reframing the practicum: constructing performative space in initial teacher education

ARTICLE IN PRESS

0742-051X/$ - se

doi:10.1016/j.tat

�Correspondifax: +440 1786

E-mail addre

Teaching and Teacher Education 22 (2006) 353–361

www.elsevier.com/locate/tate

Reframing the practicum: Constructing performative space ininitial teacher education

Gary Wilson�, John I’Anson

Institute of Education, University of Stirling, Stirling, Scotland, FK9 4LA, UK

Abstract

This paper points to a neglected dimension to Schon’s work on the reflective practitioner: his distinctive characterisation

of the practicum. We argue that Schon’s understanding of the practicum is integrally related to his understanding of the

reflective practitioner. The appropriation of the latter concept within programmes of initial teacher education has tended

to go hand in hand with a different model of the practicum that regards this as being synonymous with practice in schools.

We outline a number of ways in which the practicum, as described by Schon, is significantly different from this. We identify

key aspects of Schon’s characterisation of the practicum and describe one alternative approach to initial teacher education

that uses microteaching as a practicum context. This is a significant issue because concern has been expressed both as

regards the quality of new teachers’ reflection and the perceived inability of TEIs to change student–teachers’ preconceived

notions of learning and teaching.

Whilst research into student teachers’ perceptions of microteaching has generally viewed this process positively, we were

interested to research whether this remained the case once students had made the transition to teaching. The voices of

recently qualified practitioners who have been through this programme are drawn upon as illustrative of the key features of

this process which they identify. The article is a contribution to the discourse upon reflective practice and initial teacher

education and also makes a contribution to debate concerning the preferred location of initial teacher education.

r 2005 Published by Elsevier Ltd.

Keywords: Practicum; Complexity; Teacher education

1. Introduction

Recent literature within the field of initial teachereducation (ITE) has seen much written aboutSchon’s (1983, 1987) concept of the reflectivepractitioner, but relatively little attention to hisnotion of the practicum (Ryan, Toohey, & Hughes,1996, p. 356). Whilst there has been extensive

e front matter r 2005 Published by Elsevier Ltd.

e.2005.11.006

ng author. Tel.: +440 1786 467631;

467633

ss: [email protected] (G. Wilson).

research on a variety of different models of thepracticum (Zeichner, 1986) there has to date been arelative paucity of literature on Schon’s character-isation of the practicum. Within programmes ofITE the practicum is usually regarded as equivalentto students undertaking a period of school-basedpractice. This appropriation and interpretation ofthe practicum has to date been regarded as beingrelatively unproblematic. After all, most wouldaccept that there are important dimensions tolearning that cannot simply be taught and thus apractical dimension to learning to teach is seen as

www.elsevier.com/locate/tate

ARTICLE IN PRESSG. Wilson, J. I’Anson / Teaching and Teacher Education 22 (2006) 353–361354

desirable (Bransford, Franks, Vye, & Sherwood,1989). Given this bringing together of the theore-tical and practical dimensions involved in learningto teach, it has been claimed that such ITE coursesprovide an integrated learning experience thatpromotes the development of the reflective practi-tioner.

Whilst these models of ITE draw upon Schon’sconcept of the reflective practitioner they do notlink this with Schon’s own concept of the. Weoutline ways in which the concept of the practicumas characterised by Schon is different in a number ofsignificant respects from the conventional under-standing of the practicum as a series of school basedpractices. This is a significant issue because concernhas been expressed both as regards the quality ofnew teachers’ reflection and the perceived inabilityof TEIs to change student–teachers’ preconceivednotions of learning and teaching. According toMoore and Ash (2002, p. 1):

ymany new teachers choose not to reflect ontheir practice constructively and critically, pre-ferring to fall back on pre-conceived under-standings of how they and their pupils shouldconduct themselves in the classroom.

We argue in this paper that the nature, locationand implications of the practicum setting areintegrally related to Schon’s understanding ofreflection. This being the case, the nature andimplications of the practicum setting need to bethematised. In the light of this we then characteriseone approach which uses microteaching as aprecursor to school experience in order to create adistinctive practicum setting that attempts a recon-ciliation between an ITE programme and theSchonian model of the practicum. We draw uponthe views of current practitioners in their secondyear of teaching who have been through thisprogramme in an attempt to illustrate and evaluatethe practicum’s effectiveness as a complementaryadjunct to school experience.

