Clare Woolhouse*And Matt Cochrane

Educational policy or practice? Traversing the conceptual divide between subject knowledge, pedagogy and teacher identity in England

Clare Woolhouse*and Matt Cochrane

Faculty of Education, Edge Hill University, Ormskirk, UK

Abstract

This research paper is framed by concerns about recent UK Government policy regarding the training of Mathematics and Science Teachers in England and discusses how two cohorts of pre-service teachers negotiated the development of a professional identity while undertaking subject specific training. The data reported upon was garnered in two ways; through an evaluation survey that received quantitative and qualitative responses from 159 teacher trainees and through focus groups conducted with 40 trainees.

In the paper the authors take Lave and Wenger’s (1991) concept of ‘participation in communities of practice’ as a departure point to explore how trainees demonstrate their development of professional identities as Chemistry, Maths or Physics teachers. In the conclusion the authors consider the implications of the findings for pre-service teachers and teacher trainers given the current education climate of financial austerity.

Keywords: Science Teacher Trainees, communities of practice

Introduction

It has been suggested by The UK Education Minister (Gove, 2010a, 2010b) that in England many applicants to a Post-Graduate Certificate in Education (PGCE) for Initial Teacher Training in STEM (Science, Technology, Engineering, Mathematics) subjects have limited specific subject knowledge. To address this, in 2009 the UK’s Training and Development Agency for schools (TDA, now named the Teaching Agency) started to fund a number of Subject Knowledge Enhancement (SKE) programmes designed to supplement the content of applicants’ degrees, which students were expected to complete before starting their PGCE. This paper reports research that developed out of a need to evaluate one of the first such programmes at an English University. In this paper we draw on what emerged from the evaluation and subsequent focus groups conducted with trainees and we ask; what do such courses provide for trainees, what are the difficulties for training providers, and can such courses deliver what the UK Government wants andwhat schools, teachers and pupils need?

Background to SKE

In a number of countries around the globe there has been discussion over a number of years about there being a shortage of teachers suitably qualified to teach science subjects. Recent examples relating to secondary education include Melville and Wallace (2007) who detail professional development for science teachers in Australia, Mualem and Eylon (2009) who address the development of physics subject knowledge in Israeli schools, Goodnough (2010) who considers pre-service training for Canadian educators and Usak et al (2011) who explore the subject and pedagogical knowledge of Turkish chemistry teachers. Complementing such studies, research in primary settings include Nilsson and van Driel’s (2011) study of science education in Sweden and Moore (2008:605) who explores education settings in the USA. This shortage has also been identified in England. In 2007 the Acting Director of the Campaign for Science and Engineering (CaSE) discussed recruitment targets and stated that there was a ‘severe situation’ regarding the recruitment and retention of specialist STEM teachers in the UK (Leevers, 2007:2). She also suggested that there was a crisis in science teaching with 25% of English schools lacking one or more subject specialists.

The need to address these concerns by developing specialist teachers in some subjects began to be addressed in England through provision of UK government funded Professional Development (PD) from 2009. In particular, a number of Universities rolled out courses designed to enable prospective maths and science teachersto identify areas of weakness and subsequently engage in intensive short blocks of study to address them before registering on a PGCE. The key aim of the research reported in this paper is to investigate the impact of an SKE programme at a University in North West England since the effectiveness of such courses needs to be demonstrated if they are to be retained to enhance the provision of STEM education. The programmeunder investigation was one of the first in England, starting in September 2009, and was intended to enable individuals to develop their subject knowledge in chemistry, mathematics or physics to prepare them to teach conceptual and practical aspects effectively and with confidence to secondary school aged learners (11-19 years of age).

The SKE programme is of interest to study because it is targeted at prospective teachers whose degree is not directly in the subject they intend to teach, but this goes against the UK Government stated stance, which is intended to exclude individuals from teaching a subject if they do not have at least a second class undergraduate degree in aspecific subject. Indeed, the Minister in charge of the Department for Education stated: ‘teaching is a high status profession which needs to draw its recruits from amongst the highest performing graduates’ (Gove, 2010a). However, a policy of funding only those with 2:2s or higher could lead to problems recruiting trainees into shortage subjects. Under the intended UK Government policy, 25% of those who trained as physics teachers in 2008-09, the year before the SKE funding commenced, would not have made the grade along with 20% of mathematics recruits (BBC News, 17.09.10). It would appear that the UK Government view is based on a possibly unrealistic expectation that there will be enough prospective teachers who can achieve a good first degree who will choose to enter teaching.

