Should teachers be educated, or should they be trained?
The question, on the surface, may not seem very controversial. However, the question of the ‘training’ versus ‘education’ of teachers impacts on many areas of educational policy, practice and research. It defines the nature and scope of the knowledge-base of the profession, for example. In fact, it partly determines if teaching IS a profession. If teachers are best ‘trained’ it follows that their professional knowledge-base reflects a narrow and limited (though important) set of skills. If teachers are best ‘educated’ it suggests that their professional knowledge-base is made up of a wider engagement in various forms of knowledge and understanding, reflecting a particular and distinctive body of expertise. Interestingly, this bumps up, yet again, with the debate over knowledge vs. competencies, but this time in the domain of professional and higher education (as opposed to schooling).
(By the way, if you agreed with Sarup that all knowledge is hierarchical/oppressive and that knowledge and understanding is socially constructed without any truth-value, as a matter of consistency Sarup’s argument must also apply to the notion that teachers are professionals by virtue of their particular expertise/knowledge and understanding. If Sarup IS right, what might this mean for the view that teaching is a profession?)
The question also impacts on what counts as educational research. Education is a field of inquiry that is situated in universities. Educational researchers can engage in very basic research questions without that engagement ever having anything direct to say about schooling. (Consider that in medical schools researchers study anatomy or cell biology but their findings may have no direct impact on the medical school resident). However, the question of training versus teaching will impact on the extent to which, and ways in which, teachers should be put into contact with educational research and related expertise. Historically, the preparation of teachers was restricted to training colleges. But one of the reasons for moving teaching into the university was to provide teacher candidates opportunities to receive an education in education. If such an education is not required for teaching, much of this rationale evaporates.
The question also has stakes for professional education more generally. When we prepare doctors, lawyers, nurses and social workers to carry out the work of their profession what exactly is it that we are aiming to do?
In any case, the Lawlor and Orchard readings represent clear positions on some important features of this issue. Lawlor argues that teacher candidates should be “protected from the educationalists” and that teacher recruitment should focus on those with rigorous subject expertise. Orchard and Winch rebut this argument in some respects, claiming that to the extent that teaching is a profession, and not a craft, a university-based education is essential.
For this pair of readings I suggest that we can have a go at jumping into both readings at the same time. Lawlor’s paper is fairly policy-heavy but keeps coming back to the same (important) central points. We can quickly get a sense of the debate, then. So, comment on what you see fit. I may suggest some questions if the conversation lulls.
Further readings:
Chinnery, Ann, et al. “Teaching philosophy of education: The value of questions.” Interchange 38.2 (2007): 99-118.
Winch, Christopher, Alis Oancea, and Janet Orchard. “The contribution of educational research to teachers’ professional learning: philosophical understandings.” Oxford Review of Education 41.2 (2015): 202-216.
Carr, Wilfred. “Education without theory.” British Journal of Educational Studies 54.2 (2006): 136-159.
The papers by both Lawlor (1990) and Orchard & Winch (2015) offer opposing views of how much theory should be offered to candidate teachers. The arguments from both sides attempt to address the same core issue. Orchard and Winch state that “up to 44% leave the profession within 5 years of qualifying”(p.8) and Lawlor proposes getting rid of the PGCE to allow an immediate increase in the number of teachers. She writes “ in Britain today the existing teacher shortages are threatening to become even worse”(p.7). It would seem that both papers are attempting to address a shortage of capable teachers in the British educational system. As Lawlor’s paper was written in 1990 in response to, in her opinion, a failed Government policy shift to place more emphasis on “the practical activity of classroom teaching”(p.9) and Orchard & Winch’s paper was published 25 years later it would seem that problem of a qualified teacher shortage had not been adequately addressed.
Lawlor argues that the “present system of training…. deters good graduate specialists from entering the profession”(p.42). She implies that the PGCE year is an impediment, but would opening the profession to graduates who “train on the job” really address the qualified teacher shortage? I would argue that the shortage would possibly disappear, in the short term, as more graduates are able to enter the profession, but the retention of said graduates would also drop. Lawlor fails to address, in my opinion, the retention issue.
“We have offered what we believe to be a preferable alternative, one that is feasible within the current structures” (Orchard, p. 33). It sounds like Orchard is not interested in re-inventing the wheel but rather providing a realistic and more desirable alternative to Lawlor’s worldview. Orchard believes in using “current structures” therefore, building on what is already in place in some respects. She goes on to state that “teachers need a conceptual framework” (p. 33). It is interesting to note the use of nouns ‘structures’ and ‘framework’. These metaphors are concrete in nature. Why would she use concrete nouns to describe something abstract?
Lawlor claims that “Instead, graduates will, as happens in other professions, train on the job and be paid a salary from the outset” (p. 42). How will graduates feel about this? What about tax payers?
Under Lawlor’s premises: “Quantity and quality of teachers would benefit alike” (p. 43).
In answer to your question, “would opening the profession to graduates who “train on the job” really address the qualified teacher shortage?” I would say probably not. I think she hits closer to the mark when she brings up the issue of teachers’ pay. Her statement about “lengthy, doctrinaire and demoralizing training” (p. 41) being the main stumbling block to “good entrants” entering the teaching field might be true for some graduates, but I would think that unless a teaching position could offer as much as a private sector job then why would a graduate enter the field? Unless, of course, you love children and teaching, then neither the money, nor the “demoralizing training” should really be weighted too heavily in my opinion. But what does my opinion matter, I am obviously, according to Lawlor, just “a peg on which to hang modish educational theory” (p. 42)
I think you are right that pay does have a lot to do with retaining teachers. On the job training instead of university training will not address the teacher shortage in the long run. I also believe public attitude and government pressures to do more with less also have a lot to do with teacher burnout and the teacher retention issue.
Allison I agree that pay, and public attitude has a lot to do with retention of teachers. In BC when teachers were on strike, the publics attitude to teachers was mixed… which caused a lot of teacher to feel of little worth. I also think with the variance in pay, it causes a lot of teachers to leave because they cannot afford to work for five years at such a low salary.
I think teachers get into the profession because they love teaching, but the bills cannot be paid that way.
