When describing giving a tutorial, Bill explained how the planning had changed over his career; these narratives indicate that Bill does not hold one teaching belief or one conception of what constitutes ‘good’ teaching, but has a range of strategies within his repertoire:
‘At the start of my career, tutorials were rigidly planned, lack of confidence, as time
went on, more confident and the flexibility increased. I can now customise and play things up or down depending on the audience, being responsive to individuals. Much
more prepared to deviate and take on their agenda. Previously, because I was not
confident, I left it to the pre-devised plan.
Never did much presentations, don’t give mini-lecture. Break them into small groups.
Students were travelling enormous distances around the Lake District. So I felt I had to make it really good, study centre was a new venue so opportunity to do something fresh. So began asking them to produce flipcharts as a response to questions. More satisfying for them and having to produce a chart makes them more task-orientated
and gives them a learning prompt.’
Bill is illustrating his ability to move along the continuum of what might be seen as a more ‘teacher-focused’ conception to more ‘student-focused’ conception by asking them to produce work on flipcharts in response to questions. Bill puts the reasons for this ability down to increased experience and confidence.
Bill also described a sensitivity to his students’ needs, both at individual and group level, which further develops the concepts of studentship being constructed by Bill, and demonstrates the importance of historical episodes involving students in creating Bill’s world view:
‘I usually know my group; I can usually tell if a group is working well. They don’t
seem dead in their faces, glazed over, but chatting and on-task and discussing subject with enthusiasm; they are not putting on an act for me. If not, I gently ask what the problem is and try to offer justification for the task. Sometimes, I get the feeling that they are not really understanding and sudden deflation when it becomes obvious they
have not learnt and you are not connected. Sensitive when I feel I am not making connections. Use ‘little strategies’ in my repertoire, learning from experience, having
empathy with individuals, you set different scales of achievement for each. Make
connections between those attending tutorials and assignments.’
This shows that the tutorial is an emotional experience for Bill, with highs and lows. It shows that he is trying to be constantly in tune with his tutorial group, and individuals within that group, looking for evidence that learning is taking place, that his students are engaged with the material and with the tasks he has set them. This indicates that any intense sustained mutual engagement as referred to in community of practice theory, in this dispersed
community, also includes engagements between Bill and his students. The activities undertaken by Bill do not seem to have a tight, interconnected nature referred to in community practice theory and the different understandings of what might constitute a tutorial have not gone through a process of peer mutual negotiation of meaning.
There seems to be a tension between wishing to have some control over what is happening and the desire to ‘let go’ and see what happens, to be more spontaneous. This could be a further indication of the reflexive process referred to by Giddens (1991), which is the process by which continuous narrative of oneself is developed. It could also illustrate the space that
has been negotiated between Bill and the organisation, which allows him this flexibility in his teaching.
When describing his early teaching career, Bill is able, after more than 30 years, to recall vividly experiences that still influence his teaching today; research has shown that these episodes are important both as the raw material for establishing your own continuous narrative of self-identity and in validating what is regarded as ‘good’ teaching theory that can be authenticated in everyday practice.
‘Became Head of Department in Derby in 1965. Next Headmaster was a little Hitler.
Switched from History to teaching English, as teaching ‘O’ level history was boring. Wanted to teach non-examinable pupils which suited English Department as
Headmaster and Deputy took examinable English pupils. Felt it was hardest: if you could cope with non-examinable kids, you could really teach – I had got my hands dirty. New Headmaster did not like how English was being taught, for example
improvised drama sessions. “Never trust children” from little Hitler, ruined a good
school in two years. Summed up with quote “Never smile until Christmas”.
Appalled by one incident when found teacher in next classroom crouched in the
cupboard fearful of his class. Promised myself this would never happen to me.’
Experiences, beliefs and motivations can be seen as creating contradictions within practice, but they may also bring about balance. In this particular case study, a balance between the desire to control and manage situations and the desire to experiment and be spontaneous, can be demonstrated with these two contrasting accounts of teaching style:
‘Anxious to establish control, authoritarian teacher for 8–10 years, then eased off and
then became easier in your style as you became confident.
You start with what they know and take them from there. Present them with ideas, but give them tasks, problem-solving so they become more independent. I became hooked on this. Social Science courses at the Open University did the same thing, teaching
through subjects they are interested in, such as vandalism or street crime.
Opportunity, at the tutorials at least, to say stop, let’s kick some ideas about, a chance to get off the treadmill.’
There is a possible implicit theory about the nature of teaching; teaching for examinations is too instrumental and, if one really wanted to prove oneself as a teacher, one needed to do so in the context of non-examinable students.
Bill sees part of his role as to demystify and make connections between what his students are interested in and the academic content of the courses, acting as a type of motivator to keep them studying and enjoying their course. The discourse therefore tries to be authentic by remaining connected, but is also democratic, in the sense of trying to make the academic content accessible to all his students; this prevents his language becoming too erudite. This illustrates how Bill is constructing for himself a sense of ‘studentship’; there is a sense in which he is trying to build on the concepts already held by his students. There is a possible implicit theory that ‘understanding’ is something a person does in their head; it involves mental representations created by individuals. It is essentially a cognitive theory with a practical outcome of trying to relate course concepts to a context where his students will hopefully be able to make connections with what they already know.