no time to think: policy, pedagogy and professional learning...no time to think: policy, pedagogy...
Post on 07-Jun-2020
2 Views
Preview:
TRANSCRIPT
1
No time to think: Policy, pedagogy and professional learning
Simon N. Leonard and Philip Roberts
Faculty of Education, Science, Technology and Mathematics, University of Canberra,
Canberra, Australia
Abstract: In this study we seek to illuminate the effects of the global policy convergence in education through a close study of its enactment within an Australian Teacher Education course. Building on an examination of the changing priorities of a cohort of pre-service teachers over a short space of time, we argue that the enactment of New Public Management approaches to the governance of teaching in Australia is having adverse effects on the professional learning of new teachers, defeating the policy goals. Previous studies have investigated the affective impact of current global policy formations on teachers. Building on that work, this study considers the impacts that the teacher policy emphasis on ‘performance’ has had on professional learning processes, which are understood with reference to Kolb’s Experiential Learning Theory. The study is undertaken using an interpretative phenomenographic approach and informed by the related methods of discursive psychology.
Keywords
New Public Management; Teacher Professional Learning; Experiential Learning;
Phenomenography; Discursive Psychology
Introduction
This study explores the effects of global policy convergence in education on the
(pre)professional learning of a cohort of pre-service teachers, examining changes in
the interpretations and translations made by that cohort over a short space of time as
their context changed. In particular it examines the effects of the use of the logics of
New Public Management (hence sometimes NPM) to create a performative
environment through the adoption of national standards for teacher accreditation and
registration. A key finding of the study is that pressure to ‘perform’ leaves the
2
participants with inadequate time to think, effectively short circuiting well understood
adult learning cycles which require time to assimilate learning from educational and
training experiences such as pre-service professional placements. As a result, this
study contends that the current policy formulations are detracting from rather than
supporting the policy goal of improved teacher quality.
In providing an account of the apparent effects of global policy directions at the level
of a single cohort in a single course of an Australian university, the study here differs
from much of the more highly cited scholarship in this area. Much of this widely read
work is presented in the form of essay, drawing simultaneously on diverse sources of
empirical evidence (see for example Apple, 2009; Connell, 2013; Lingard & Rizvi,
2010; Sahlberg, 2011). Argument at this grand scale is vital to understanding change
in education. However the dominance of this work has led scholars such as Takayama
(2013) to suggest that most studies of policy effects have been theoretically driven or
deductive accounts, often at a macro-sociological level. Similarly is has led others,
such as Rowlands and Rawolle (2013), to point critically to the growing tendency
within education scholarship to use the term ‘neoliberal’ as a catch-all phrase for
something negative but without offering ‘meaningful explanations that help to
illuminate specific changes’ (2013, p. 260).
The present paper is offered noting Braun, Maguire and Ball’s (2010) reminder that
policy is not simply ‘implemented’ but enacted through the interpretations and
translations made by diverse policy actors in schools and other institutions; and that
the analysis of the effects of policy at an institutional level is an important part of a
comprehensive policy scholarship. It is part of a growing body of research being
3
carried out at the level where specific changes can be examined and where inductive
analysis is possible. This body of research includes investigations of the way
changing governance modes have led to changing teacher (professional) identity with
implications for agency and vulnerability of teachers (Lasky, 2005; Troman, 2008);
commitment through a career (Day & Qing, 2007; Troman, 2008); and tendencies to
adopt strategies of resistance to policy due to personal discourses of teaching that
contain broader aims than the current policy instruments suggest (Mausethagen, 2013;
Moore, Edwards, Halpin, & George, 2002).
Care must be taken with findings of resistance as many senior critical and policy
scholars are themselves strong advocates of resistance to neoliberal policy
implementation (see for example Ball & Olmedo, 2013; Berliner, 2009; Connell,
2013; Groundwater-Smith & Mockler, 2009). This creates a real risk of researcher
bias, particularly in deductive studies that cannot show the specific mechanisms of
change. This study joins with research that has emerged in recent years suggesting a
more nuanced response from teachers. This literature includes, for example, studies
suggesting that younger teachers differ from older teachers in the way they deal with
external accountability (Barrett, 2009) and in the way they experience teacher
professionalism (Stone-Johnson, 2014). Wilkins (2011) has referred to this as the
emergence of a ‘post-performative’ generation pointing to the fact that younger
teachers in many countries have now grown up in a performative school system. In
our own work (Leonard & Roberts, 2014) we have made similar findings, using
McAdams’ (2001) theories in personality psychology to explain how the formative
experiences of late adolescence have a continuing effect in adult identity formation.
Hardy (2014) provides a different example of research suggesting greater complexity
4
in his findings that teachers in the Australian state of Queensland were not resisting
the neo-liberal instrument of census literacy and numeracy testing, but rather co-
opting it to actively promote their own agenda including improvements in their
professional learning.
The modest contribution of this study to the extant literature is to move the research
focus from matters of identity to matters of learning. In particular it asks what are the
effects of the logics of New Public Management as enacted through the
standardisation of teacher professionalism and (pre)professional education on the
expansive human activity of learning? In asking this question, we describe learning as
an expansive activity to indicate that the objectives of pre-professional education are
not stable or well defined, and as a reminder that professionals must be educated in
ways that prepare them for an unknown future (Engeström, 2006).
There are many models that could be chosen in pursuing a focus on learning. In this
study we draw upon Kolb’s (1984) Experiential Learning Theory (ELT) which
suggests that adult learning that is structured around experiences requires a cycle of
observing and feeling, followed by thinking and abstraction, before moving to new
action, and then new experience. The argument that this cycle is being short-circuited
is based on a phenomenographic analysis of the meaning a cohort of teacher
education students were making of their learning experiences at different times
interpreted in light of understandings drawn from discursive psychology (Potter,
2004). Before outlining the method of this analysis and the findings, and to provide
context, the paper will begin with a discussion of the increasing application of the
5
strategies of New Public Management through standardisation to ‘reform’ teacher
education.