The retention issue you’ve brought up is a really good one. I agree that, from my memory of the article, he wants to reduce the time it takes to complete education programs in order to get teachers in the classroom working with kids faster. But you are right in the sense that, although this may be a sound strategy in initially addressing teacher shortages it has no real weight in the long term when you are dealing with class size and composition issues.
I think Lawlor would argue for the abolition of teacher theoretical training in universities in favour of on the job training. Orchard would counter with a diametrically opposed view and tout the necessity of theoretical training.
I agree. I see both sides of the argument; but I believe that there has to be an equal balance of both job training, and theoretical training. I believe that no one naturally has the theory, to pass on the knowledge; and therefore need the theoretical training. However, just because you have the knowledge, does not mean that you are able to successfully transfer the knowledge on; and that is why a teacher needs the job training.
I believe an imbalance of the two types of training, will cause the teacher to be unsuccessful, and that we should always aim to keep a balance of the two.
I am wondering whether there may be a balance here between the two arguments. Do elementary generalists require a different kind of preparation to teach than do high school specialists? Would it appropriate for generalists to have ‘training’ and specialists to have ‘education’ (using the words of the article, though with hesitancy). At present, an elementary teacher can teach with a generalist BEd whereas high school teachers require a BA/BSc and then education programme or BEd. Does one system lend itself to ‘training’ while the other leans toward ‘education?’ Does a Kindergarten class benefit from a teacher with, say, a BSc? or is a good knowledge of child development and pedagogical theory a better option?
Much is made of the fact that in Finland teachers all have Masters degrees. but when a 3-4 year Bachelors degree is the prerequisite and the Masters is 2 years, the actual years of education is the same as our BEd or BEd After degrees. Would our teachers be better served to go into MEd programs after their BA/BSc degrees?
This is an interesting pair of articles, because one can see both arguments.
These were my thoughts too as I read the articles and other blog entries. I think there is an argument to be made that in some curriculum (specialty) areas it may be more beneficial for the teacher to have expertise in the one topic they will be teaching, such as in high school mechanics or biology. But an elementary generalist would struggle to teach and to handle the many issues of today’s classroom without some theoretical knowledge of child development, behaviour/classroom management, conflict resolution, perhaps even counselling in the classrooms of today. I am torn between the two arguments and agree with shawnbird that it is easy to see both sides of this argument.
If we move to on the job training, who qualifies as the trainer?
Lawlor offers a tempting solution to a teaching shortage. Many young university educated graduates could easily move into a teaching role if the requirement was subject based and employment was immediate. However, I feel that Lawlor has glossed over an important factor in her proposed ‘on the job training’: the trainer. How can we guarantee new teachers would be learning ‘best practices’? Yes, I agree that many teachers are amazing but not all and our current system has no way of rewarding or recognizing ‘good teachers’. Lawlor highlights this weakness when she discusses the lack of teacher pay, “until individual schools are allowed to negotiate with their staff, it is hard to see how good teachers will be adequately paid” (41). From these words I would suggest that all teachers are currently viewed as equally good rather than weighted by ability. How can we guarantee new teachers, will be trained by the ‘best teachers’?
To ensure a new teacher recognizes and interprets ‘best practices’ of their trainer, I believe that the three kinds of knowledge presented by Orchard and White need to be considered.
First, conceptual knowledge. Orchard and White identify that the aims of education are controversial and lead to many differing opinions about what is best suited to schooling, new teachers need to be ‘familiar with these arguments in order to act independently and form and justify their own judgments’ (17).
Second, empirical research. Teachers need to be able to evaluate the research of experts and how it impacts their teaching practice. Teachers need to understand how to use research to improve their own teaching practice (Orchard and White 2015, pp. 22).
Third, ethical basis of the teaching profession. Teachers in general are expected to follow a personal and professional code of conduct. Orchard and White identify that in England teachers are required to, “maintain high standards of ethics’ by showing tolerance of and respect for the right of others” (25). These are ‘weighty and complex ideals’ for new teachers and require experts in this field to develop a teacher’s capacity for such ethical deliberation (Orchard and White 2015, pp.25).
Perhaps these three forms of knowledge could be ‘learned on the job’ but the trainer would have some bias towards all three forms. Without some form of academic education in these areas new teachers would build their knowledge on the bias’ of their trainer, is this a long term solution to creating ‘good teachers’?
Yeah， the trainers’ theories are based on their experience, educational background and the contexts, one trainer’s perspective may differ markedly from another’s. Just as Orchard and Winch (2015) stated, teachers need educational theory to guild them in order to make good professiaonl judgments independently.
Delsey and Tian make great points. Orchard says, “No two lessons will ever be exactly the same” (Orchard and White 2015, p. 12). Therefore it is important that new teachers begin their training after they have gained the knowledge needed to make professional and ethical judgements that only educational theory can provide. I think this kind of knowledge could help build confidence in new teacher’s when entering “realistic conditions”.
This debate is difficult, or perhaps not at all, because I think regardless you need both theory and practical experience in any profession. Some teachers may be very strong academically and be excellent at retaining educational theory, but at the end of the day they still might not be able to just walk into a classroom and deliver “good teaching”. I do think Lawlor’s makes a strong point about the practical skills of teaching and that “they can be acquired only through experience, trial and error and careful, individual supervision” (Lawlor 1990, p. 8). On-the-job training can be one of the best ways to learn, but I think you need that foundational theory to know where to begin.
In Lawlor’s argument against educational theory being a part of the requirements for teachers-in-training, she writes that the teacher “would develop the characteristics of the good teacher in the classroom, use his common sense and acquire confidence, rather than be taught generalized theories irrelevant to good teaching and removed from everyday life in the classroom.” (p.21) First, I think she is underestimating how varied the everyday life of the classroom actually is, especially in regards to issues around ‘special needs, ‘multicultural’ education, and ‘gender,’ on which she says questionable emphasis is given (p.29). I also wonder how long she thinks it would take to develop these good characteristics. It sounds like she thinks teachers can develop adaptive expertise over time, a sign of professionalism. Orchard and Winch’s description of content knowledge being “necessary but not sufficient” (p. 16) agrees with Lawlor’s contention that teachers should have a solid grounding in their subject matter, but also provides for the need for teachers to have enough basis in educational theory that they can develop their adaptive expertise over time, learning for each experience in the classroom and each new piece of research they encounter. Orchard and Winch propose that having a conceptual framework based in theory is essential for teachers to be able to address educational issues and grow as professionals, instead of having to just rely on “common sense.” I wonder if Lawlor would want her (theoretical) children in the classroom of a teacher, who relies on his or her common sense, and has yet to acquire confidence or the “characteristics of a good teacher.”
