Transcript Document

Added Value or Unnecessary Mileage?:
issues of duplication and complementarity
in PGDE students’ perceptions
of tutor feedback on placement
Raymond Soltysek, Hugh Gallagher, Allan Blake
Raymond Soltysek
Department of Curricular Studies
University of Strathclyde
0141 950 3920
[email protected]
The Context
• Unprecedented increase in ITE numbers, 2005-2007
• Corresponding decrease in numbers, 2007 – present and future
• Research agenda
• Excellence Reviews
• Disinvestment from the Faculty of Education
The Rhetoric
“Can the Universities and other stakeholders agree that
Scotland is still significantly trapped in an outmoded
“Duplication” model of partnership, and must move forward from
this? … There are regrets from some over what could be
perceived as an inherent conservatism within elements of the
Scottish educational establishment” (Smith et al, 2006, my
italics)
Smith, I., & Hamilton, T. (2006, October). Partnership Between Universities and the Profession Initial Teacher Education and Beyond [Abstract].
Association of Teacher Education in Europe (ATEE) Conference, Slovenia, October 2006.
The critical friend
“Nonetheless, the University cannot realistically expect an
overall good performance from the Faculty in the coming RAE.
This is primarily because there is a dominant conservative
culture within the Faculty…”
“a widespread complacency…”
“This culture of complacency is able to thrive…”
“departments tend to be strong bastions of this conservative
culture….”
Donald McIntyre, Consultant to the Faculty, Internal document, June 2007
The Rhetoric
“...the justified criticism by many teachers of the university
lecturers, charged with the training of teachers but drawing on
past experience only dimly remembered and never
critiqued. Are not the real experts in the practice of teaching in
the schools? Has not the myth been wrongly promoted that
those most distant from the practice are the ones who have the
superior knowledge from which to advise and to criticise?”
Pring, R. (1996). Just Dessert. In J. Furlong & R. Smith (Eds.), The Role of Higher
Education in Initial Teacher Education (pp. 8-22). London: Kogan Page.
The Rhetoric
“The argument for change is that it is those in school who are
closest to the student, who best understand the context in which
the students' professional learning is taking place and who can
support them…”
Menter, I. (2008). Teacher Education Institutions. In T. Bryce & W. Humes (Eds.), Scottish
Education (Third ed., pp. 817 - 825). Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.
The critical friend
“Many staff see themselves primarily as teacher
educators, and see the expertise they need for this as
deriving primarily from their expertise as schoolteachers
and from their on-the-job learning... The truth is, on the
contrary, that the longer Faculty staff have themselves
not been actively involved in classroom teaching, the
more their usefulness as teacher educators has to
depend on their research expertise and on their
research-based knowledge.”
Donald McIntyre, Consultant to the Faculty, Internal document, June 2007
The critical friend
“It must be conceded that the University here faces a structural
problem, in that there has generally been a failure in Scotland to
confront the obvious fact that school-based teacher educators
could far more effectively induct student teachers into the
practical task of teaching, and that the rigour of professional
training could be much more effectively achieved through wellconceived partnerships between such staff and university staff
adopting a role that was primarily research-informed.”
Donald McIntyre, Consultant to the Faculty, Internal document, June 2007
The Rhetoric
“The argument for change is that it is those in school who
are closest to the student, who best understand the context in
which the students' professional learning is taking place and
who can support…
•
them most economically. Certainly, the one-to-one tutoring
that is the basis of most school-visiting by university tutors,
together with the time and money spent travelling often to
widely dispersed schools, is an extraordinarily costly business
for faculties of education that claim to be strapped for
resources.”
•
Menter, I. (2008).
The critical friend
“At present, university staff spend a very large proportion of
their time travelling around schools to give advice which is no
doubt generally wise but is inevitably and crucially uninformed
by any detailed knowledge of the particular contexts.”
Donald McIntyre, Consultant to the Faculty, Internal document, June 2007
The Rhetoric
“Inspectors had found university sessions to be sound, but were
critical of subject mentors in schools who had, in the main, not
gone beyond the lesson observation and feedback elements of
their role. Subject mentors were not generally found to be
proactive in encouraging student teachers towards a critical
examination of how aspects of the subject could be taught, but
were content to observe and respond to their students'
teaching.”
Burton, D. (1998). The Changing Role of the University within School-based Initial Teacher
Education: issues of role contingency and complementarity within a secondary partnership
scheme. Journal of Education for Teaching, 24(2), 129-146.
The Rhetoric
“... it seems customary for supervisors [school teachers] to pay
attention to superficial phenomenon, such as correcting
mistakes on the practice level, which implies coping with the
present, here-and-now problems by adopting or developing ad
hoc strategies. At the same time the deeper learning of both
the pupils and the student is bypassed.”
