I’m using this series of posts as a way of thinking through the development of my professional identity and position. In my last post I talked about moving from teaching to HE. In this post I’ll consider this a little more, but also move on to thinking about the kinds of knowledge that I bring to HE, and the liminal position I feel I have, sometimes.
These are complicated issues, and sometimes it is hard to work out where these vague feelings of discomfort or uncertainty come from, or even where to look to find out more about whether others feel the same. Fortunately, whilst I have been puzzling over these ideas and problems, Jason Todd (https://twitter.com/JJtodd1966) has hoved into view with some reading, thanks to a conversation between him, Alex Ford (https://twitter.com/apf102) and Helen Snelson (https://twitter.com/SnelsonH) in the dinner queue at the SHP conference. I suspect if there’s a Phd in someone mapping out the informal sources of ‘leaps forward’ in the thinking of History teacher educators, then the SHP dinner queue will feature quite heavily in it.
In the dinner queue they talked, I gather, about what it means to be a HEI history teacher educator, rather than a school-based mentor, the need for a community of practice, and a way of inducting new tutors into this community (I wasn’t there, so may have got this wrong – Jason, Helen, Alex?). As a result of this conversation Jason sent round a few bits of reading to a few interested parties. Earlier this week we joined forces with other fantastic HE history teacher educators (https://twitter.com/mrwbw, https://twitter.com/viccrooks https://twitter.com/rachelfoster08, and https://twitter.com/UoNSoEHistory)
One of the key pieces was Geoff Hayward’s chapter in the venerable but brilliant Mentoring for Science Teachers. He identifies three central issues of Initial Teacher Education, which are echoed in multiple places in the literature as:
- A lack of coherence and discontinuities between school and HE as sites for learning – and the different characteristics of the knowledge valued in each.
- Schools are environments not well suited for trainee learning.
- Student teachers bring their own agendas, which are very resistant to change.
Reflecting on this list now, it is remarkable how many of our conversations at Uni, about our trainees, our placements, our training and our knowledge, fit within these three big issues. However, I think there’s the risk that as a teacher who finds themselves at University, we’re not able to access the positions or strengths of a lecturer because we are not aware of the systematic thinking about such issues that people like Geoff Hayward have done before us.
What’s also interesting is the way that these issues interact with the liminal position that HE initial teacher educators also face in their own work. At university long term generalisable knowledge is preferred over the context bound short term effectiveness and action-oriented knowledge valued in schools. In the last post I exposed my own worries about my ‘classroom’ knowledge fading and losing its value for trainees as the years out of school teaching slowly mount.
However, even when an ITE tutor in HE takes steps to carve out a research profile or orientation this can fail to secure their identity as ‘University’ tutor. Administration in HE and policy makers in government place value on highly generalizable ‘big ticket’ research, often with experimental, quantitative approaches – the kinds of work that is ‘ref’able. This means that the kinds of knowledge, even the kinds of research that practitioners undertake and value as they move into HE mean that they’re occupying liminal positions in Academia.
Finally, student teachers as learners bring with them a legacy of their apprenticeship as pupils, their understanding of their subject and what it means to teach it. These ideas are really resistant to change in the circumstances of a normal school placement. Hayward raises the danger that the trainees react by seeing the course as requiring that they meet the different criteria of the different personnel on different occasions” – seeing each as a test to pass, rather than a coherent opportunity for development.
In a policy context which places value on practice and action above thinking this can easily lead to trainees focusing on ‘gathering evidence’ in school. In turn this means that the expertise of the University lecturer is under-valued, deprecated as ‘out of date’ or ‘too theoretical’ – especially where our courses are actually out of date, and are actually too focused on decontextualized theory in the way that lends itself to large, cost effective lectures!
In the next few posts I hope to work through some of the implications for our work of these problems, and to explore some possible solutions.
 Geoff Hayward, “Principles for School Focused Initial Teacher Education,” in Mentoring for Science Teachers, ed. T Allson and A Benson (Buckingham [England]; Philadelphia: Open University Press, 1997).
 Fred. A.J. Korthagen, “Linking Practice and Theory: The Pedagogy of Realistic Teacher Education” (Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Seattle, 2001), educ.queensu.ca/~ar/aera2001/Korthagen2001.pdf.
 John Furlong, Education: An Anatomy of the Discipline (Routledge, 2013).
 Hayward, “Principles for School Focused Initial Teacher Education.”