New Public Management and Australian Teacher Education
The methodology of this study is inductive or ‘grounded’. It began as a reflexive
consideration of the nature of the learning that had occurred in a Teacher Education
course as part of a design-based research (Anderson & Shattuck, 2012) approach to
course development. As will be seen in the next section, this process found
remarkable differences in the aspects of teaching work that new teachers discerned in
the short space of time between completing their studies and beginning to seek
employment. There was a significant change in discourse and this study provides an
interpretation of that change. The interpretation is based on the principle from
discursive psychology that discourse in speech and text is a form of social activity and
is used to achieve a goal in a given situation or context (Potter, 2010). As such,
through the analysis of speech and text it is possible to attend to the broader social
and institutional contexts that shape it (Wetherell, 1998).
In attending to that broader context in which student discourse occurred, it was
identified that a significant influence on the social activity that the group were trying
to achieve was the adoption in Australia of the governance of teachers’ work through
the logics of New Public Management. The most visible component of this move was
the standardisation of teaching work and the requirement for teachers to demonstrate
performance against a national standards framework adopted during the year of the
course under study. To facilitate a clearer explanation of how this reading of the data
6
was reached, this section of the paper provides a brief overview of how NPM is being
applied to the governance of teachers, teaching and teacher education in Australia.
In the logic of New Public Management, the key to successful reform and
improvement of public service is found in maximising the opportunities for
innovation of those ‘on the ground,’ as opposed to top-down reform (Hall, Gunter, &
Bragg, 2012; Takayama, 2013). It is the logic of the ‘free’ market that players
competing within a market will find more efficient and more effective ways to deliver
their product or service. In spheres such as teaching where no natural market exists,
the NPM approach is to develop a market proxy in the form of benchmarks that must
be met, but not to specify exactly how they are to be met. In this way, the logic
contends, the ‘market’ benefits of ‘on the ground’ creativity, problem solving and
efficiency finding can be realised without the profit motive of the private sector.
Through reforms built on this logic, the state in many parts of the world has de-
intensified its direct service provision role and turned to contractual forms of
governance, using market mechanisms or a ‘competition state’ to continue to drive
change (Ball, 2009). Publicly positioned as ‘efficiencies’ with a focus on ‘quality,’
these reforms have changed, and are continuing to change, the very basic
arrangements of schools and the teaching that goes on within them.
The application of NPM across government has had many critics. Early among them
was Power (1994) who identified that rather than freeing up public services and
professions, this approach actually tended to lead to an ‘audit society’ in which the
benchmarks have replaced the actual service as the purpose of publicly managed
activity. With a focus on education, Ball (2003) has identified that policy built on this
7
logic has been applied with ‘vigour to schools, colleges and universities’ embedded in
the policy technologies of the market, managerialism and performativity. In Ball’s
use, performativity is a ‘mode of regulation that employs judgements, comparisons
and displays as a means of incentive, control, attrition and change (p. 216)’. The issue
of who determines what is to count as a valuable performance, he argues, can cause
great challenges, and even ‘terror’, for those whose performance is being judged.
In Australia the logics of NPM have been applied to the governance of teaching
through a number of policy instruments, but most notably the adoption of codified
professional standards. Governance based on standards was introduced in different
states at different times over the first decade of the 21st century, before being replaced
by national standards (Australian Institute for Teaching and School Leadership,
2011). Bodies in each state monitor teacher compliance with the national standards
that, while called by names such as institutes and colleges of teachers, are actually
statutory bodies whose boards are typically dominated by the employer groups.
As elsewhere, the adoption of standards for the benchmarking of Australian teachers
work has created immense performative pressures. In an on-going way through at
least annual review teachers are now required to demonstrate competence against no
fewer than 36 elements of professional practice and are required to frame their
professional learning in terms of those standards (Australian Institute for Teaching
and School Leadership, 2012). This is the contractual logic of the New Public
Management. Teachers are not explicitly told how they are to conduct their classes,
but instead are expected to ‘deliver’ upon a large range of competencies in whatever
manner they, with their supervisor’s agreement, determine is appropriate. This on-
8
going requirement to demonstrate competence places an emphasis on performance
and creates a performative environment (Ball, 2003; Usher, 2006). For new teachers
this pressure is amplified by a near constant need to ‘perform’ the standards in
response to the even more frequent surveillance of their probationary period. Even for
those able to easily show the competence required, the time taken to collect the
evidence for review has created a significant additional workload that is not offset by
a reduction to other duties.
Despite the apparent structural withdrawal of governance to an arm’s length position,
the ‘quality’ of teachers and the nature and quality of teacher education has remained
the focus of extensive political and policy debate in Australia. For example, just a
matter of months after the release of the new national standards framework agreed to
by the nine education ministers of Australia’s state, territory and federal governments,
the influential Australian Productivity Commission (2012), an independent statutory
body providing policy advice, released a report explicitly challenging some of the key
directions of these standards, and more generally challenging the efficacy of current
approaches to teacher education. More recently, and despite their strong position that
education is constitutionally a matter for each of the individual states, the new
conservative Australian federal government has begun inquiries into both teacher
education and school curriculum (Pyne, 2014). So while government has adopted the
logics of NPM and is not directly telling teachers how they are to reach the prescribed
benchmarks, the performance of teachers remains a matter of strong public policy
comment, surveillance, and debate, seemingly leaving the ‘terrors’ of performativity
ever, and very publicly, present.
9
The move to a performative mode of teacher governance has been documented
internationally. Hargreaves (2009) for example, has suggested that since the middle of
the last century there have been three major turns in public discourse in English
speaking countries such as the United States, the United Kingdom and Australia, each
bringing a shift in what is understood as good schooling. The phases he identifies
include a period of optimism and pragmatism in the 1950s followed by a period of
spiritual and cultural awakening in the 1960s and 1970s and the current liberal turn of
individualism beginning in the 1980s. These phases were paralleled respectively by a
massive expansion in participation in education; the rise of ‘progressive’ education;
and the liberal-conservative reforms of the current era.
On a similar time scale, and focussing on discourses of the ‘good teacher’, Connell
(2009) has argued that changing conceptions of the qualities of ‘good’ teachers are
directly related to and reflect broader social changes. She argues that in contemporary
Australia the dominant idea of a good teacher is the ‘competent teacher’ model, and is
similar to Moore’s (2004) conception of the ‘competent craftsperson’. This model,
Connell argues, grows out of the restructuring of technical and vocational education
where ‘distinct skills or competencies were extracted from the matrix of traditional
apprenticeships, packaged and taught as distinct modules… rather than broad trade-
based identities’ (Connell, 2009, p. 217).