Ojanen, S., & Lauriala, A. (2006). Enhancing Professional Development of Teachers by
Developing Supervision into a Conceptually-based Practise. In R. Jakku-Sihvonen & H. Niemi
(Eds.), Research-based Teacher Education in Finland (pp. 71-88). Turku: Finnish Educational
Research Association.
What the students say...
• PGDE (Sec) Cohort 2007-2008
• Student evaluations completed in December and in June
• Anonymous completion
• Compared “satisfaction ratings” for feedback on placement from
different sources.
• Likert scale 1 – agree strongly, 5 – disagree strongly
The evaluation questions
1. I received appropriate support from the regent / whole school
student supervisor
2. I received appropriate support from the Principal Teacher /
subject supervisor
3. I received appropriate support from teachers.
4. I received useful feedback from school staff on my teaching.
5. I received valuable feedback following tutor visits
6. Grading of my school experience was fair by tutors
7. Grading of my schools experience was fair by the school.
Mean scores across whole cohort: n = 570
1.8
1.6
1.4
1.2
1
mean score
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0
Series1
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
1.77
1.47
1.41
1.54
1.28
1.35
1.46
Evaluation question number
Mean scores from English cohort: n= 87
2.5
2
1.5
mean score
1
0.5
0
Series1
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
2.03
1.57
1.47
1.57
1.16
1.32
1.53
Evaluation Question number
Descriptive terms 1&2: spread of scores
Evaluation
question
N
Min.
Max.
Mean
St. Dev.
1
659
1
4
1.81
.874
2
660
1
4
1.48
.778
3
659
1
4
1.42
.592
4
660
1
4
1.54
.710
5
653
1
3
1.27
.463
6
657
1
3
1.34
.503
7
650
1
4
1.47
.613
It seems that…
• Regent feedback is the least favourably evaluated;
• Student supervisors and Principal Teachers support is
evaluated as positively as teachers with no formally assigned
responsibility for student supervision;
• Tutor feedback is the most favourably received;
• Students are less likely to be dissatisfied with university tutor
support than they are with school staff support;
• Grading of student performance is perceived to be fairer when
undertaken by University staff rather than school staff.
Statistical Significance?
Only two statistically significant conclusions:
1. The difference between the students evaluations of tutors’
feedback were significantly more positive than other evaluated
areas.
2. The students’ evaluations of English tutors’ feedback were
significantly more positive than those of students in other
subjects on the PGDE(Sec) course.
Follow up questionnaire
• Questions about what is going on in the tutor visit: why is it that
a one hour visit is so highly rated against what should be much
more consistent and regular feedback? Does the tutor visit do
something else, rather than simply duplicate what school staff
do?
• 2008-2009 cohort of English students surveyed at end of
session.
What did you find most helpful about
feedback from school staff about your
teaching?
• Feedback which is personalised, not generic.
• Feedback on behaviour management…
• …teachers suggested ways to improve, giving practical ideas to
try, which I could then implement in the next lesson.
• Advice on how to develop my teaching strategies to better meet
the needs of the class they usually teach
• Use of voice…
• Practical tips to improve classroom management
What did you find most helpful about
feedback from school staff about your
teaching?
• Discussion on knowledge about class (sharing information was
a reassurance for me).
• Precise examples of things I could have done better…
• The identification of practicalities and routines to which pupils
were familiar in relation to their own teacher (sic)
• Information regarding individual students
• Pointing out things I might not have picked up on…
• I felt comments were fair and reflected what went on in the
classroom…
Comments?
• Do you notice anything about the nature of these comments?
• How would you characterise them?
• What do they suggest is the agenda of school feedback?
What did you find most helpful about
feedback from your tutors about your
teaching?
• The tutors are able to better assess my development as a
professional movement.
• Recognition of where gradual improvement had been made.
• Good for linking back to the content of the course.
• Constructive, able to justify myself.
• Reinforced concepts introduced at Jordanhill and applied them
to a real lesson.
• Ideas on how to progress in the future
• They told me my targets
What did you find most helpful about
feedback from your tutors about your
teaching?
• A continuous reminder that the big picture should be
omnipresent.
• Clear relationship between theory taught at university with
practical experience on placement.
• Ensuring students know exactly why we’re doing things.
• Identifying areas of improvement from portfolio tasks - it was
nice X noticed targets and saw growth.
• I found it helpful to get a complete and balanced overview of
this lesson.
• The opportunity to get a distanced view of teaching
performance.
Comments?
• Do you notice anything about the nature of these comments?
• How would you characterise them?
• What do they suggest is the agenda of tutor feedback?
Next Steps
• Complete data analysis of questionnaires;
• Interview random sample of students;
• Interview sample of Principal Teachers involved in tutorial visit
feedback;
• Consider results in the light of the reflective / reflexive
development of trainee teachers;
• Roll out funded national study with partner Universities (interest
expressed by IoE London, Cambridge, Queen’s University
Belfast, Durham University).