Student teachers’ reflections and perspectives on the professional investigation

1. Student teachers’ reflections and perspectives on the professional investigation Marie Ryan & Chris Carpenter Canterbury Christ Church University

2. Key questions that underpin the research • To what extent do students see writing in general and writing assignments in particular as a means to learn? • To what extent do they regard the investigation as a process of building knowledge? • Do they see the ‘end product’ as something to be judged?

3. How do we HEI tutors see the assignment? • Is it about the subject or education or both? • How do tutors see the HE element of PGCE?

4. Context Interviews conducted with PGCE MFL students: Fri 26th Sept ’08 Student 1: 7-14 MFL. Female. Russian. Educated in Russia & Ukraine. Student 2: 11-18 MFL. Female. British. Educated in Sheffield; comprehensive school, Hull Uni. Student 3: 11-18 MFL. Male. British. Educated in Kent; comprehensive school, Cardiff Uni.

5. What did we want to explore? • What kind of approach did they take to written assignments as undergraduates? • A memorable piece of work; what had made it successful or enjoyable? • What did they hope to get out of Professional Investigation 1?

6. Themes in the literature review • Possibilities of writing as a means to learn. • Deep versus shallow approaches to learning and the implications for attitudes to the written assignments. • Issues related to assessment of written assignments

7. Theme 1: Possibilities of writing as a means to learn. “Sociocultural approach begins by viewing universities as social institutions with distinct cultures and sets of behavioural rules, both explicit and implicit.” (Sheeran and Barnes1990) “Writing then is integral to the process of learning. It is not merely a transparent mode of representation which carries along content but the very act of writing constructs bodies of knowledge within the different contexts of HE.” (Goodfellow and Lea, 2005; 267)

8. Theme 2: Deep versus shallow approaches to learning and the implications for attitudes to the written assignments. Defining features of approaches to learning(Adapted from Marton et al., 1984, and Entwistle & Ransden, 1983)

9. Theme 3: Issues related to assessment of written assignments • Implicit theories of assessment- Assessment as ‘practice’ or ‘technology’. (Delandshere 2001) • Subjectivity of assessment- “Their own disciplinary history had a clear influence on staff conceptualisations and representations of what were the most important elements to look for in students’ writing at both levels, although the epistemological and methodological issues that underlay them were often expressed through the surface features and components of ‘writing’ in itself.” (Lea and Street:1998, 162)

10. Employing a phenomenological approach • Concerned with how the participants see the world. • Idiographic. • Interview is a process of generating data

11. Analysis

12. Analysis - Emerging themes • Approach • Culture • Learning to write • Reading

13. Approach • Contrasting approaches.

14. Culture • Importance of ‘home’ culture. • All wanted something with practical application.

15. Learning to write • All talked about needing to be ‘taught’ to plan and write. • ‘workshop’ • Structure versus content • ‘Process’ versus ‘product’. Sees final grade, building ideas and expression as synonymous.

16. Reading • Two of the students appeared to regard reading as something of a chore, describing it as ‘book heavy in the research’ and ‘an obligation’. • Cultural dimension: “I was taught in my country to read a lot ..... I think about it a lot, it takes me time but I don’t write anything and suddenly I feel I am ready and I just write everything. I am thinking about it all the time and reading. That’s my approach.”

17. A final thought on reflection… Reading without reflecting is like eating without digesting. Edmund Burke “The goal isn't so much good writing as coming to learn, understand, remember and figure out what you don't yet know. Even though low stakes writing-to-learn is not always good as writing, it is particularly effective at promoting learning and involvement in course material, and it is much easier on teachers, especially those who aren't writing teachers.” (Elbow, 1994)