2. Schon’s practicum

Schon’s concept of the practicum is first givenexplicit consideration in Educating the Reflective

Practitioner (1987). The concept is articulated as aspace designed specifically to provide an approx-

imation to a real life environment. However, thisdiffers from the real world in that the practicum is asimplified version of reality that has as one of its

primary purposes the promotion of reflection.Schon develops this notion of the practicum acrossa range of different professional settings thatinclude a design studio, music, psychotherapy, etc.In Schon’s words (Schon, 1987, p. 37):

A practicum is a setting designed for the task oflearning a practice. In a context which approx-imates a practice world, students learn by doing,although their doing usually falls short of realworld work.

This simplification of the real world of practiceenables the opening up of ways of thinking thatmight otherwise be crowded out by the complexityinherent in the real world. The simplified world ofthe practicum enables theco-construction of a‘conversation through time’. This is easier toachieve when the focus of the praticum is anisolated teaching episode, upon which a range ofperspectives may be brought to bear (I’Anson,Rodrigues, & Wilson, 2003).

This aspect of Schon’s model of the practicum isone that challenges the established primacy of theschool experience as practicum. As Ryan et al.(1996, p. 356) observe:

Schon’s idea of a reflective practicum is radicallydifferent to the notion of the practicum in generaluse in the literature, as it reverses the traditionalrelationship between theory and practice, makingprofessional practice the core organiser of thecurriculum.

Practice is thus a central feature of the practicumbut as has already been suggested, this practicetakes place within an environment which differs in anumber of ways from the real life context that itsimulates. It is the simulated nature of the activitiesthat take place within this practicum setting that is acentral feature of Schon’s definition of the practi-cum. Hence:

y[students] learn by undertaking projects thatsimulate and simplify practice; or they take onreal world projects under close supervision.(Schon, 1987, p. 37)

This further aspect of supervision is of funda-mental importance to Schon and is developedthrough his exploration of the coaching relation-ship. According to this reading, the role of thecoach/senior is multifaceted and crucial for thesuccess of the practicum. The main activities ofcoaches, according to Schon (1987, p. 38). are:

ARTICLE IN PRESSG. Wilson, J. I’Anson / Teaching and Teacher Education 22 (2006) 353–361 355

‘demonstrating, advising, questioning and criticiz-ing’. Fundamental to this vision of the practicum,and inherent in the operationalisation of thecomplementary practicum outlined in this paper, isthe dialogical relationship that obtains between thestudent and coach.

Of the different dimensions that together con-stitute a practicum in Schon’s sense, another is itsunusual location betwixt and between contexts thatare usually regarded as distinct. This differs frommost applications of the practicum in ITE, wherethere could be considered to be some form of binaryuniversity-school opposition: either activities takeplace in a university context or in a school context.Schon’s practicum, by contrast, is purposely locatedwithin the hyphen that both separates and connectsuniversity-school (Fine, 1994). Hence the practicum:

ystands in an intermediate space between thepractice world, the ‘‘lay’’ world of ordinary life,and the esoteric world of the academy.’ (Schon,1987, p. 37) thus forming a potential bridge overwhat has come to be known as the theory/practice divide as played out in ITE.

3. The practicum in ITE programmes

Professional development of pre-service teacherstends to be shared but divided between universityand school settings in a manner which can re-inscribe this binary opposition. According to Fur-long et al. (1996), it is possible to identify three typesof partnership that form points along a continuumof partnership arrangements from university-basedto school-based. These are respectively ‘collabora-tive partnerships’, ‘HEI-led partnerships’, and‘separatist partnerships’ (Furlong, 1996). Whilstthe trend in recent years is increasingly towardscollaborative partnerships there has been increasedpolitical pressure to privilege school experience as aprimary site for professional learning (Furlong,2000).