Gave me a laugh. I completely agree that Lawlor’s belief in this “common sense” seems a bit too far out of reach. I too think she is undermining the value of educational theory and how it IS what should assist teachers while developing their “common sense”, especially like you said with the variety of classroom issues, concerns, or situations that may come up.
Orchard and Winch’s proposal for the BEST teaching practice I think really hit the nail on the head. On page 14, Orchard and Winch say, “the best teaching practice combines elements of technical know-how with knowledge of research and theory, including a conceptual map of the educational field. Practical wisdom of this kind enables teachers to act in practically appropriate ways in a variety of complex settings”.
Here is my first true argument of what I believe is ‘right’. I support the arguments made by Orchard and Winch. This may move me to agree with Sarup’s arguments as well, however, his explanation of the oppressive nature of knowledge and how it is transferred, is something I continue to battle with. The reason why I can confidently make these statements is that I truly want teachers/teaching to be considered a respected and recognized profession. If a person has invested in a particular area of study, they should be valued and trusted for having knowledge and expertise that others do not possess. I hear from teachers all the time that parents have the misconception that they understand what takes place in school and feel qualified to interpret, observe, make recommendations and so on, because they have been through school themselves. Does the experience of school count as ‘training’? This conception would imply that other professions such as bankers, lawyers, doctors, and so on are also professional educators. Does this misconception go both ways? I personally have not walked into my accountant or doctor’s office and indicated that I am even remotely capable of doing his or her profession. I respect the fact that they have studied a specific subject matter to great lengths and have met the educational and professional standards that accompany the position. Is it wrong to strive for this type of relationship between client and professional within education? (with families and students being the clients and the teachers being the professionals)
Is training alone enough to build this type of structure? I personally do not think it is enough to provide practical experience in the classroom without the necessary theoretical background and foundational knowledge. Without the necessary framework, through which to view learning needs, cognitive skills, human development, etc. a teacher entering the profession facing current day expectations would be lost. With teachers expected to deliver instruction in a manner that addresses ALL student academic/social/emotional/behavioural needs and a curriculum that encompasses topics previously covered by the family and society at large, mere practical experience is insufficient to produce educators that make logical judgments and well- informed decisions. I believe Orchard and Winch have the beginning of a great educational structure that would support teachers in being educated and trained in educating. They include “conceptual understanding, empirical research and ethical deliberation – with practical observation, experience and reflection” (Orchard, 2015, p.30) Their approach reflects the requirements necessary to produce skilled educators who take pride in their profession.
I like how you’ve compared teaching with other professions that are undoubtedly grounded in a wide range of theory. This theoretical foundation that lawyers, doctors and bankers are founded in are what legitimizes them in the eyes of regular people. I mean, who would want a doctor with some practical know-how yet who lacks the guiding principles of the profession. Likewise, this theoretical foundation not only helps educators determine what is best for students, but legitimizes us in the eyes of others in the sense that we can provide the reasons why we are doing what we are doing.
The Lawlor brochure presents the view of teacher as a technician; as someone whose job is to pass on an understanding of content knowledge. Lawlor argues that expertise in subject matter will produce the best teachers, but fails to support her argument with evidence. Orchard and Winch presented a stronger argument for teachers to be seen as professionals, rather than technicians or craft workers; however I think the biggest weakness in their argument was for role of universities. Their two main points for universities being integral to teacher development could be counter-argued, which takes away from the strengths of their other argument in this paper. For example, they argue that, “universities give teachers access not only to considerable expertise in education but also to expertise in curriculum subjects,” (p.28) and, “universities provide space that is conductive to reflection, away from the business of everyday school like.” (p.29) One could argue there is considerable expertise in school, wonderful resources available everywhere, including online, and teachers are capable of finding reflective time at home or in other places outside of work. Given that they are essentially arguing to save their own positions, both being employed by universities, I think their argument is biased and under-supported.
Putting aside the fact that we are all enrolled in university, do you think you would have access to enough resources, and be able to find a reflective place to improve your practice, without the university? Or am I missing some strength in their argument?
The counter-arguments you identify are thoughtful, especially your questioning of the value of the university as a “space apart” and I hope others take them up. Keep these excellent comments going.
One point, though: does a person’s motivations have anything to do with the truth of what they say or the quality of their argument? For example, if Orchard was really just trying to keep her job, or was biased in some way, I don’t think this would make her argument any less right or wrong.
If we rejected her argument on the grounds that it was “self-serving” or biased we would have to reject anyone’s argument that could be thought to be self-serving. It would mean, for example, that any teacher who argues for greater professional autonomy should not be taken seriously because their argument is possibly for their own benefit. (We could even take this to absurd levels: if someone points a gun at me and I say, “Don’t do it, killing is wrong” would it mean that the gunman could say, “Hey, that’s not true, you’re just saying that to save your own life!”
To be clear, people can have biases and we should point to them, but a bias has no necessary connection to the quality of an argument. Unfortunately, the logic of argument means that even someone like our good friend Donald Trump (*sign*) can make arguments that are good, in principle.
Readers of this point should also see the genetic fallacy.
Do you know Lindsay, whether as alumni we will have access to the UBC library? Perhaps with a fee? I have loved being able to find for the latest educational research. I suppose subscribing to an educational journal might be the next best thing. Must look into this…
Sorry, I missed this post until this read through! I know I still have access through my Alumni status from my undergrad program at U of A, so I assuming UBC offers something similar? There is a small fee I believe.
That is a good point though! We do rely on the university for ‘reasonably’ priced access to online sources.