The emphasis on specific measurable outcomes has had broad appeal within the ‘audit
culture’ (Power, 2009) of neoliberalism and has been driven by the increasing
attention given by policy makers to multivariate quantitative analysis of school and
teacher ‘effectiveness’ (Connell, 2009, p. 217). In their work, Moore and colleagues
10
(Moore et al., 2002) found that teachers in England had repositioned themselves in the
face of this type of reform by adopting a pragmatic disposition that, in turn, led to a
de-politicisation of the teaching profession in that country. Other studies, however,
have noted the inability of many teachers to reposition themselves in the face of
change (Ball, 2003; Clandinin, Downey, & Huber, 2009; Hebson, Earnshaw, &
Marchington, 2007).
The following section presents an analysis of discourse created as text at two
relatively close moments in the pre-professional development of a cohort of new
teachers. The texts describe distinctly different understandings of the job of teaching
at each of the moments. Our contention is that these differences can be interpreted in
terms of the different situations in which the discourse took place, one dominated by
the demands and traditions of the university, the other dominated by the performative
demands of the NPM governance of teachers described above.
Method
The investigation reported here took place in two parts. The initial phase was part of a
wider process of design-based research around a program adopting innovative
approaches to teacher education. One of the authors was a member of the team
teaching in this program, while the other had administrative oversight of the program.
The aim of the research was to provide a rich account of the program, to understand
how it worked, for whom, and in what circumstances (Leonard, Fitzgerald, &
Riordan, In Press). This design-research, conducted with the informed consent of the
students and the approval of the institution’s ethics committee, led to the collection
and analysis of a wide range of both naturalistic and investigative data including
11
student assignments, surveys and interviews. Thirty-nine students participated in the
research representing 36% of the students enrolled in the course.
The research was carried out with a mixed methods approach that included
quantitative, discursive, phenomenological, and phenomenographical techniques. The
outcomes of different parts of this analysis have been reported elsewhere (Leonard &
Roberts, 2014; Roberts & Leonard, 2012). This paper draws upon the
phenomenographic analysis of two particular points of data collection in which the
students appear to have discerned, as important, very different aspects of teacher pre-
professional learning. The second phase of the study is an attempt to interpret the
meaning and significance of the change in discernment identified.
The data
The two data points used in this study are connected in that they each called for the
students to respond to a set of ‘provocations’ or focus questions that had been used
throughout the year long post-graduate course such as ‘is teaching a trade or a
profession?’ and ‘how should we control our students?’ . The first data point used in
this study was the student’s final or capstone assignment. The task had been built on
Shulman’s concept of pedagogical reasoning (see Roberts & Leonard, 2012 for a full
description of the approach) and was informed by well-developed Australian work on
the connection of practice and theory in teacher learning (Hammerness, Darling-
Hammond, & Shulman, 2002; Nilsson, 2009). In these assignments, students were
asked to identify a significant moment in their school-based professional experience
and to analyse that moment from the perspective of the different professional
knowledge sources within the course including, but not limited to, learning and
12
development theory, inclusive education, learning environments, and supporting
literacy and numeracy development across the curriculum. They were also asked to
use the incident as a basis for discussing the course-wide ‘provocations’. This data
was analysed by a research assistant who had no role in the marking of the
assignments.
The second data-point was a post-course survey conducted a few weeks after the
graded assignments had been returned to the students. This survey was conducted in
addition to the University’s normal evaluation process and was clearly presented to
the students as part of the on-going participatory design-research to assist in
understanding the nature of the learning that had occurred in the course. The students
were asked to describe through open-ended written response what and how they had
learned through different aspects of the course (lectures, readings, assignments, social
media etc). They were also asked to describe what they thought the learning objective
of each of the provocations had been. In this section they were not providing a direct
answer to the provocation questions themselves, but rather they were working at the
meta-level and, as new teachers themselves, they were identifying what they
understood as the pedagogical intent of the questions.
In the two data sets the students have created texts that represent a considered
response to the concepts and issues raised throughout the course by the same set of
provocative questions. The texts at each point were shaped by the same focus
questions and, one would anticipate, drew upon the same learning experiences. The
major difference between the texts was the context in which they were written. The
first texts as assignments for grading were, at least in part, written for the university
13
student purpose of good grades. The context of the creation of the second set of texts
is quite different. Here the students have been positioned as professional peers and
asked to contribute their own understandings as collaborators in knowledge building.
It is our contention, however, that the performative environment in which these new
teachers were seeking work was also a context for the discourse created in these later
texts.
Methodologically the choice of survey as opposed to, say, interview or focus group
here was quite deliberate. The intent was to reduce the influence of the teaching team
as far as possible and avoid a so-called Hawthorne effect (Groundwater-Smith &
Mockler, 2009; Sachs, 2003). This effect, explored much more in the fields of health
and management than in education, suggests that at least part of any behaviour change
in a study is the result of the observation that comes with the study rather than the
intervention per se. That is, there is a tendency of participants to want to please those
conducting a study or trial, or to at least be supportive. Debate over the existence or
size of a Hawthorne effect is long running (McCambridge, Witton, & Elbourne,
2014), with even recent meta-analysis (Cook & King, 1968; Harris, 2002) only able to
conclude that there is some effect but unable to reach a firm position on the size or
conditions of the effect. Kahn (McCambridge et al., 2014) has recently argued that the
Hawthorne effect was negligible in a study of innovation in teaching computer
applications in the university setting. The trustworthiness of this study, however, is
moderated by its conclusion that the author’s innovation was successful.
Understanding the nature and conditions of the Hawthorne effect remains a significant
methodological issue for design-based research in education and, we would contend,
14
for policy scholarship that is dominated by data collected directly from informants
through interview.
In the absence of strong guidance from the literature, the approach to minimising the
effect of the teacher-researchers in this study was logical. The data was collected after
students had received their final grades so as to remove any sense of institutional
pressure, written responses were sought so as to remove the direct presence of the
researchers during the creation of the discourse, and the participants were invited
through the introduction to the survey to respond as new teachers and co-researchers.
In our analysis we will argue a more complex process than a simple Hawthorne or
observer effect but, as has been noted, the texts produced once the surveillance of the
university was removed were very different from the text produced in relation to the
same focus questions just a few weeks earlier.