Along side this there has been an assumption thatthe school-based experience component of ITEconstitutes the practicum (Clarke, 1995). However,as Clarke has pointed out, this identification ofschool experience with the practicum can lead to anumber of shortcomings. In particular, the smoothtransition from one context to another that is afeature of Schon’s descriptions was markedly absentin the situations that Clarke describes in the movefrom the virtual world to the real world of

performance. In the light of this Clarke (1995, pp.259–260) contends that:

ya review of Schon’s conception of reflectivepractice and his models for coaching reflectivepractice for student teachers in practicum settingsis warranted.

However, the practicum as envisaged by Schonwas never intended to replicate the level of complex-ity to be found in the ‘real world’ of the classroom.Indeed, as described above, a key dimension of thepracticum, as described by Schon, is the reduction incomplexity; the difficulties of the real world wouldbe hindrances to the main purposes of the practi-cum.

Part of the difficulty in locating the practicum in aschool setting derives from the very complexity ofcompeting demands to which schools are subject.As Schon (1983, p. 17) has observed, schools:

yare asked to respond to the conflictingdemands of the many different groups whichhave a stake in their enterprises.

These competing interest groups may well in-stantiate values antithetical to kind of protectedspace necessary for the practicum as envisaged bySchon (Blake, Smeyers, Smith, & Standish, 1998).As Sykes (1986, in Zeichner 1994, p. 13) hasobserved:

ythe physical structure of the school, the workpatterns, the need to process clients in batches,the absence of time, and frequently the normsinfluencing interactions among teachers andadministrators all work against any regularreliance on critical inquiry.

This effectively problematises the location of thepracticum within a school setting given the difficultyof protecting the space necessary for a practicum towork. Indeed, there may even be dangers attachedto introducing students to a highly complexenvironment at a too early stage in their learningprocess. In this connection Maynard (2001) drawsattention to the pressures in a school practicecontext which may inhibit the development ofreflective practice and instead lead to the promotionof ‘pseudo-concepts’ in Vygotsky’s (1962) terms. Insuch cases concepts may well be used, but theirmeanings and implications are not fully understood(Meadows, 1993).

In other words, the practicum creates a space thatpotentially allows a quality of attention to different


aspects of reflection that is not so possible within thecomplexity of everyday worlds. Part of the reasonfor this is that teaching contexts in schools areinevitably sites of high social complexity andcontingency. Teaching is an inherently uncertainpractice because of the range of unpredictablepossibilities that may unfold at any given moment(Cope & I’Anson, 2003). This form of practicum,which is characterised by reduced complexity,enables a student teacher to engage with practicalsituations that involve ‘the complexity, uncertainty,instability, uniqueness, and value conflicts which areincreasingly perceived as central to the world ofprofessional practice’ (Schon, 1983, p. 14), but in away that increases their ability to reflect mean-ingfully on their early professional learning

There are a number of further potential dangersassociated with a practicum located in a schoolcontext. On the one hand it has been widelyrecognised that student teachers’ core beliefs andpractice remain relatively unaffected by the processof ITE which they undergo (Gomez, Walker, &Page, 2000). On the other, there is a related dangerthat they instead undergo a process of ‘cumulativesocialisation’, in which, according to Lauriala(1997), they progressively conform to the identitiesand roles that they are exposed to in the form ofmentor teachers at practicum schools.

In this connection Britzman (1992), distinguishesbetween a person’s development as a teacher asdistinct from their identification with a particularrole. Likewise Dobbins (1996) distinguishes betweenlearning to teach and learning to be a teacher. In thelight of this Britzman (1992, p. 44) speaks of theneed to ‘yprovide spaces for student teachers torethink how their constructions of the teacher makefor lived experiencey’. It is our contention that theSchonian practicum, given its reduction in complex-ity, provides the context in which such explorationscan occur. It is a space for the entertaining ofalternative pedagogies and their implications for thepractice of teaching. The practicum represents,moreover, opportunities for the student teacher toexperiment with a variety of identities without thehigh social stakes associated with the more complexsocial classroom situation. Student teachers are freefrom many of the pressures of apprenticeship thatthey encounter when they move into their actualschool experience.