This paper exploreswhat we feel are the inherent tensions in the UK Government approach; trainee teachers are expected to be high-performing graduates who are told they are wanted in a well respected profession, even though teachers have been the target for criticism (Gove, 2010b). Also, these trainees are expected to learn how to deploy pre-existing subject knowledge and develop their pedagogical practice while simultaneously working at the highly pressurised ‘coal face’ of education. In order to investigate in detail how this perceived tension might be negotiated by individuals, this paper focuses on the reflections of teacher trainees who hope to work in shortage STEM subjects.

Framing the research

The majority of previous research literature regarding the development of teachers falls into two broad categories. The first centres around considerations of the extent to which studying has an identifiable impact on teachers and their classroom practice (i.e. Burton, 2004; Graven, 2004; Lucas & Robinson, 2003; RowlsSwick, 2000; Supovitz & Turner, 2000) with some specifically focusing on STEMteaching (Eylon et al 2008; Halim & SubahanMohd, 2002; Taitelbaum et al. 2008). The second areastudies the perceived effectiveness of educational policy (Jones Thomas, 2005; Radford, 1998), or explores how teacher identity is constructed in relation to Government dictates (Melville & Wallace, 2007; Osborn, 2007; Webb & Vulliamy, 2007).

Most relevant for this paper is the recent work on teacher identity which addresses the impact of Government policy on teachers’ commitment and enthusiasm, suggesting that gaining teacher approval for changes is important for the successful introduction of a policy. For example, Webb and Vulliamy (2007:567) are interested in the effects of policy changes on teacher attitudes and experiences,arguing that teachers are ‘highly critical’ even ‘resentful’ of imposed changes. However, they note that teacher’s experiences of engaging with policies can lead to a reconceptualisation of ‘some professional values’ (Webb and Vulliamy, 2007:575). Such a view infers that teachers involved in PD might resist but also rework the policy demands made on them. This view is reiterated by Osborn (2007) in her work with teachers working in England, Denmark and France. She contends that despite the different levels of autonomy afforded to teachers in these three countries, ‘in all countries it was evident that policy change acted as a catalyst, leading many teachers to seek to develop professionally through independent learning and reflectiveness and through structured learning opportunities’ (2007: 249). While the work by Webb and Vulliamy (2007) and Osborn (2007) is informative for the SKE project, their work does not consider the implications of findings for teacher trainees or for those who train them.

In contrast our research had two key outcomes: to identify whether and how an SKE course might enable individuals to engage in developing a professional self; and to study how trainees rather than teachers might negotiate and/or resist the policy demands that they expect to be made. The key theoretical underpinning for this study was Lave and Wenger’s (1991) approach to how learning assists integration into communities of practice. Although theirs is not a full blown theory as pointed out by Adler (1998) and they do not address the training of teachers, with some re-working their ideas can make a useful contribution to evincing how ‘learning and a sense of identity are inseparable: they are aspects of the same phenomena’ (Lave and Wenger, 1991:115). Primarily, they offer a focus for exploring how trainees might rescript ways of being professionals as they progress through PD.

The application of the concept of ‘Communities of practice’ to practicing science teachers is touched upon by Melville and Wallace (2007:168) who suggest the importance of adopting a professional identity and developing collegial relationships. Another influential study for the research reported upon here is by Solomon and Tresman (1999) who argue thatPD benefits science teachers because it enables them to exercise professional judgement which enhances their sense of professional identity. More recently, Troman (2008:619) explores teachers' subjective experiences, particularly noting how ‘family-friendly’ working practices in schools can influence teachers’ satisfaction, their vocational commitment and service ethic. This area of research concentrates on the development and maintenance of teachers’ professional identity but gives little attention to how policy might be pedagogically engaged with. Accordingly, our project builds on the findings of an earlier Science PD project (Woolhouse and Cochrane 2009, 2010) and particularly engages with the work of Lave and Wenger (1991) to explore how trainees (re)construct a professional identity as they learn to engage with and refigure UK Government education targets and policy.

Methodology

In order to investigate the impact of one SKE course,the research project was designed to elicit the experiences of trainees, science and maths teachers, head teachers and pupils using a mixed methodology approach. Trainees’ achievements against learning outcomes of the SKE programme were measured, their progress onto a PGCE course was tracked, and their views were sought through an evaluation survey and focus group interviews. Trainee responses were triangulated with the views of pupils, school leaders and practising teachers: questionnaires were completed by around 100 GCSE pupils aged 13-16;individual interviews were conducted with two head teachers in charge of recruiting science teachers;and focus group interviews were conducted with eight practicing science teachers and eighteen AS/A Level pupils aged 16-17. This diverse range of participants was decided upon in order that the researchers could compare the views and experiences of different groups who are stake holders in the training of those who provide science education, namely the teachers, those who employ them and those who are taught by them, although the majority of the data provided in this paper is taken from the trainee evaluations and focus groups.