“The cross-curricular issues include pastoral care, special needs, health education, multicultural education, learning and intelligence, pupil behavior and classroom management.” (p. 19).
“Certainly the slant in the topics which make up the cross-curricular issues or the options will not teach trainees how to teach.” (p. 20).
According to Lawlor, we need to simply teach our subject area without knowing why, or caring about the myriad number of factors that impact our working/teaching conditions from ELL, special needs and even policy. And with that in mind, why would a teacher ever take their masters? It is not strengthening my specific subject areas and so must be a waste of my time, right?
Amanda, I was stuck on this piece too- the whole tension between subject mastery and integrated, non-discrete education. Lawlor’s relentless claim to the unprecedented value of subject mastery clouded everything I read- I found myself thinking that this was a piece that could have been printed a hundred year before it’s time because it many ways it felt like an archaic throwback that much of the contemporary discourse in education would mock. In my mind, it is a piece that does not take into consideration the current global economy, information age that dominates society, and fails to address values around the purpose of school(making the world a better place, solving contemporary problems, collaboration across disciplines… such ridiculous stuff we educators consider!). Perhaps it was hard for me to swallow given the context of the world I teach in: a district that is moving towards more inquiry and project based opportunities for interdisciplinary learning experiences, and the nature of small rural schools. Those of us who live and teach in small rural districts don’t have the luxury of specializing and narrowing our fields of study; teaching assignments where we work are ever shifting and educators wear constantly changing, multiple hats. A specialized subject area mastery may have given me success in one of the eight courses I taught in a given year – our populations in rural communities do not support subject area specialists or departments.
Lawlor’s obsessiveness about the value of rigorous subject area expertise, and the claim that exploring educational theory to better inform teaching practices is offensive to the professional nature of teaching, and it both simplifies and devalues the work of educators. Lawlor argues that any plan designed to improve the calibre of teachers “should concentrate on ensuring those in the profession have a mastery of their individual subjects”(Lawlor, 1990). She reduces the skills of teaching to “essentially practical ones” that “can be acquired only through experience, trial and error and careful, individual supervision”(Lawlor, 1990). Lawlor critiques the concept of a teacher who is not a specialist, but “as one who bears responsibility for pastoral/social problems; and the school is not so much a teaching institution as one with a community or social function”(Lawlor, 1990); this critique takes a very narrow view of education as little more than the transference of content and knowledge.
Orchard and Winch position teachers as professionals, and this supports the level of complexity educators face in classrooms in contemporary society. They reject the vision of educators as craftsmen or technicians; the former fails to acknowledge that crafts “typically involve working closely with materials, moulding and shaping inanimate objects like clay in metal, while the primary object of teachers’ work is people: and the latter suggests that “understanding teachers’ work is best understood in narrow technical terms”(Orchard and Winch, 2015). Orchard and Winch(2015) suggest that the best teachers “need a conceptual framework within which to think about education, as well as practical professional knowledge and skills, informed by relevant research findings, and an understanding of the ethical dimensions of their work”. Teachers need educational theory because they must “understand what they are doing and why they are doing it, and must be able to think intellectually about how to do it better”(Orchard and Winch). In the world of educational discourse, teachers need the ability to delineate trends from fads, and “balance different, and sometimes contrary, considerations before arriving at a decision they believe is right”(Orchard and Winch, 2015). On the job training may provide contextual support for making decisions about practice, but it does not provide the historical, societal, and empirical evidence to make well-informed, reflective decisions. Orchard and Winch counter Lawlor’s belief in ‘common sense’ – they offer the notion of ‘good sense’ as a “robust and weighty alternative” that combines elements of technical know-how with knowledge of research and theory(Orchard and Winch, 2015).
Lawlor indicated that people don’t need educational theory to be qualified as teachers, not mention to higher theoretical learning happening in master program. I think that is where the problem is. Teachers need to do reflections about their practice in order to improve, to be better. How can we reflect our teaching practice? Theory is an essential part of the process.
Amanda, I feel the same way. When you look at the cross curricular issues, this is what allows a student the ability to succeed. Without these teachings, we are teaching in a very western viewpoint, that all learners learn the same way. We know that this is not the case, and that is why it is really important to know the “why” and care about the factors that impact our working and teahcing conditions.
While Lawlor (1990) advocated that good teachers only need subject-based academic grounding and “on-the-job training”, Orchard and Winch(2015) argued that educational theory should place an irreplaceable role in teachers’ professional development. Orchard and Winch (2015) gave many arguements that subject knowledge and experience are necessary but not sufficient for good teaching and teachers need “a body of theory that supports their practical skill that it can be applied to their day-to-day professioanl decision-making and actions” (p. 16). They put forward three kinds of knowledge that teachers need to obtain, namely, conceptual knowledge, empirical research and ethical deliberation and gave persuasive explanations about how these theory help teachers in their career. I agree with them about the importance of educational theories in our teaching. However, I held a different view with their idea that “universities are better placed than schools to promote the three kinds of theoretical engagement” (p. 27). They claimed that universities have the necessary “scholarly and pedagogical expertise”(p. 27) and more desirable environment to conduct theoretical learning. I think teachers can understand the theory profoundly and thoroughly only through reflection of their own teaching practice with those theory. Without those reflections, theory has only general but not specific meaning to them. Moreover, if they don’t reflect their practice with those theory, then the function of those theory is weakened. Therefore, I think teachers should relearn the theory with their own practice, which could only happen after they get the teaching qualification and work as a teacher in a school. In this sense, school is a place that as important as university to learn about the theory.
For a teacher to be best prepared, they need to have, as Lawlor states, “mastery of the subject to be taught.” (P.7) She goes on to reinforce the idea that, “Any plan designed to improve the quality of teachers should concentrate on ensuring that those in the profession have a mastery of their individual subjects.” (p.7) I will argue that your primary subject, as a teacher, is education. So, when Martin states, “one of the reasons for moving teaching into the university was to provide teacher candidates opportunities to receive education in education.” I believe we are on the right path. Teaching is far too complex of a profession to simply focus on the particular subject that one will teach. Yes, educators must know what they are talking about, but this is only one pillar of a very complex profession.