This ‘revisioned’ practicum provides an environ-ment designed to enable the exploration of theory in

and through practice. As Fay has observed, this is

‘not a question of learning the theory so much as itis learning to conceive of oneself in terms of thetheory.’ (Fay, 1987, p. 114) The location of thepracticum within a setting outside their eventualcommunity of practice, furthermore, potentiallyenables student teachers to see differently and tobecome aware of structures and power-knowledgedynamics that they might not otherwise becomeaware of. In this respect the dislocation of thepracticum from school to within a higher educationsetting provides a culture that is conducive to suchcritique. As Gomez et al. (2000, p. 746) observe:

Teacher education that aims for social andinstitutional critique as well as just and equitableteaching practices must look beyond the local,parochial, and personal in its foci.

The practicum is thus a space that potentiallyprovides opportunities for students to becomeaware of their own pre-conceived notions ofteaching. This space is distinctive in that it providesmultiple refractions on their practice and theexploration through their practice of a range ofdifferent perspectives (Clarke, 1995). As I’Ansonet al. (2003, pp. 195–196) observe, such a model:

yputs considerable emphasis on opportunitiesfor dialogue with various others (peers, teacherfellows, tutors), each of which enables engage-ment with a range of different understandingsand perspectives. This involves the student-teacher in actively negotiating the interpretationof their practice through the encounter withmultiple refractions.

This process occurs within a context in whichstudent teachers are encouraged to reconfigure theirown identity in the light of rethinking and reframingtheir implicit commitments (Vare, 1994).

4. Rethinking the practicum: engaging with schon

In this section we outline a model of thepracticum developed at an Institute of Educationwithin a UK university which uses microteaching asa preparation for school experience in a way thatintends to mobilise a number of Schon’s concepts.The nature and purpose of the practicum hasevolved from the initial introduction of microteach-ing over 30 years ago. Whilst the practice ofmicroteaching has remained an integral dimen-sion of initial teacher education at this Institutethroughout this time, the associated rationale and


understanding has been subject to critical reviewand radical change.

The continued presence of microteaching at thisuniversity as a preparation for, and complement toschool experience, has enabled the construction of aperformative space for student teachers which ismuch more akin to the Schonian characterisation ofthe practicum.

Microteaching was originally introduced at thisInstitute in the 1960s and is based upon the modeldeveloped at Stanford University (Allen, 1966). Asoriginally conceived, the practice of microteachingwas linked to a behaviourist frame, but over timethis departed from this theoretical position to onewhich focused upon cognitive models (McIntyre,McKnight, & White, 1977). Such a change can beseen as part of a more general shift in the nature ofeducational research, for as Fang (1996, p. 47)observes:

yresearch on teaching and learning has shiftedfrom a unidirectional emphasis on correlates ofobservable teacher behaviour with studentachievement to a focus on teachers’ thinking,beliefs, planning and decision-making processes.

MacLeod (1984, p. 5975) outlines four distinct,though sometimes overlapping models of micro-teaching:

(1)
Pragmatism
This early phase drew upon a variety ofconcepts from psychology, such as modellingand reinforcement, but the main emphasis wason pragmatic success. The task was to discoverthe ideal combination of the components ofmicroteaching to enable the most effectiveacquisition of skills.

(2)
Behaviour modification
With this model, teaching skills are viewed assets of behaviours that can be acquiredthrough the use of classical behaviour mod-ification techniques.

(3)
Social skills
Here, teaching skills are regarded as analogousto perceptual and motor skills and theconsequences of this are drawn out for themicroteaching process.

(4)
The cognitive model
This emphasises participants’ thinking abouttheir teaching, and so focus tends to be upona longer-term perspective rather than shortterm changes in teaching behaviour. With

this model, teaching skills are reconceptualisedas ‘ways of thinking’ rather than ways ofbehaving.