Phase 1 – Phenomenographical Analysis
Research in the phenomenographic tradition seeks to develop an ‘awareness of the
meanings, or range of meanings, that learning has for students and the intentionality
with which students approach their studies’ (2014). It investigates the ‘qualitatively
different ways in which people experience, conceptualise, perceive, and understand
various aspects of, and phenomena in, the world around them’ (Akerlind, 2005, p. 5).
Phenomenography involves categorising representations of phenomena within
interview or other text and is typically conducted by the researcher coding the text in
a manner similar to most grounded theory approaches. The method promotes
trustworthiness and credibility through recognition of the inductive role of the
15
researcher (Marton, 1986) to respond to emerging themes and remain aware of
contextual understandings (Patton, 2002).
Phenomenography can be distinguished from other traditions in qualitative research in
a number of ways (Barab & Squire, 2004). For example, Phenomenography describes
the variations of meanings found as related rather than independent. In
Phenomenography all understandings are seen as a fragment of the whole of human
understanding and variation emerges due to the way differences in experience and
context influence the aspects of a phenomena that an individual can discern.
Phenomenography positions understanding as context-sensitive and searches for
more, or less, complete or complex understandings. Akerlind (Akerlind, 2005) has
noted that in phenomenography terms such as meaning, understanding, experience,
awareness and perception are used interchangeably. Phenomenography focuses on
collective rather than individual experience and it provides ‘stripped’ rather than
‘rich’ descriptions that focus on the key critical features. The object is to distinguish
one way of experiencing phenomena from a qualitatively different way of
experiencing those phenomena without getting lost in endless minor variation.
To conduct the phenomenographical analysis the researchers separately read the
collated responses in an iterative manner, repeatedly reading through the responses
searching for underlying foci, comparing and contrasting them for similarities and
differences. Once we had each developed a set of hypothesis we worked
collaboratively to establish triangulation of the data (2005, p. 6) by continuing the
iterative examination of the texts and seeking data to confirm, contradict or modify
the emerging hypothesis. The collaborative part of this task was facilitated using
16
qualitative data analysis software NVivo 10. This software can help analysis move
beyond thick descriptions and articulate overarching models. It can also assist
researchers to maintain a transparent and auditable account of the research (Patton,
2002).
Findings
The findings of phenomenographic analysis are reported here in two interrelated
ways. Firstly a description of the key aspects of variation in experience or the
‘categories of description’ is provided. This is followed by a description of common
themes of variation running through the categories that also serves to provide the
reader with a sense of the data in use.
Data set 1: Assignments
The phenomenographic approach suggests we see all experiences as related rather
than isolated. As such, the categories of description can be understood as something
of a continuum, each showing greater complexity through discerning smaller
segments of the experience. Within the assignment texts the following pre-
professional learning categories were found:
1. Ways to make the curriculum meaningful to the individual students;
2. An understanding of individual students, their backgrounds and affective
responses;
3. Methods of developing significance, a positive learning environment and a
‘learning community’; and
4. A disposition to reduce person (teacher) bias and to allow greater levels of
student control in the learning environment.
17
There was a near universal focus on the (school) student in the major issues
articulated in the assignment text. To many, the presence of students with different
responses to learning seemed to come as a surprise
It was not until after my event that I discovered that the class contained
students with a range of individual learning needs... after 3 weeks of teaching
the class! (Assignment 10).
Upon making such a discovery, most of the texts moved on to identify a need to
understand individual students:
For Ben his emotional needs overrode any drive to complete work, it was
almost as if he was situated within a ZPD in his emotional state (Assignment
18)
Many students even expressed a sense of guilt when they had failed to consider the
individual needs of each student:
But in the midst of all that cat-herding I've been doing, I did notice that he'd
moved... What have I done? I've let this kid down. I'm a failure (Assignment
5).
It was only the assignments showing a more complex understanding that moved on
from statements of guilt or frustration and clearly identify areas for professional
development:
In essence, I had substituted engaging my students with good teaching practice
for coercing them into paying attention to poor practice." "You know you're
doing something wrong when a common question is 'Can we please do
18
something interesting today?' Or at least, I should have known something was
wrong (Assignment 19).
In this assignment the pre-service teacher built upon the concept of individual student
difference to discern a need to ensure curriculum held significance for the students.
The most complex responses went further and identified the need to learn not just
skills, but also the dispositions of a teacher. In some cases this required not just
professional but possibly personal growth:
Why was I so completely thrown by the simple act of a student avoiding eye
contact?... However, my reasons for doing this [ignoring a student's question]
were more selfish than altruistic (Assignment 24).
In other cases it led to a more critical engagement with the curriculum being taught,
and to a recognition that curriculum and pedagogy are interrelated:
Why was this student, and others in the class, not engaged in the content?"
"...it raised interesting questions on what I was teaching, why I was teaching
it, how I was teaching it and the level of student engagement (Assignment 32).
Perhaps the problem in my critical incident is not that my students had nothing
to say and said it all too quickly… lies in the fact that I did not truly give them
an opportunity to have anything to say (Assignment 4)
Data-set 2: Post-course texts
While produced by the same students in relation to the same learning and concepts,
the post-course research survey showed understandings of teaching that appeared
spread along an entirely different continuum. Although these texts included extensive
discussion of the ‘delivery’ of the course, the graduates made virtually no comment
19
about curriculum. There was the criticism, common in teacher education, that
elements of the course should be more ‘practical’ and related to ‘real classrooms’, but
in response to questions that specifically asked if each aspect of the course was
‘useful’ in preparing them to teach, there was no discussion of new ideas, or new
ways of conceiving teaching, or ways of understanding the role of education or
perhaps most notably, of children.
On this last point the semantic choice is very specific and carried across the cohort.
These beginning teachers talked about ‘classrooms’, but not once in all the thousands
of words collectively written did they even once mention children. When not guided
by the teacher educators, the variation of experience the students articulated in these
texts was around matters of personal learning preference, but that did not extend to a
critical evaluation of how the learning prepared them for their future work with
children. Nor did it once engage with the translation of their specific curriculum area
into pedagogical practice. The description of teaching found here is entirely generic.
Again listed in order of increasing complexity, the following understandings of the
learning needs of new teachers were discerned in these post-course texts:
1. Teaching requires technical skills;
2. The technical skills of teaching can be learned by observing teacher educators
and experienced teachers;
3. Solving problems in teaching often requires collaboration with experienced
teachers and peers; and
4. Collaborative problem solving may require information or skills from beyond
the group of teachers present.