We are aiming to best prepare candidates for the professions they intend on pursuing. If you are going to be an effective lawyer, doctor, or educator, for example, then you will need the knowledge, skills and understanding of theory, for your particular profession of choice, to be successful. There are many pieces that make one successful at their profession, and it cannot be dumbed down to simply being knowledgeable in one subject area, in the world of education, as Lawlor suggests in her argument. This debate makes me think of the instructional core.
For those who are not familiar with this model, “the instructional core is composed of the teacher and the student in the presence of content…a focus on the instructional core grounds school improvement in the actual interactions between teachers, students, and content in the classroom.” (City, Elmore, Fiarmon and Teitel, 2009). So, when using this model, it is easy to see that the teacher, along with the education they have acquired, is just one of three very important pieces of the educational experience. The first principle of the instructional core is, “Increases in student learning occur only as a consequence of improvements in the level of content, teachers’ knowledge and skill, and student engagement” (City, Elmore, Fiarmon and Teitel, 2009)).
So, yes, teachers need to be knowledgeable in their subject area, but they must also be able to build meaningful relationships, create and execute engaging lessons, communicate and navigate challenging conversations, differentiate to meet the unique needs of struggling learners and think on their feet, just to name a few requirements of the day-to-day job, that is. Forms of knowledge, educational theory and experience are all critical pieces to educating professional teachers. For one to ignore the other, is preposterous, is it not?
When I first read Lawlor’s paper I was confounded how this made it to print. Then I realized Trump is a front runner in the US presidential race. Yes, you can have radical right wing views and still have an audience. Yes you can make absolute claims and still be taken serious. Lawlor is in fact a right wing thinker linked to the Conservative party in the UK and her paper (I believe) is politically motivated. Her idea that teachers should be some stoic respectful vessel of information, a master in his field (yes that was deliberate) with a kindly disposition is indeed a colourful portrait of the ideal teacher that only exists in some fantasy land. She misrepresents in her claim that, “nobody would deny the (importance of) mastery of the subject” because quite frankly I do. (She also says we should abolish maternity leave – but that’s in another article). I don’t believe you need 4 years of university math, 2 years in the field to teach grade 3 math (or grade 9 math for that matter). Our focus is student centred, not subject. The education we receive in the education program helps us understand our students, helps us create a safe, emotionally secure learning environment. I have witnessed many times how experts in their respective fields make terrible teachers. In Britain, their problem is with teacher retention and classroom management. Both Lawlor and Orchard/Winch feel the need to address the teacher shortage and while Lawlor’s is more practical, it would be a matter of simply shoving anyone in a teacher’s job with some education and experience to fill the void. This would still create a high turnover because these people would not be armed with the necessary training to handle the various issues that arise. Teaching has grown more theoretical out of necessity as the demands of society have changed. I agree with Orchard and Winch that teaching should be a profession and teachers should be heavily scrutinized as to provide the best possible education for our students. Yes I think restrictions should be tighter, and yes I think our teacher training programs should be more difficult. But this should coincide with a substantial increase in salary. I agree with Brooke and Amanda that Lawlor is a relic of the past whose educational ideas seem to come from a time long ago. But I admit my ideas on this are based on my overall educational philosophy which (I have repeated many times to my colleagues) that the subject matter is secondary to the student. People will learn most of their job on the job. Doctors don’t refer to what they have learned in biology class in grade 12, and very few people refer to what they have learned in their high school history class. Teachers help students learn, feel good about themselves, prepare them for the future, and serve the community; it’s the subjects that is our medium.
Yeah, I think we can agree that there is something reactionary about Lawlor, no doubt. What do you think of Teach for America? The idea of Teach for America is similar, if I understand: get really smart students out into schools with a very short training period. But the motivations are more “left-wing”, I think (by getting academically strong and idealistic students into impoverished schools, children will get a chance to get the quality learning they deserve, but do not get, because most teachers in the US prefer to move toward upper-class public schools if they can get there). I’m asking because what I find challenging about Teach for America is that while I sympathize with the motivation (left-leaning chap that I am) I think as a policy it is a rather bad one.
Also, does a person’s political motivation have anything to do with the quality of an argument? Would it be right to say: “person X is right-wing, therefore what they say must be wrong?” (See also Lindsey’s comment about Orchard and Winch’s motivations, above).
Within this political context Lawlors position does make more sense. Her position would serve to benefit the short term (the next election) with little long term justification.
I don’t think you can criticize a person’s argument based on their political motivations. If their argument is sound then it should stand on its own regardless of political affiliation or motivation. It would perhaps, make it easier to disagree with. I would however like to add that if a political organization is funding an “educational pamphlet”, it would be easy to dismiss the pamphlet as little more than a political pawn. It does beg the question, would someone publish something which contradicts their political ideology because it was based on sound research or evidence?
I dont think it is as simple as that. I think politically motivated arguments come with a heavy bias. Arguments like these are not designed to explore the truth, but to satisfy certain agendas. It could still be a good argument, but this one is not.
The nature of teaching practice cannot be static, otherwise it risks becoming outdated and eliminates the opportunity for teaching to evolve and grow. As a learner who grew up in a tumultuous post-colonial Africa I have a somewhat skewed appreciate for this paradigm. Educational theory ta that time was always a mix of the “tried and true” curriculum, present in the British system since Victorian times, and a small section of “modern” thinking. While this may have helped to produce a legion of disciplined students, it did have an impact on teacher training until the Zimbabwe government overhauled the curriculum in in late 1990s.
While it may take another generation of analysts to determine how this prescription-based teaching has affected both learner and teacher outcomes it is clear that an ideological shift in teaching will need to take place in order to ensure the success for all concerned.
Lawlor (1990) and Orchard and Winch (2015) pose very interesting views about teacher education and while there are merits to Lawlor’s training model i.e. train the teacher to teach – there is some weight to the argument that teaching is more about the transference of knowledge and that knowledgeable teachers will know how to teach well.