The approach to microteaching developed hererepresents a further model that explicitly engageswith both Schon’s characterisation of reflectivepractice and his understanding of the practicum.As developed within this education Institute, thepracticum is seen to have three core aspects in that itaffords:

(a)
a simplified environment for the developmentof practice—in common with all approaches tomicroteaching,
(b)
a context which promotes the development ofprofessional identity through dialogue andattention to agency
(c)
the conditions necessary for a critical reflec-tiveness through being situated in a contextthat values critique.
5. The practicum in context

ITE at this university differs from the moreconventional PGCE route in that education is takenby students concurrently with their subject studies.The process of teacher formation is thus stretchedover three and a half years for general degreestudents and four and a half years for honoursstudents. At the beginning of their professionalcourses in year 2, having spent 3 weeks observing aschool, student teachers undertake a number ofmicroteaching lessons with small groups of pupils(6–8) drawn from local schools. These lessons are ofapproximately 30min duration and students workin pairs: one taking the lesson and the otherrecording the lesson by video camera. This issubsequently discussed by the students themselvesin dialogue with their university tutor and teacherfellow (see below). The following week the studentsreverse roles and the process is repeated with adifferent group of pupils. This initial exposure to thepracticum lasts for seven weeks.

The teacher fellow, though a school-based practi-tioner themselves differs from the school-basedmentor in having a measure of independence fromthe particular situatedness of an actual schoolcontext. In a number of respects the teacher fellowperforms the role of coach as characterised by

ARTICLE IN PRESS

1Pseudonyms have been used throughout.

G. Wilson, J. I’Anson / Teaching and Teacher Education 22 (2006) 353–361358

Schon’ (e.g., 1987, p. 152). In addition, theuniversity tutor brings to this context criticalperspectives informed by research from a stand-point at a further remove from the classroom.

The following semester this structure is repeated,but this time there is a more developed approxima-tion to the real world in that students teach the samegroup of pupils for the duration of the practicum.This adds to their previous experience in that theynow have to design and implement a sequence oflessons rather than focus only on discrete episodes.Again, a process of reflection through engagementwith multiple perspectives is integral to this,facilitated by the ongoing dialogue between student,peer, teacher fellow and tutor.

Only after this process has been successfullycompleted do student teachers begin their firstperiod of extended school experience. Clearly thisrepresents a pivotal transition as the student teachermoves from a peripheral to a more centrally situatedposition within the community of practice (Wenger,1998). It is during this 5 week placement thatstudents encounter a much fuller immersion into thereal complexities and tensions of the classroom.

The subject teacher in the school placement takeson a mentoring role to the student teacher that issimilar to and different from the roles assumed bythe university tutor and teacher fellow in that theirfocus is upon the complexity of the real lifeclassroom.

From the forgoing description it is clear that themicroteaching practicum is viewed as a valuabletransitional space that is located between theuniversity and school-based practice. To this extentmicroteaching is not regarded as an alternative toschool-based experience but as a valuable prelimin-

ary field of action that has much in common withSchon’s nature of the practicum. Clearly such anapproach has implications as regards the location ofinitial teacher education. So, for example, of thethree ideal models put forward by Furlong (1996)above, the ‘partnership model’ is to be preferred aspotentially offering both the reduced complexityand the critical engagement. In other words, withsuch an approach, a strong university-based dimen-sion to ITE is both necessary and desirable.

6. Views of former students

Having outlined the understanding of the practi-cum as this has developed at this university, we nowconsider the views of six former students who were

in their second/third years of teaching in schools.Previous research at this university, (e.g., I’Anson etal., 2003) together with ongoing reviews of courseswith current student teachers and research fromother contexts (e.g. Gregory, 1986; MacLeod, 1984)indicates that while at university, student teachersvalue their microteaching experience highly. Butdoes this remain the case once they have made thetransition to teaching? There has to date been littlefocus upon students’ retrospective views of initialteacher education and microteaching in particular.We were therefore interested in engaging in a smallscale qualitative research project into the views offormer students who had made the transition toteaching in schools. What did they now view assignificant about their initial teacher education?Had their views changed with the benefit of hind-sight and a period of ‘real world’ practice? Andwhat features of their practicum experience did theyespecially regard as valuable?

The six students selected represented a range ofsubject areas. Interviews were conducted by tele-phone and were of approximately 45min duration.The interviews were semi-structured along the linesof Tomlinson’s method of hierarchical focusing(Tomlinson, 1989). This method ‘seeks to elicit theinterviewee’s constructs and deploys interviewer’sframing only when necessary and uses a hierarchicalinterview agenda to raise topics only as necessary’(Tomlinson, 1989, p. 165). This method enabledconversations to develop spontaneously whilstensuring that questions identified in advance wereaddressed by respondents. The interviews were taperecorded and subsequently transcribed. These voicesshould be viewed as illustrative of the regard inwhich this particular implementation of the practi-cum is held.