20
It is notable that the students articulating category one seemed to have had a broadly
negative experience of the initial teacher education course, fundamentally rejecting
the teaching approach and assessment adopted. These students articulated an
instrumentalist understanding of learning in which the object was to complete the
task, and in which it is appropriate for learning to involve long hours of largely
private study. The group articulating category two were more engaged with the
course, but saw the ability of the lecturers to pass on and model solid generic teaching
skills as the most valuable part of this experience.
In discussing the course in this post-course setting, the students were entirely focussed
on how they had learned rather than what they had learned. Apart from category one
(technical skills) students emphasised the importance of contact with the teaching
team and with each other. In challenging the use of online lectures within the course,
for example, one student noted that she ‘would have preferred to be able to sit in the
lecture theatre and have the uni experience, to network with other students and be able
to ask questions’ (Response 14). Physical and intellectual human contact was a strong
recurring theme throughout the student response. In discussing tutorials, for example,
the majority of students were very positive about ‘getting to know each of the
[teaching team] better’, but many were critical of student presentations taking away
from their time to ‘really get to know [their] peers and learn from them through
discussion and debate’ (Response 2). Similarly it was commonly agreed that the
social media strategy provided in the course was a ‘great way of discussing ideas with
people, reading other people’s thoughts etc’ (Response 32). While the data showed
some students had a preference for face-to-face contact and others liked the online
21
environment, there was a near constant message that social interaction was an
important part of their learning. The variation was in the understanding of how this
interaction supported learning.
On the rare occasions when students did comment on being engaged with ‘big ideas,’
comments were always qualified; for example: ‘I found [a cultural diversity unit] and
[an inclusive education unit] very engaging (not that productive, but very engaging)’
(Response 12). Notably the units referred to here made up one-quarter of the course
work within the program and was largely ignored in the survey response, but when it
was mentioned it was categorised as ‘not that productive’. This suggest the variation
across the cohort was in a philosophical and ethical interest in inclusion in education,
but that perhaps none in the cohort really saw it as relevant to their immediate
professional practice. There was also the view expressed that this was the area that
was too ‘theoretical’ with specific criticism of the inclusion of current research
literature which was seen as too specific to offer generic ‘practical’ advice.
The variation in the discussion of Information Communication Technologies (ICTs)
was centred on personal comfort with using them, and the different value assigned to
engaging with peers. The majority of the group did place a high value on peer
engagement and saw social media as a valuable tool for that purpose. The variation
from this student experience and the designers’ intent is stark. The program design
and delivery deliberately and explicitly modelled the use of social media as a tool for
accessing additional expertise both as a school teaching strategy and as a professional
learning tool. The modelling of the use of blogs, podcasts, on-line lectures,
conferences, digital collections and open-access research papers that took place in the
program, and that students successfully implemented in their assessment, was
22
completely absent from the extensive discussion of ICTs in the post-graduation
survey.
Discussion of the assignment that produced data-set 1 showed a similar pattern. Some
within the cohort simply rejected this approach. They expected a teacher education
program to show them how to perform as a teacher and simply did not discern that the
analysis of events in school was part of this. Most of the group, however, did see high
value in the assessment structure, engaged with it in both a professional and scholarly
way, and reported it to be of great value:
[the assessment] made the individual units come together to create a holistic
and complete picture of what it means to be a “reflective practitioner”
(Response 12).
Their understanding of ‘reflection’, however, was quite specific. The core instructions
of the assignment were:
You will need to critically and deeply reflect upon this event and the
influences upon it, i.e., ‘what happened?’ and ‘why?’ This reflection will
make explicit reference to the theories, educational research and practices
you have studied [emphasis added].
In the work they submitted for assessment, most students engaged in reflexive
analysis well, but in the survey they wrote only of reflection on their own experiences
with no sense of a process connecting theory and practice.
Variation
23
The two sets of text were created by the same group of people engaging in the same
cloud of concepts and were created only weeks apart, yet they tell a very different
story about what is important in teaching. While there are important variations within
each group of texts, it is the variation between them that is most significant. The first
set of texts reveals an understanding of teaching that is responsive to the students, that
requires an understanding of the students’ context, and demands attention to one’s
own dispositions. The second set of texts, in contrast, reveals understandings that are
reflective on the teacher-self, and that expresses confidence and even faith in the
ability of a collective of teachers to have the skills, knowledge and resources to solve
any and all educational problems. In a phenomenographic sense, despite being created
later the second set of texts show a less complex discernment of concepts about
teaching than the first. They represent an earlier stage of learning than was present in
the assignments.
Interpretation
Through the evaluation described in the previous section we concluded that a group of
students who had discerned quite complex concepts about the nature of teaching work
in their capstone assignments, had returned to using simpler concepts when writing
about teacher professional learning just a few weeks later. This shift was stark with
the assignment texts being entirely student focussed and the later texts making no
mention of children in any way.
It must be noted that the nature of the writing tasks did encourage this difference to
some extent. In the first task students were asked to analyse an occurrence in school
and so children were structurally included in the writing task, whereas in the second
24
text the students were asked to write about what was important in teacher professional
learning and so they naturally placed themselves at the centre. This structural
difference, however, does not explain the complete absence of children from the later
texts. While a change of focus might be expected, the complete absence of children,
and indeed of subject specific curriculum and pedagogy, cannot be expected in any
discussion of teaching work and requires interpretation. To interpret the variation
found, we call first upon the understandings of text construction that come from
discursive psychology, and then on the understandings of experiential learning
developed by Kolb.
Discourse and purpose
Scholars in the field of discursive psychology have argued that discourse does not
reveal the constructs such as attitudes, beliefs or understandings that are ‘held’ by the
creators of the discourse. Rather, they contend, discourses should be seen as
discursive positions taken up in the interest of accomplishing specific ends in a
particular context (Salmona, Melton, & Miller, 2013). If this argument is followed,
then identifying key constructs within the discourse makes it possible to attend to the
contexts and situations that have shaped the creation of that discourse (Potter, 2004,
2010). This argument has important implications for policy scholarship, which is
heavily reliant on discourse analysis of various forms, although not always with
regard to the purposes of the creators of the discourse. It suggests that neither
naturalistic nor investigative texts (research interviews etc.) can be seen as revealing
the beliefs and attitudes held by particular actors in the policy setting. Rather they
might be seen as revealing the discursive positions that those actors believe will assist
them in achieving their goals in the social, institutional and policy context.