All the information collected was held securely and could only be directly accessed by the two researchers. In every instance of engagement with the participants the aims of the project were explained in verbal and/or written form and everyone had the right to refuse participation. All the data was anonymised before being analysed. The focus group interviews were transcribed and reviewed using a ‘constant comparison’ method (Glaser and Strauss, 1967:102) to generate key topics or themes. NVIVO was used to collate, code and recode the data, with three key headings emerging: subject knowledge and pedagogy; government and school policy; the professional role and identity of a science teacher.

Findings and Discussion

Two cohorts of teacher trainees who attended a SKE programme in the North West UK before joining a PGCE were invited to engage with the research. The trainees included: scientists (typically biology graduates) who wanted to change to physics or chemistry to improve job prospects;individuals with some science missing – e.g. an engineer who needed to top up their maths; or someone with little science in their background (e.g. psychologists). None of the 231 students registered on the SKE programme between 2009-2011, of whom 159 completed the evaluation questionnaire, were aged under 30 or over 65. In the 2009/10 cohort (110 individuals) the majority were aged 30-40 (54%), 27% were aged 40-50 and 19% 50-60. In the 2010/11 cohort (121 individuals) the majority of the individuals were aged between 30 and 40 (78%), 21% were aged 40-50 and 12% 50-60. A small number of individuals (5%) in the 2010/11 cohort were aged 60-65 and all but one of these had chosen Mathematics as their subject, including the only woman in this age group. Tracking data on progression and PGCE entry was collatedfor all of the trainees and is provided in Table 1. The data demonstrates that for all subjects and in both cohorts over 97% of trainees passed the SKE programme and over 90% progressed onto a PGCE, an indication of their hard work and commitment to entering the teaching profession and teaching STEM subjects.

Table 1

(in separate document for review)

From Trainee to Teacher: managing expectations

The trainees come from diverse backgrounds with varying levels of industry experienceand havepreviously studied a range of subjects at degree level including economics, civil engineering, computer design, mathematics, accountancy and environmental science. This diversity means that trainees have different reasons for enrolling on the SKE programme, some join as a condition of acceptance onto a PGCE and others choose to join. Some do not have adequate knowledge in the specific subject they hope to teach, others need to refocus the knowledge they have gained through employment, while some want a refresher since they haven’t studied for a number of years. This diversity is demonstrated in their comments taken from the evaluation survey:

I have found it (the SKE programme)quite difficult because I think I am one of the people that knew a lot less compared to other people before we started.

I have already done quite a bit of Maths but this has been a good booster for me it has just brought things back to the front of mind it has been a good refresher course for me.

I think it would be very tough to design a course that suits everyone. I think it’s years ago since a lot of us have even touched on Chemistry.

I am a Maths graduate, but I graduated 24 years ago so a lot has been revision for me but still there are little bits that are quite challenging so everybody can get something from this.

Despite the practical difficulties of adapting the SKE programme to fit the differing needs of trainees, many are extremely positive about the benefits of undertaking subject specific PD before embarking on a PGCE:

Having revisited the subject I will now be able to concentrate on learning 'how to teach' when I undertake my PGCE rather than trying to revise the subject at the same time.

I have been really impressed with some of the resources that have been used for teaching the subject here. I feel that is going to be really useful in the future, I could potentially use them in lessons.

I think other than just Maths subject knowledge there is a whole host of things (we are learning) that would make somebody a good teacher … we have discussed that it is not just subject knowledge.

Yes, I think there is a hell of a lot more than just subject knowledge that will be very useful and I think I am sure all that will come out when we actually go on the PGCE in September.

These comments reflect the findings of Nilsson and van Driel’s work in Sweden (2011:553) and Mualem and Eylon’s Israeli study (2009:148). In both these papers it is argued that PD enhances science teachers’ self-confidence with regards to subject knowledge, but also in terms of communicating this knowledge to pupils. Similarly, the comments offered by the SKE trainees indicate that they are very focused on getting what they need from the course for their teaching. They note the importance of having the appropriate level of subject knowledge, something the UK Government has been forthright about, but also acknowledge the importance of subject knowledge for developing confidence and learning how to utilise suitable pedagogies:

(I think I’ve developed) increased confidence as a result of increased subject knowledge, and having opportunities to discuss Mathematical issues/interests with peers.

The knowledge that I have gained is great. This course has made me more confident to stand in front of a class, simply because I know what I am talking about now.

(I like) the course leaders’ wonderful ways of getting the ideas across and I’ll be using his ideas and experiments in classes.