Prior to conducting the interviews we anticipatedthat practicing teachers might regard microteachingas being remote from the complex world of class-room life. However, all six teachers spoke in veryhigh terms about their initial experience.

‘ I think it’s extremely beneficial. The idea ofseeing yourself teaching is a genius idea, becausethere’s things you do that you’ll never realise thatyou do, unless you see them on TVy [Louise1]

The respondents nevertheless recognised thatmicroteaching was very different from the ‘realworld’ of the classroom:


You realise it’s not real life, but it’s a good way ofactually being introduced into standing in frontof a class for the first time, even though there’sonly six pupils and your only teaching them for25min. [Mark]

However, this was seen as potentially valuable apreparation to teach:

I felt quite prepared for it by the time I went intohigh school, y having done all these stagesbefore. [Carol]

The teachers interviewed used a number ofdifferent metaphors to describe microteaching.These suggested that in hindsight they saw theirteacher formation as a process of gradual inductioninto the complexity of teaching, and that this couldbe viewed in a number of phases. Amongst themetaphors used were: ‘stages’, ‘gradually being letloose’, ‘steps’, ‘cut your teeth’, ‘giving a taste’. Thesemetaphors suggest that these teachers have con-ceptualised their professional development as invol-ving the negotiation of phases and stages. Havingan initial situation with reduced complexity wasseen by all to be advantageous, especially in regardto the issue of developing confidence.

Confidence–that’s the big thing about microtea-chingy. If you’re not used to it, the first timeyou stand in front of a class is really nerve-racking. [Mark]

Whilst at the time microteaching representedsomething of an ordeal for all, this was seen toenable an easier transition to ‘real’ classroom life:

At the time I thought it was torture, the idea, youknow, of getting the videos when you’re teachingis just the worst thing ever! [y] I think realisingnow I can see the benefit of it. Sometimes I wishthat I could video some of my classes now andsee where I am at this stage in my career, a fewyears down the line away from universityy[Louise]

In view of this, the limited duration of the lessonwas valued too:

The first time up in front of a little bunch of kidswas quite daunting but you knew that, at the endof the day, it was only for this houry it’s only aone-offy and I certainly appreciated that. Iappreciated the fact that you were being videoedbecause you could look back on ity. It was a

nice small step, it didn’t seem like a giant stepbecause they were still a fairly small class. [Carol]

The process of videotaping the microteachinglesson creates the possibility of further extending thecoaching relationship described by Schon in that anew performative text is produced that can subse-quently be explored through conversations withmultiple others. This enables a variety of differentrefractions upon any microteaching episode:

Also the fact that your tutor, who is anexperienced teacher, your teaching fellow is goingthrough it with you. There are a lot of things thatthey’ll pick up on as well, that you can benefitfrom, that they’re not going to do that in themiddle of your lesson and leap up and go ‘Excuseme, I think that would be a good idea to do’,whereas when they’re going through your micro-teaching video they’re able to say to you thingsthat maybe you wouldn’t be able to do in anordinary situation when you’ve got pupils there.’[Louise]We always exchanged experiences with our peergroup, always. It was the topic of a few sleeplessnights between peopleypeople would share theirconcernsywhat they were nervous about, ex-change ideas of what we could maybe do, and wewould always share laughs and jokes aboutthings that went wrong. We could be critical,but we also signalled when that was good, whenwe liked somethingycomparing your styleagainst other people’s and it was good to getfeedback from people who were at the same stageas yourself. [Greg]

The production of this performative text in turnenables a distanciation in which problematics canemerge and become the focus of subsequentreframing of practice (Tripp, 1993). Further workof distanciation occurs through the use of essaywriting in which student teachers are encouraged toreflect further upon these re-framings (Broekman &Scott, 1999):

I can remember having to identify a pupil andhaving to write about him, and how theyprogressed or didn’t, and how they interactedwith the class. I found it really helpful. I don’tthink I would have reflected on that kind of alevel without having an assessment, so it was anextra burden in that you had an assessment but Imean I don’t think I would have learned quite somuch without it. [Carol]