25
This approach to discourse provides the basis for a compelling interpretation of the
variation described in the findings of this study. It suggests that the students are not
showing their learning or conceptual understandings but rather they are, knowingly or
unknowingly, creating discursive positions that they feel will assist them to succeed in
the context in which they find themselves. This is a compelling argument in the
research under discussion. While each group of texts were created only a few weeks
apart, they were separated by the significant contextual change created by the
completion of the course. They were no longer students; they were graduates, new
teachers or, perhaps, job seekers. The near uniform change of emphasis of the 39
participants suggests that both the university and the new context each created a
powerful need for a particular discursive position. In the university setting, for
example, the students had clearly picked up the lecturers’ interests in student centred
education. We contend, however, that the post-course texts can be interpreted as a
new teacher response to the performative environment that they perceived in schools
in the era of New Public Management.
The interpretation of the second texts as a discursive response to a change in context
is built upon the key concepts discerned in those texts. As new teachers, this group
articulated a key need to display technical but generic teaching skills, they identified
that these skills could be learned through observation of more experienced teachers
(who would also, by and large, be the group assessing their performance), and they
held the position that educational problems could be solved through reflection on
existing knowledge at the personal or group level. These positions are consistent with
a performative environment that demands: competence over the academic tradition of
26
questioning; that holds that good teaching can be codified in standards rather than be
an ever evolving and contested practice; and that glorifies the performance of
‘reflection’ over moving on in the learning cycle to abstract conceptualisation and
even active experimentation. These post-course texts represent a position that is
highly suitable for observation within the performative environment of current policy.
Similarly, the assignment texts provide a discursive position suitable for observation
by us, the university lecturers. As such, neither text can be seen as significantly
representative of student learning. The differences between them, however, are highly
informative about the different pressures experienced during their creation. We turn
now to a consideration of the effect of the different pressures experienced by new
teachers on their (pre)professional learning.
Experiential Learning
27
Figure 1: Kolb's Experiential Learning Theory
Kolb’s (Wetherell, 1998) Experiential Learning Theory provides a framework to take
this interpretation further with particular regard to understanding how policy context
influences the mechanics of learning. Kolb’s theory addresses four dynamic stages of
learning: accommodative, diverging, assimilating, and convergent. Individual learners
are commonly more comfortable with one phase of learning over the others, but we
use this model as it shows the transition from abstract conceptualisation to active
experimentation that is required of learning in a professional context such as teaching.
The four phases can be presented as the product of two variables: a processing
continuum, or how we approach a task; and a perception continuum, or how we think
and feel about a task. The model is represented in figure 1.
28
Kolb & Kolb (1984) argue that learners teeter between the abstract and the active
when faced with unfamiliar situations. Regardless of the participant’s level of content
knowledge, they found that participants may only experiment with their actions when
a specific trigger point is engaged because perceived risks within a situation may
appear too great to take action. To interpret the variation found in this study, we argue
that this balancing point can actually go either way, and that participants may be
unwilling to engage in thinking when the perceived risks of the inaction that thinking
may create are too great.
As part of their university learning, the majority of students seemed to be entirely able
to work around this learning cycle. Some expressed reservations about being able to
identify an appropriate event for analysis and were not confident about their ‘feel’ for
the field, others lacked confidence in applying theory or found this type of work
overly abstract, but virtually all were able to engage at each step of the cycle with a
moderate to high level of competence. The qualification on this being that there is no
way to determine the extent to which they accommodated the learning into practice
because, as pre-service teachers, this was their initial practice.
Despite this successful engagement, the understandings of professional learning needs
expressed in the post-course survey are more limited. They are no longer university
students responding to their lecturers’ interests and influenced more by the pressures
of the performative work environment, the understandings of learning they express
appears to be entirely at the ‘feeling’ end of the perception continuum of Kolb’s
model. This short circuits the learning cycle in that their articulated reflective practice
29
skips directly from ‘diverging’ to ‘accommodating’ without the assimilating and
converging steps that they clearly were engaging in as students.
Conclusion
Performative environments create a distinctive risk profile for professional learning.
In adult learning risk has traditionally been understood by most learners to lay in
taking premature action with all the potential affective consequences. In contrast, in a
performative environment, the risks of inaction are far greater as failure to actively
demonstrate competence can dramatically slow career progression and potentially
lead to dismissal. When this is considered in terms of Kolb’s Experiential Learning
Theory, it can be seen that a performative environment pushes learners quickly to
action (to the left of the diagram in Figure 1). Still, action requires some base, and if it
is not abstract conceptualisation then Experiential Learning Theory suggests it will be
the professional’s own concrete experience.
The outcome of abstraction being a high risk activity is that it is replaced by a hollow
approximation and ‘performance’ of abstraction. For example, the graduates
articulated a clear position that sharing their experiences with other teachers was an
important activity within their professional practice. Many termed this ‘reflective’
practice. They did not, however, articulate an understanding of other practices that
were taught within the course such as critical thinking, looking for multiple sources of
information in approaching a problem, or making use of research knowledge to help
explain the situations they would encounter.
30
So driven by performance was their understanding of reflective practice articulated in
the second texts that not even once were children mentioned in their descriptions. The
purpose they saw for the reflective skills and language taught within the course was to
publicly examine their own teaching as something apparently quite separate to their
student’s learning. Interestingly the Australian teaching standards authority actively
encourages this practice among practicing teachers through an on-line discussion
forum Teacher Feature where teachers share their practice in relation to the standards
in short bites that do not allow space for critique or evaluation of the effectiveness of
the shared practice.
The notion that early career teachers understand their learning needs as largely in the
‘accommodating’ sector of Kolb’s model without engaging in the other learning
stages is troubling. The very word ‘accommodating’ suggest that learning should not
and will not lead to transformational change, and that the problems of professional
practice can be resolved within one’s current knowledge and experience. For this
reason, we argue that the logic of the New Public Management is being defeated by
its current implementation in the area of teacher professional learning. The promise of
the New Public Management is that it provides an environment for innovation and
experimentation free from the burdens of top-down control. It is apparent, however,
that the performative environment it creates actively works against professional
learning being a basis for the creation of new knowledge or moves towards
innovation.