I believe that training and knowledge should not and do not exists independently. I understand, as some of my colleagues have mentioned above, that there is a need to teach someone how to teach but this may hinder their ability to transfer knowledge – especially when dealing with no-traditional students.
Based on my educational experience, being able to adapt as a teacher to reflect the times and knowing how to adapt may be far more important than knowing a standard form of the teaching profession. As Lindsay mentioned in her post – we all need teacher training i.e. university but we also need to know how to find and distribute information to our students.
I agree that the ability to adapt is integral to teacher and student success. Lawlor offers a very simplistic view of the process involved to educate and equip new teachers with the skills and knowledge necessary to do this job well. If teacher training were to adopt the plan which Lawlor proposes, what about movement amongst grades or subject areas? Without training in that area, and lacking a theoretical basis, would there be flexibility within teaching careers? Movement within the teaching profession is a great way to keep current and reflect/build on best teaching practices. In Lawlor’s model, it would appear that once trained in one subject area/grade, teachers would remain there so that they stay “specialists” in their isolated subject area.
Also, while the idea of well-educated and qualified supervisors sounds ideal, I wonder how long this model could be sustained. I have witnessed, on numerous occasions, staff meetings in which staff are asked who would like to have a student teacher. Sometimes it is seen as extra prep time, sometimes just extra responsibilities, but rarely have I seen the opportunity to help train a student teacher perceived as a serious, rewarding one which requires dedication and deliberation.
Since 1990, when this article was written, the classroom has changed immensely. Lawlor’s simplistic idea of teacher training may have been sufficient in a classroom where special needs were addressed by a specialized resource teacher or academic deficiencies were tackled through the former “learning assistance” support, but not with current-day teacher responsibilities. The training she proposes sounds more comparable to that of a Certified Education Assistant. Along with lacking qualifications to become competent teachers, I believe teachers under this model would suffer from a further reduced lack of respect from the community (which could affect relationships with parents and students).
I believe that both Lawlor (1990) and Orchard and Winch (2015) bring up good points that are justifiable. I am in partial agreeance that “learning how to practice can only come on the job, with time and experience” (p. 7). There are some aspects of teaching that simply cannot be learned from a book. Teaching is a hands on job that requires teachers to interact with a variety of social, emotional, intellectual and physical needs. No child is the same and no class dynamic is the same every year. So overtime we learn how to adapt to each new situation, we learn which lessons work well and which don’t and we learn a variety of behavioural management styles to pull out as we need them. So, along with Lawlor, I say yes, we should receive more on the job training before we are asked to jump in with two feet and take on a class full time. I know I look back on my first year of teaching and hope that they have all progressed well because they didn’t get my best teaching and they got a lot of guess work and trial and error. That being said though, thank goodness for the university training I did receive. As Orchard and Winch stated philosophy does not just add one more disciplinary perspective, it is “an indispensable conceptual framework for thinking through educational problems” (p. 21). Teachers “need to understand education at a conceptual level as well as an empirical one” (p. 21). Because of my university training I was able to think through those first year issues calmly and logically. I had an understanding of child development and I was able to create lessons based on an understanding that there was a reason behind it. I created lessons with a ‘why’ behind it. Why was the knowledge important, why would they need it, what could it lend itself to in future learning. I had a solid base of theory on which to base many of my teaching practices, especially in those beginning years. I also agree with Orchard and Winch in their point about the importance of being taught the basics of research and being able to read, understand and weigh the merits of educational research (p. 23). I love the example of the teachers in Singapore who have the ‘Journal Club’ to discuss new research, what a great way to stay abreast of current research and to have in-depth discussions with fellow colleagues in order to challenge each other and ensure that we are open to new ideas as well as not simply jumping on a bandwagon simply because it is new a flashy.
I agree with your assessment of Lawlor’s argument in this regard. I believe that job training is necessary and that teacher candidates need more than anything to get used to being around and interacting with students. Orchard also seems to agree in this sense but argues in favour or a longer practicum as to ensure that teacher candidates are not only equipped with practical experience, but the necessary theory and ethical considerations of working in complex classrooms as well
When I did my PDP at SFU in 1992 our first practicum was 9 weeks with a full time class room load, and the second practicum was 12 weeks full time. In both cases there were a couple of week to ease in and out. Between the two were 4 months of theoretical studies. When I see the amount of time my own daughter just spent in her one practicum class room, it astonishes me.
Sarup’s Revenge? Generalization as one way to test an argument
I’m using this comment to make some links to previous readings and to illustrate one way that you can think through the coherence of a belief or position that you or others take in discourse.
One rough way to break down Sarup’s argument is something like this:
P1: Knowledge and understanding is contextual, generated by people in local contexts trying to make sense of their world.
P2: The idea that knowledge and understanding is public, or reflects the satisfaction of a set of standards, or expertise, oppresses or disrespects the local and contextual nature of knowledge
P3: Liberal educators believe P3
Therefore, liberal educators are oppressing through their educational policy and practices.
So, as attractive as this position is (and it is attractive – it caters to our desire to challenge authority and break with convention. And who better to play the role of villain than an old white male who lives in one of the countries that invented colonialism!) we need to test it out and see if it makes sense. Because if Sarup is offering a good argument we really owe it to ourselves to take its intellectual merits seriously.
One way to do this is to try and generalize the argument and test out its implications in other domains. What would it mean if we agreed with the argument above? If the implications are absurd or hard to come to terms with, it may mean that we need to revisit the argument and change it a bit. Or it might mean that we have to accept those implications, as absurd as we think they might be at first.
Here is one example that directly applies to the teacher education debate between Winch and Lawlor in this discourse. Consider the following argument is that is often understood as a strong justification for teacher autonomy and the right to professional judgement:
P1: If a professional is to have professional autonomy and the right to professional judgement, that profession must be grounded in knowledge and understanding (expertise) that distinguishes that profession from other kinds of work, and grants persons in that professional role the legitimate authority to make informed decisions.
P2: Teachers have (or teaching requires) specific knowledge and expertise the grants them such authority.
Therefore, teachers ought to have professional autonomy.