Such practices were seen as encouraging apractical engagement with theory:

You were looking at the theory and saying welldid I do that or not? Did that work for me,practically in a class? And so it really forced meto reflect deeply in a way that I might not haveever done at ally I felt quite challenged by someof the assessments certainly, but I thought thatthat was a good thing. [Margaret]

I think sometimes we think the theory stuff isirrelevant, and sometimes it is, but I think whenyou’re writing essays and stuff like that, you’remade to think about things you wouldn’tnormally think abouty.things that you wouldn’tnormally be asking yourself in the classroom butthey’re things that you should be asking yourself.It makes you examine the classroom situationfrom a different point of view. [Louise]

One student also thought that such practicespromoted a more child-centred approach in her owncase:

If I could sum it up it helped me to be more pupilcentred definitely. [It enabled me to become]more aware of the pupils rather than my ownteaching style because I suppose at that earlystage you get quite engrossed in your own style.The assignment made me think much more aboutthe pupils. It really shaped me to be a much morepupil-centred teacher I suppose. [Jeannette]

7. Conclusion

In this article we have characterised some of thedistinctive features of Schon’s approach to thepracticum. This was seen to be distinctive in anumber of respects, not least of which is itsemphasis on in-between spaces and the necessityof creating spaces that are of reduced complexity ascompared with their correlates in the ‘real world’.The implications of this model for initial teachereducation were then considered especially in rela-tion to the production of a performative text inmicroteaching and the consequences of this forreflective practice. We also considered the implica-tions of an ‘other than school’ location of thepracticum within an initial teacher educationprogramme. From the views gathered from oursmall scale survey of former students we drew anumber of evaluative insights in regard to thepossibilities that entertaining such a model might

afford. In particular, students in retrospect ap-peared to value precisely those features that arecharacteristic of a Schonian practicum, in that theyvalued the reduction in complexity, which in turnenabled them to reflect upon specific aspects of theirpractice before engaging with the greater complexityoffered by an in school experience? Further devel-opments beyond Schon’s original model were alsodescribed and these in turn appeared to be valuedby the former students. These included the produc-tion of a performative text through videoing themicroteaching lesson which enabled a more differ-entiated understanding of the coaching relationshipto occur. Multiple engagements with such textsenabled a further development of the coachingrelationship through the possibility of multiple

refractions upon practice. These in turn were seento be generative of new problematics leading to aproductive reframing of both theory and practice.As one former student expressed this:

I think it’s really had shaped me to be the teacherthat I amy I can’t tell how big an effect thatmight have had but it’s certainly made me thinkabout pupils in a different way altogether. [Carol]

References

Allen, D. W. (1966). Microteaching: A description. Los Angeles,

CA: Stanford University.

Blake, N., Smeyers, P., Smith, R., & Standish, P. (1998). Thinking

again: Education after postmodernism. Westport, CT: Bergin

and Garvey.

Bransford, J. D., Franks, J. J., Vye, N. J., & Sherwood, R. D.

(1989). New approaches to instruction: Because wisdom

cannot be told. In S. Vosniadou, & A. Ortony (Eds.),

Similarity and analogical reasoning (pp. 470–497). Cambridge:

Cambridge University Press.

Britzman, D. P. (1992). The terrible problem of knowing thyself:

Toward a post structural account of teacher identity. Journal

of Curriculum Theorizing, 9(3), 23–46.

Broekman, H., & Scott, H. (1999). Teacher development by using

writing as a tool. Teacher Development, 3, 233–248.

Clarke, A. (1995). Professional development in practicum

settings: Reflective practice under scrutiny. Teaching and

Teacher Education, 11(3), 243–261.

Cope, P., & I’Anson, J. (2003). Forms of exchange: Education,

economics and the neglect of social contingency. British

Journal of Educational Studies, 51(3), 219–232.

Dobbins, R. (1996). Mentoring and Tutoring, 4(2).

Fang, Z. (1996). A review of research on teacher beliefs and

practices. Educational Research, 38(1), 47–65.