A decade ago, reflecting on the findings of a large research project into effective
teaching practices dubbed ‘productive pedagogies’, Gore and her colleagues argued
31
that teacher education had developed an ‘overemphasis on classroom environments
and processes rather than on substance and purposes’ and that the purpose of field
experience ‘too often [focused] on practising teaching techniques with relatively little
concern for what is being taught and the quality of learning produced (pp. 385-386).
The analysis in this study suggests it will be difficult to move back towards a greater
concern for substance and purpose while teachers are so heavily driven by
performative demands.
This finding should not be read as an argument that teachers do not need to perform
well or maintain high standards, rather it is an argument that current policy enactment
is having a self-defeating impact on teacher learning and that alternatives should be
considered. A move away from specifying the performance and towards higher level
professional capabilities might better encourage engagement in the full learning cycle.
An example is Sachs’ (2005) ‘activist teacher’ focussing on meta-competencies such
as advising, issue and problem identification, spreading ideas, providing alternative
perspectives, evaluating programs, and advocacy. The critique implicit in the title of
this article is a further example. For quality professional learning that is expansive,
teachers need time to think. The current pressure to skip straight to performance
reduces the time they have. This approach may lead to the performance of some
aspects of best practice in the short term, but a reduction to deep and effective
professional learning that engages all phases of the learning cycle will significantly
reduce the capacity of teachers to draw on their learning in response to new and
changing circumstances, and the changing needs of students. Given that the
performative environment of current governance modes is not likely to be reduced in
32
the short term, there is a need for further research and development in both curriculum
and policy design that enhances expansive teacher professional learning.
References Akerlind, G. S. (2005). Academic Growth and Development: How Do University
Academics Experience It? Higher Education, 50(1), 1-‐32. doi: 10.1007/s10734-‐004-‐6345-‐1
Anderson, T., & Shattuck, J. (2012). Design-‐based research: A decade of progress in education research? Educational Researcher, 41(1), 16-‐25. doi: 10.3102/0013189X11428813
Apple, M. W. (2009). Can critical education interrupt the right? Discourse: Studies in the Cultural Politics of Education, 30(3), 239-‐251. doi: 10.1080/01596300903036814
Australian Institute for Teaching and School Leadership. (2011). National professional standards for teachers. Melbourne: Australian Institute for Teacher and School Leadership.
Australian Institute for Teaching and School Leadership. (2012). Australian teacher performance and development framework. Retrieved 22 February, 2013, from http://www.aitsl.edu.au/verve/_resources/Australian_Teacher_Performance_and_Development_Framework_August_2012.pdf
Ball, S. J. (2003). The teacher's soul and the terrors of performativity. Journal of Education Policy, 18(2), 215-‐228.
Ball, S. J. (2009). Privatising education, privatising education policy, privatising educational research: network governance and the 'competition state'. Journal of Education Policy, 24(1), 83-‐99. doi: 10.1080/02680930802419474
Ball, S. J., & Olmedo, A. (2013). Care of the self, resistance and subjectivity under neoliberal governmentalities. Critical Studies in Education, 54(1), 85-‐96. doi: 10.1080/17508487.2013.740678
Barab, S., & Squire, K. (2004). Design-‐based research: Putting a stake in the ground. The Journal of Learning Sciences, 13(1), 1-‐14.
Barrett, B. D. (2009). No Child Left Behind and the assault on teachers' professional practices and identities. Teaching & Teacher Education, 25(8), 1018-‐1025. doi: 10.1016/j.tate.2009.03.021
Berliner, D. C. (2009). MCLB (Much Curriculum Left Behind): A U.S. Calamity in the Making. Educational Forum, 73(4), 284-‐296. doi: 10.1080/00131720903166788
Braun, A., Maguire, M., & Ball, S. J. (2010). Policy enactments in the UK secondary school: examining policy, practice and school positioning. Journal of Education Policy, 25(4), 547-‐560. doi: 10.1080/02680931003698544
Clandinin, D. J., Downey, C. A., & Huber, J. (2009). Attending to changing landscapes: Shaping the interwoven identities of teachers and teacher
33
educators. Asia-‐Pacific Journal of Teacher Education, 37(2), 141-‐154. doi: 10.1080/13598660902806316
Connell, R. (2009). Good teachers on dangerous ground: towards a new view of teacher quality and professionalism. Critical Studies in Education, 50(3), 213-‐229. doi: 10.1080/17508480902998421
Connell, R. (2013). The neoliberal cascade and education: an essay on the market agenda and its consequences. Critical Studies in Education, 54(2), 99-‐112.
Cook, D. L., & King, J. (1968). A study of the Hawthorne effect in educational research. Research in the Teaching of English, 2(2), 93-‐98.
Day, C., & Qing, G. (2007). Variations in the conditions for teachers' professional learning and development: sustaining commitment and effectiveness over a career. Oxford Review of Education, 33(4), 423-‐443. doi: 10.1080/03054980701450746
Engeström, Y. (2006). Activity Theory and Expansive Design. In S. Bagnara & G. C. Smith (Eds.), Theories and practice in interaction design. (pp. 3-‐23). Mahwah, NJ, US: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publishers.
Groundwater-‐Smith, S., & Mockler, N. (2009). Teacher Professional Learning in an Age of Compliance. Netherlands: Springer.
Hall, D., Gunter, H., & Bragg, J. (2012). Leadership, New Public Management and the re-‐modelling and regulation of teacher identities. International Journal of Leadership in Education, 16(2), 173-‐190. doi: 10.1080/13603124.2012.688875
Hammerness, K., Darling-‐Hammond, L., & Shulman, L. (2002). Toward Expert Thinking: How curriculum case writing prompts the development of theory-‐based professional knowledge in student teachers. Teaching Education, 13(2), 219-‐243. doi: 10.1080/1047621022000007594
Hardy, I. (2014). A logic of appropriation: enacting national testing (NAPLAN) in Australia. Journal of Education Policy, 29(1), 1-‐18. doi: 10.1080/02680939.2013.782425
Hargreaves, A. (2009). A decade of educational change and a defining moment of opportunity—an introduction. Journal of Educational Change, 10(2/3), 89-‐100. doi: 10.1007/s10833-‐009-‐9103-‐4
Harris, C. M. (2002). Is multimedia-‐based instruction Hawthorne revisited? Is difference the difference? Education, 122(4), 839.
