own practice, ‘Am I

teaching in a constructivist way or not, or is it something else that’s a bit like that?’. Rachel also

required prompting about this in the stimulated recall interview when she commented that ‘I’m sure

there is a label, but I don’t know what it is’, to which she responded affirmatively. However, later on

in the same interview her response is more ambiguous: ‘I guess. Erm, probably without even me

necessarily being aware, you know, that, that’s really what I was doing’. For these participants, whilst

their rationale for their meta-pedagogy was apparently based on practical considerations, there appeared to be – as Swennen et al (2008) also found in their study of teacher educators – an inability

to articulate knowledge about their practice. Steve was able to offer theoretical perspectives on teaching and learning, although it did not appear to have influenced his enacted meta-pedagogy: ‘it’s

not what I would like it to be,…I would like it to be that kind of constructivist, …dialogical,…student- centric,…experiential… And it…just isn’t’. Rather than being based on philosophy or principle, the rationale for his enacted practice was related to issues of (lack of) time, which Grossman et al (2009) suggest calls for the development of new and effective meta-pedagogical approaches – not the abandonment of them. Steve did appear to recognise the paradox, but felt unable to reconcile the situation: ‘the trouble is,…we are constantly banging the socially constructivist drum in terms of what (sic) we want our children to learn…And yet, dichotomously, in our sessions, we can’t do that’. The use of ‘we’ rather than ‘I’ suggested that Steve presumed he was speaking for the body of teacher educators; that enacted practice and habitus in the field of ITE generally was not underpinned by theoretical understandings, but that this was down to externally imposed constraints. The findings from this study might support this view to a certain extent.

In addition to acknowledging the importance of (practical) competence as a teaching practitioner, Bill was able to articulate the knowledge and theory underpinning his practice as teacher educator, and how this had developed from that as a school teacher. Whilst many of his strategies were grounded in his habitus as a former MFL teacher, the following statement makes clear the distinction between this and ITE pedagogy: ‘Hopefully I’ve reached them through the teaching in some way, they’ve thought

about it, and I’ve turned it into their own terms. Reach, reflect, recode; reach, reflect…, and there’s also retain’. It would appear that his professional knowledge had been enhanced through engagement

with research, rather than continuing to rely on “‘what works’ protocols” (BERA 2014:2000), and his expanding habitus was likely to have afforded him cultural capital in the field of university-based ITE. However, this knowledge would need to be shared and agreed within the field to provide wider cultural capital for the occupational group of teacher educators, which demands dissemination and per reviewed publication. Bill had not engaged in such activity, suggesting that others could be destined to follow the ad hoc approach he said he had taken to developing his meta-pedagogical practice.