Fay, B. (1987). Critical social science: Liberation and its limits.

Ithaca: NY Cornell University Press.


Fine, M. (1994). Working the hyphens. In N. K. Denzin, & Y. S.

Lincoln (Eds.), Handbook of qualitative research (pp. 70–82).

London: Sage.

Furlong, J. (1996). Do teachers need higher education? In J.

Furlong, & R. Smith (Eds.), The role of higher education in

initial teacher training (pp. 151–165). London: Kogan Page.

Furlong, J. (2000). Teacher education in transition: Re-forming

professionalism. Buckingham: Open University Press.

Furlong, J., Whitty, G., Whiting, C., Miles, S., Barton, L., &

Barrett, E. (1996). Redefining partnership: Revolution or

reform in initial teacher education? Journal of Education for

Teaching, 22, 39–55.

Gomez, M. L., Walker, A. B., & Page, M. L. (2000). Personal

experience as guide to teaching. Teaching and Teacher

Education, 16, 731–747.

Gregory, I. (1986). Third world-first world: Time for another

look at microteaching. Journal of Education for Teaching,

12(2), 173–188.

I’Anson, J., Rodrigues, S., & Wilson, G. (2003). Mirrors,

reflections and refractions: The contribution of microteaching

to reflective practice. European Journal of Teacher Education,

26(2), 189–199.

Lauriala, A. (1997). The role of practicum contexts in enhancing

change in student teachers’ professional beliefs. European

Journal of Teacher Education, 20(3), 267–282.

macLeod, G. R. (1984). Microteaching effectiveness. In T.

Husen, & T. N. Postlethwaite (Eds.), The international

encyclopedia of education, Vol. 10 (pp. 5973–5977). Oxford:

Pergamon Press.

Maynard, T. (2001). The student teacher and the school

community of practice: A consideration of ‘learning as

participation. Cambridge Journal of Education, 31(1), 39–52.

McIntyre, D., McKnight, P., & White, D. (1977). The diagnostic

assessment of students’ microteaching behaviour. In D.

McIntyre, G. MacLeod, & R. Griffiths (Eds.), Investigations

of microteaching (pp. 36–56). London: Croom Helm.

Meadows, S. (1993). The child as thinker. London: Routledge.

Moore, A., Ash, A. (2002). Reflective practice in beginning

teachers: helps, hindrances and the role of the critical other.

Paper presented at the annual conference of the British

Educational Research Association, University of Exeter,

England, 12-14 September 2002. http://www.leeds.ac.uk/

educol/documents/00002531.htm

Ryan, G., Toohey, S., & Hughes, C. (1996). The purpose, value

and structure of the practicum in higher education: A

literature review. Higher Education, 31(3), 355–377.

Schon, D. (1983). The reflective practitioner: How professionals

think in action. Aldershot: Ashgate.

Schon, D. (1987). Educating the reflective practitioner: Toward a

new design for teaching and learning in the professions. San

Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Tomlinson, P. (1989). Having it both ways: Hierarchical focusing

as research interview method. British Educational Research

Journal, 15(2), 155–176.

Tripp, D. (1993). Critical incidents in teaching: Developing

professional judgement. London and New York: Routledge.

Vare, J. W. (1994). Partnership contrasts: Microteaching activity

as two apprenticeships in thinking. Journal of Teacher

Education, 45(3), 209–217.

Vygotsky, L. S. (1962). Thought and language. Cambridge, MA:

MIT Press.

Wenger, E. (1998). Communities of practice: Learning, meaning,

and identity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Zeichner, K. (1986). The practicum as an occasion for learning to

teach. The South Pacific Journal of Teacher Education, 12(1),

11–27.

Zeichner, K. (1994). Research on teacher thinking and different

views of reflective practice in teaching and teacher education.

In I. Carlgren, G. Handal, & S. Vaage (Eds.), Teachers’ minds

and actions: Research on teachers’ thinking and practice

(pp. 9–27). London: The Falmer Press.

http://www.leeds.ac.uk/educol/documents/00002531.htm

http://www.leeds.ac.uk/educol/documents/00002531.htm

reframing the practicum: constructing performative space in initial teacher education

Documents