But notice: if one accept’s Sarup’s argument (his conclusion) what happens to the argument for teacher autonomy? For Sarup, P1 is just false. There is no such thing as authoritative expertise. In fact, it is more than false – the claim to professional autonomy is, from a Sarupian point of view, simply an ideological trick designed to allow people who become teachers to have illegitimate authority (i.e. power) over others.
Our attempt to generalize Sarup’s argument reveals an interesting implication. If Sarup is right, the concept of professionalism is oppressive. One cannot, (without doing further thinking and argument at least) maintain the idea of professional autonomy while also maintaining that knowledge and understanding is always local, contextual and that expertise is an oppressive fiction.
So, in this space, perhaps suggest ways in which both points of view could be accommodated in theory. Or, maybe you want to argue that they cannot.
Are there other arguments that we have made in the course that, if we tried to generalize them (see what implications would follow if we applied them to other debates) would lead to problematic conclusions? Open to ideas and suggestions, here.
BCTF website: Professional Autonomy
“The professional autonomy of teachers to exercise their judgment and act on it is an important source of strength in a public education system, and as such, should be valued by the broader society as well as by members of the profession. Much of our job satisfaction in teaching comes from exercising our professional judgment in order to meet the diverse needs of our students.”
Teacher’s specific knowledge and expertise allows for legitimate authority to make informed decisions in the educational setting. While teachers may be perceived as having power, one cannot argue the fact that a certain degree of leadership is necessary to lead a group of individuals (especially those at an age of minority) towards information. In many educational settings, the teacher is seen as a “facilitator of learning”, one who works with and alongside the learner. Is this oppression? As members of a society, we rely on our community members for health care, financial expertise, and aide of various types. In my view, if being a professional is oppressive by nature, it is to a degree which has value within society and, specific to this discussion, the current educational model. Professional autonomy allows for legitimate “authority” necessary to support, not illegitimate power over others.
Well put. I think there is an argument to made for teacher autonomy on the basis of knowledge or expertise. If you are right that teachers have the role and this role has value, it cannot be oppressive by definition. In fact, you hit perfectly on the difference when you say teacher have legitimate authority. This is legitimate authority because (so the argument goes) their knowledge and understanding is not simply “socially constructed” but reflects a certain body of truths.
So it is hard to agree with Sarup’s account of knowledge AND ALSO agree that teachers have professional autonomy. This is because if Sarup is right, it would mean that claims to knowledge and expertise are really about trying to claim power or control over others without legitimacy.
Maybe Sarup is right about knowledge and understanding. But if he is, we have to accept the implications of this argument. And if we strongly disagree with these implications, it might mean there is something wrong with his argument. This is one way to go about assessing arguments – examining if their implications make sense.
There is specific term for this approach, called reflective equilibrium.
Obviously, I needed to think about this for a bit. So, if I have this right, Sarup’s argument is that the notion of professional knowledge is oppressive. This then, supports Lawlor’s position that Universities training teachers as professionals, and according to certain theories, is poor practice. Instead, teachers ought to obtain as much knowledge as possible in our subject area, and then be passed on to “people in local contexts” (ie. mentor teachers) so that we may begin to “make sense of” the world of education through our own experience. Hmmm…that does place a bit of a different spin on things. Once I got past the insult I felt when reading Lawlor’s argument, I can see that there may be something more to this perspective than I initially thought.
However, there is also the idea that Lindsey had raised regarding the university as “a space apart”. I would consider the time spent in Education programs at that level are aimed at the exploration of ideas. It isn’t necessarily about learning to adhere to a particular approach, but rather about having the time and space, as well as the resources and support to discover and reflect on a range of ideas and perspectives. After which, once you are placed with a mentor, or are placed in a classroom of your own, you have developed the thinking and analytical skills that are needed for you to think critically about your teaching, or the “trends” in education, or the pedagogy of whomever your mentor is. It’s about how the learning happens at the University level, and less about what the content is. I think that these ideas are supported by the Orchard and Winch argument where the conclude, “teachers need a conceptual framework for their understanding and decision-making, an ethical orientation to their work, and an appreciation of how research bears on their practice” (Orchard & Winch, 2015 p 34).
Like Orchard and Winch, I believe that common sense is not enough. “Best teaching practice is a combination or elements of technical know-how with knowledge of research and theory including a conceptual map of the education field.” (p.14) If I didn’t, I wouldn’t be back in university. However, the argument for mastery of your subject does have merit.
It is common to avoid things one is not good at doing. I don’t ride a unicycle because I don’t have a good sense of balance. One of my shortfalls as a teacher is that I do not incorporate Fine Arts into my teaching as much I could or maybe should because my talent does not lie in that area. If PGCE (or PDP) courses have the trainee “merely trained in the recent approaches to the subject” (Lawlor, p.14) and not in the subject itself, are we not creating a situation where there might be an imbalance in the children’s education.
Over twenty-two years of teaching, I have watched many theories gain prominence and ways of delivering curriculum change. I have also watched a number of curriculum areas go from being of up-most importance to barely a footnote now. I have seen children embrace the inquiry model and develop amazing questions to research. I have also witnessed a large number of children who lack basic knowledge about things like geography, math facts and history. Yes, we live in a technology-based world and it is easy to look up facts. But shouldn’t everyone in Canada know Ottawa is our capital without looking it up? Would having teachers that are experts in their subject, and therefore passionate about sharing their knowledge, not be an ideal to strive for? We want teachers that are have a solid understanding of theory and research. We want them to be have “good sense” as well as common sense. It is important that teachers can make good situational judgments that do not rely on heresay or unreflective prejudice (Orchard, p.14). Yes, please, add theory and research to the requirements of teacher training, but lets also have teachers who excel in Fine Arts, teach Fine Arts, people who speak French, teach French and those who love Math, share that passion and knowledge.
When I first read these two papers I immediately sided with Orchard and White. I would argue that teachers do need educational theory because, “they must understand what they are doing and why they are doing it and must be able to think intelligently about how to do it better” (Orchard and White 2015, pp.3).
However after a reread, I find myself wondering do I really need education theory or do I use it to justify my teaching rather than believing that perhaps I learned how to be a good teacher on the job?
