Duplication and Complementarity in PGDE Students' Perceptions of Tutor Feedback

1. Added Value or Unnecessary Mileage?: issues of duplication and complementarity in PGDE students’ perceptions of tutor feedback on placementRaymond Soltysek, Hugh Gallagher, Allan Blake Raymond Soltysek Department of Curricular Studies University of Strathclyde 0141 950 3920 raymond.soltysek@strath.ac.uk

2. The Context • Unprecedented increase in ITE numbers, 2005-2007 • Corresponding decrease in numbers, 2007 – present and future • Research agenda • Excellence Reviews • Disinvestment from the Faculty of Education

3. The Rhetoric • “Can the Universities and other stakeholders agree that Scotland is still significantly trapped in an outmoded “Duplication” model of partnership, and must move forward from this? … There are regrets from some over what could be perceived as an inherent conservatismwithin elements of the Scottish educational establishment” (Smith ­et al, 2006, my italics) • Smith, I., & Hamilton, T. (2006, October). Partnership Between Universities and the Profession - Initial Teacher Education and Beyond [Abstract]. • Association of Teacher Education in Europe (ATEE) Conference, Slovenia, October 2006.

4. The critical friend • “Nonetheless, the University cannot realistically expect an overall good performance from the Faculty in the coming RAE. This is primarily because there is a dominant conservativeculture within the Faculty…” • “a widespread complacency…” • “This culture of complacency is able to thrive…” • “departments tend to be strong bastions of this conservative culture….” • Donald McIntyre, Consultant to the Faculty, Internal document, June 2007

5. The Rhetoric • “...the justified criticism by many teachers of the university lecturers, charged with the training of teachers but drawing on past experience only dimly remembered and never critiqued.  Are not the real experts in the practice of teaching in the schools?  Has not the myth been wrongly promoted that those most distant from the practice are the ones who have the superior knowledge from which to advise and to criticise?” • Pring, R. (1996). Just Dessert. In J. Furlong & R. Smith (Eds.), The Role of Higher Education in Initial Teacher Education (pp. 8-22). London: Kogan Page.

6. The Rhetoric • “The argument for change is that it is those in school who are closest to the student, who best understand the context in which the students' professional learning is taking place and who can support them…” • Menter, I. (2008). Teacher Education Institutions. In T. Bryce & W. Humes (Eds.), Scottish Education (Third ed., pp. 817 - 825). Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.

7. The critical friend • “Many staff see themselves primarily as teacher educators, and see the expertise they need for this as deriving primarily from their expertise as schoolteachers and from their on-the-job learning... The truth is, on the contrary, that the longer Faculty staff have themselves not been actively involved in classroom teaching, the more their usefulness as teacher educators has to depend on their research expertise and on their research-based knowledge.” • Donald McIntyre, Consultant to the Faculty, Internal document, June 2007

8. The critical friend • “It must be conceded that the University here faces a structural problem, in that there has generally been a failure in Scotland to confrontthe obvious factthat school-based teacher educators could far more effectively induct student teachers into the practical task of teaching, and that the rigour of professional training could be much more effectively achieved through well-conceived partnerships between such staff and university staff adopting a role that was primarily research-informed.” • Donald McIntyre, Consultant to the Faculty, Internal document, June 2007

9. The Rhetoric • “The argument for change is that it is those in school who are closest to the student, who best understand the context in which the students' professional learning is taking place and who can support… • themmost economically.  Certainly, the one-to-one tutoring that is the basis of most school-visiting by university tutors, together with the time and money spent travelling often to widely dispersed schools, is an extraordinarily costly business for faculties of education that claim to be strapped for resources.” • Menter, I. (2008).

10. The critical friend • “At present, university staff spend a very large proportion of their time travelling around schools to give advice which is no doubt generally wise but is inevitably and crucially uninformed by any detailed knowledge of the particular contexts.” • Donald McIntyre, Consultant to the Faculty, Internal document, June 2007

11. The Rhetoric • “Inspectors had found university sessions to be sound, but were critical of subject mentors in schools who had, in the main, not gone beyond the lesson observation and feedback elements of their role.  Subject mentors were not generally found to be proactive in encouraging student teachers towards a critical examination of how aspects of the subject could be taught, but were content to observe and respond to their students' teaching.” • Burton, D. (1998). The Changing Role of the University within School-based  Initial Teacher Education: issues of role contingency and complementarity within a secondary partnership scheme. Journal of Education for Teaching, 24(2), 129-146.