Hebson, G., Earnshaw, J., & Marchington, L. (2007). Too emotional to be capable? The changing nature of emotion work in definitions of 'capable teaching'. Journal of Education Policy, 22(6), 675-‐694. doi: 10.1080/02680930701625312
Kahn, Z. R. (2014). Using Innovative Tools to Teach Computer Application to Business Students -‐ A Hawthorne Effect or Successful Implementation Here to Stay. Journal of University Teaching & Learning Practice, 11(1), 1-‐11.
Kolb, A. Y., & Kolb, D. A. (2005). Learning styles and learning spaces: Enhancing experiential learning in higher education. Academy of Management Learning & Education, 4(2), 193-‐212.
Kolb, D. A. (1984). Experiential learning: Experience as the source of learning and development (Vol. 1). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-‐Hall.
Lasky, S. (2005). A sociocultural approach to understanding teacher identity, agency and professional vulnerability in a context of secondary school
34
reform. Teaching & Teacher Education, 21(8), 899-‐916. doi: 10.1016/j.tate.2005.06.003
Leonard, S. N., Fitzgerald, R. N., & Riordan, G. (In Press). Using Developmental Evaluation as a Design Thinking Tool for Curriculum Innovation in Professional Higher Education. Higher Education Research and Development.
Leonard, S. N., & Roberts, P. (2014). Performers and Postulates: the role of evolving socio-‐historical contexts in shaping new teacher professional identities Critical Studies in Education, 55(3). doi: http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/17508487.2014.904808.
Lingard, B., & Rizvi, F. (2010). Globalizing education policy. Abingdon, Oxon: Routledge.
Marton, F. (1986). Phenomenography—A research approach to investigating different understandings of reality. Journal of Thought, 21, 289-‐303.
Mausethagen, S. (2013). Accountable for what and to whom? Changing representations and new legitimation discourses among teachers under increased external control. Journal of Educational Change, 14(4), 423-‐444. doi: 10.1007/s10833-‐013-‐9212-‐y
McAdams, D. P. (2001). The psychology of life stories. Review of General Psychology, 5(2), 100-‐122. doi: 10.1037/1089-‐2680.5.2.100
McCambridge, J., Witton, J., & Elbourne, D. R. (2014). Systematic review of the Hawthorne effect: New concepts are needed to study research participation effects. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 67(3), 267-‐277. doi: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2013.08.015
Moore, A. (2004). The Good Teacher : Dominant discourses in teaching and teacher education. New York: RoutledgeFalmer.
Moore, A., Edwards, G., Halpin, D., & George, R. (2002). Compliance, Resistance and Pragmatism: the (re)construction of schoolteacher identities in a period of intensive educational reform. British Educational Research Journal, 28(4), 551-‐565. doi: 10.1080/0141192022000005823
Nilsson, P. (2009). From lesson plan to new comprehension: exploring student teachers pedagogical reasoning in learning about teaching. European Journal of Teacher Education, 32(3), 239 -‐ 258.
Patton, M. Q. (2002). Qualitative Research and Evaluation Methods. Thousand oaks, California: Sage.
Potter, J. (2004). Discourse analysis and discursive psychology. In D. Silverman (Ed.), Qualitative research: Theory method and practice (pp. 73-‐94). Londan: Sage.
Potter, J. (2010). Contemporary discursive psychology: issues, prospects, and Corcoran's awkward ontology. The British Journal Of Social Psychology / The British Psychological Society, 49(Pt 4), 657-‐678. doi: 10.1348/014466610X486158
Power, M. (1994). The Audit Explosion London: Demos. Power, M. (2009). The risk management of nothing. Accounting, Organizations &
Society, 34(6/7), 849-‐855. doi: 10.1016/j.aos.2009.06.001 Productivity Commission. (2012). Schools Workforce, Research Report. Canberra. Pyne, C. (2014). Announcement of Teacher Education Ministeial Advisory Group.
from http://www.pyneonline.com.au/media/transcripts/announcement-of-teacher-education-ministerial-advisory-group
35
Roberts, P., & Leonard, S. (2012). Interrupting performativity in pre-‐service teacher education. Paper presented at the Australian Association for Research in Education -‐Asia Pacific Education Research Association Joint Conference, Sydney.
Rowlands, J., & Rawolle, S. (2013). Neoliberalism is not a theory of everything: a Bourdieuian analysis of illusio in educational research. Critical Studies in Education, 54(3), 260-‐272. doi: 10.1080/17508487.2013.830631
Sachs, J. (2003). The activist teaching profession. Buckingham: Open University Press.
Sahlberg, P. (2011). Finnish lessons: what can the world learn from educational change in Finland. New York: Teachers College Press.
Salmona, M., Melton, J., & Miller, R. (2013). Online Social Networking Across Cultures: An Exploration of Divergent and Common Practices. Journal of Technical Writing & Communication, 43(3), 317-‐331. doi: 10.2190/TW.43.3.e
Stone-‐Johnson, C. (2014). Parallel professionalism in an era of standardisation. Teachers & Teaching, 20(1), 74-‐91. doi: 10.1080/13540602.2013.848514
Takayama, K. (2013). Untangling the global-‐distant-‐local knot: the politics of national academic achievement testing in Japan. Journal of Education Policy, 28(5), 657-‐675. doi: 10.1080/02680939.2012.758833
Troman, G. (2008). Primary teacher identity, commitment and career in performative school cultures. British Educational Research Journal, 34(5), 619-‐633. doi: 10.1080/01411920802223925
Usher, R. (2006). Lyotard’s performance. Studies in Philosophy & Education, 25(4), 279-‐288. doi: 10.1007/s11217-‐006-‐9009-‐z
Wetherell, M. (1998). Positioning and interpretive repertoires: Conversation analysis and post-‐structuralism in dialogue. Discourse and Society, 9, 387-‐412.
Wilkins, C. (2011). Professionalism and the post-‐performative teacher: new teachers reflect on autonomy and accountability in the English school system. Professional Development in Education, 37(3), 389-‐409. doi: 10.1080/19415257.2010.514204
top related