12. The Rhetoric • “... it seems customary for supervisors [school teachers] to pay attention to superficial phenomenon, such as correcting mistakes on the practice level, which implies coping with the present, here-and-now problems by adopting or developing ad hoc strategies.  At the same time the deeper learning of both the pupils and the student is bypassed.” • Ojanen, S., & Lauriala, A. (2006). Enhancing Professional Development of Teachers by Developing Supervision into a Conceptually-based Practise. In R. Jakku-Sihvonen & H. Niemi (Eds.), Research-based Teacher Education inFinland (pp. 71-88). Turku: Finnish Educational Research Association.

13. What the students say... • PGDE (Sec) Cohort 2007-2008 • Student evaluations completed in December and in June • Anonymous completion • Compared “satisfaction ratings” for feedback on placement from different sources. • Likert scale 1 – agree strongly, 5 – disagree strongly

14. The evaluation questions • I received appropriate support from the regent / whole school student supervisor • I received appropriate support from the Principal Teacher / subject supervisor • I received appropriate support from teachers. • I received useful feedback from school staff on my teaching. • I received valuable feedback following tutor visits • Grading of my school experience was fair by tutors • Grading of my schools experience was fair by the school.

17. Descriptive terms 1&2: spread of scores

18. It seems that… • Regent feedback is the least favourably evaluated; • Student supervisors and Principal Teachers support is evaluated as positively as teachers with no formally assigned responsibility for student supervision; • Tutor feedback is the most favourably received; • Students are less likely to be dissatisfied with university tutor support than they are with school staff support; • Grading of student performance is perceived to be fairer when undertaken by University staff rather than school staff.

19. Statistical Significance? Only two statistically significant conclusions: The difference between the students evaluations of tutors’ feedback were significantly more positive than other evaluated areas. The students’ evaluations of English tutors’ feedback were significantly more positive than those of students in other subjects on the PGDE(Sec) course.

20. Follow up questionnaire Questions about what is going on in the tutor visit: why is it that a one hour visit is so highly rated against what should be much more consistent and regular feedback? Does the tutor visit do something else, rather than simply duplicate what school staff do? 2008-2009 cohort of English students surveyed at end of session.

21. What did you find most helpful about feedback from school staff about your teaching? Feedback which is personalised, not generic. Feedback on behaviour management… …teachers suggested ways to improve, giving practical ideas to try, which I could then implement in the next lesson. Advice on how to develop my teaching strategies to better meet the needs of the class they usually teach Use of voice… Practical tips to improve classroom management

22. What did you find most helpful about feedback from school staff about your teaching? Discussion on knowledge about class (sharing information was a reassurance for me). Precise examples of things I could have done better… The identification of practicalities and routines to which pupils were familiar in relation to their own teacher (sic) Information regarding individual students Pointing out things I might not have picked up on… I felt comments were fair and reflected what went on in the classroom…

23. Comments? Do you notice anything about the nature of these comments? How would you characterise them? What do they suggest is the agenda of school feedback?

24. What did you find most helpful about feedback from your tutors about your teaching? The tutors are able to better assess my development as a professional movement. Recognition of where gradual improvement had been made. Good for linking back to the content of the course. Constructive, able to justify myself. Reinforced concepts introduced at Jordanhill and applied them to a real lesson. Ideas on how to progress in the future They told me my targets

25. What did you find most helpful about feedback from your tutors about your teaching? A continuous reminder that the big picture should be omnipresent. Clear relationship between theory taught at university with practical experience on placement. Ensuring students know exactly why we’re doing things. Identifying areas of improvement from portfolio tasks - it was nice X noticed targets and saw growth. I found it helpful to get a complete and balanced overview of this lesson. The opportunity to get a distanced view of teaching performance.

26. Comments? Do you notice anything about the nature of these comments? How would you characterise them? What do they suggest is the agenda of tutor feedback?

27. Next Steps Complete data analysis of questionnaires; Interview random sample of students; Interview sample of Principal Teachers involved in tutorial visit feedback; Consider results in the light of the reflective / reflexive development of trainee teachers; Roll out funded national study with partner Universities (interest expressed by IoE London, Cambridge, Queen’s University Belfast, Durham University).