In the preface of Lawlor’s paper it is stated, “This is by no means to ask the would-be-teacher to abandon a continual learning of his subject; it is only to ask him to recognize that education is not his subject. A teacher’s subject is that which he teachers; and any time spent in developing more depth of knowledge there is time well spent” (Director of Publications, Lawlor 1990, pp.4).
These words have been with me the last couple weeks. I find myself asking, “Do I spend more time learning more about the subjects I teach? Or do I spend more time finding better ways to teach what I already know?”
I think about my own children’s teachers outside of the school system, their baseball coach, the swimming instructor, or the ski instructor. None of these teachers took an education program at university but they do have a mastery of their subjects and my children have learned from them.
I wonder if I had begun teaching after my Bachelor’s Degree and learned on the job if I would be a different teacher? Would my passion for literature make me a great teacher rather than my understanding of educational theory?
This is a good question Delsey and one that I think many people have. Did they learn how to be a good teacher on the job or was it their theoretical backing? This is a question that I can answer without a doubt for myself, the educational theory made me the teacher I am today. After my undergrad, which included quite a bit of subject mastery, a little theory, and lots of on the job training (practicums) I had plenty of subject knowledge, passion and was starting to develop a teaching style. This was great until I was faced with a very challenging and unique class. All of my passion for my subjects did not help me meet the diverse needs of my learners. After that disastrous year I started my diploma in Inclusive Education. The educational theories and research that I started reading changed the way I taught completely. I was still passionate about the subjects I taught, but now I had a deeper understanding of how student’s learn, how to adapt, how to meet all of their needs using research backed methods. This is where I connected to Orchard and Winch, I can’t imagine being a successful teacher without having studied research based methods and theories.
Erica, I find it so interesting that you said, ‘when you felt challenged by your class you turned to the university to help you understand the needs of diverse learners.’ Amanda and I were just having this conversation today. We were discussing how we have learned so much on the job but now that we have a foundation of both subject knowledge and on the job experience it only recently that I find myself able to connect the educational theories to my classroom and students.
I do feel I left university with a strong subject knowledge and I did have educational theory during my Bachelor of Education but until I had the job experience I don’t believe I fully understood how these theories can influence my teaching practice.
After all the readings and discussions I am tempted to suggest that perhaps one way to develop the best teachers is a combination of all three: start with subject mastery, move to on the job experience for two years and then return to university for one year to reflect on your learning and to connect educational theory with practice. I do believe we need educational theory to continue to develop as teachers but I am not sure we need to start with it…I might suggest we finish with it.
I agree with you Delsey. The “body of theory that supports…practical skill in such a way that it can be applied to their day-to-day professional decision-making and actions” (Orchard & Winch p 16) requires a framework of experience to be relevant. A knowledge base, some professional training, and some experience provide the base to which expanding understanding of educational theory and research can build a more powerful practice. As Orchard & Winch add “independent, challenging, and creative thinking of this kind…makes teaching an attractive and exciting career.” (p 16). I don’t believe we can really appreciate the theory/research without experience that will allow recognition of practical application.
I completely agree with you Delsey. I honestly don’t think I have learned that much in my training programs, and if I did, it was from my practicum and internship that I have grown. I found that the theories that I was taught during my B.Ed. program weren’t really applicable in my daily teaching. Sure, we learned to have think-pair-share, but I feel that I would have been able to pick it up without the training, because I started implement teaching strategies without realizing it was from teachers’ college, and it was purely because I saw other teachers doing it and I tried multiple strategies and found which ones worked well and which ones didn’t. Teaching is supposed to be interesting and unique, what’s the purpose if we are trained to teach in a similar way as if we were cloned? How would it be any different than following instructions from a computer? We all have our different and unique personalities, our interactions and ways of delivering a lesson come from experience, practice, observation and time. This is no different than learning how to drive, you don’t become a good driver by attending and completing 25 hours of driving school lessons.
I love your questions, Delsey, “Do I spend more time learning about the subjects I teach? Or do I spend more time finding better ways to teach what I already know?” Good teachers are lifelong learners, continuously striving to improve their practice, whether it be through subject knowledge or educational theory. The path one chooses to obtain their teaching certificate is a fueled debate, but it is only a small part of a teacher’s educational journey. Yes, an English teacher should be continuously building vocabulary and command of language, just as a PE or woodwork teacher should be continuously striving to improve their skills; mastery of subject within an educator is priceless. Educational theory, however, is another vital component to being a masterful teacher. I would have to say, from my own personal experience, that my emphasis on knowledge of my subject was the focus of my undergrad, which then set me up for an education program that focused on educational theory. After four and a half years of post-secondary education, I was ready to hit the classroom for my practicum. I must say, I felt prepared going into my first contract. Yes, there are things that you cannot learn until you have experienced the classroom, but I think the same would go for doctors and lawyers, as your clientele is just so diverse, and, just as Orchard and Winch state, “No two lessons will ever be exactly the same.” and that, “teachers must be free to respond to these changes, we believe, using their professional judgement. (p.12) Teachers must be continuously learning and improving their practice, in order to be the best they can be. I agree with Erica, when she says that, as effective educators, we need theoretical background to support our knowledge in our subject area. I would love to hear what others have to say about this.
I do, however, believe there are a number of variables to consider when comparing a baseball coach to a teacher, because, I believe a coach can be good, without mastery of subject. Now, I do agree that coaches are often masters of their subject, but this is not always the case, as some coaches are simply there because, if they didn’t volunteer, there would be no team at all. I have witnessed this type of situation first hand, and the parent/coach stepping up has done an amazing job, not because they are an expert in their subject, but because they connect with the players and they generate a passion to play and learn. This suggests that it is not simply mastery of a subject that makes one a good teacher.
I also believe, when comparing teaching to coaching, that we must include the level we are talking about; this is a vital component to the level and importance of the level of knowledge coaches, or teachers, should have. Middle school is more focused on building relationships and connections compared to high schools, and this is evident, within the middle, through team teaching structures and Mentorship blocks, for example. So, as a result, subject knowledge is, arguably, less important within the middle. This would not hold true for high-school, however, as the importance of subject knowledge, within this model, is just too important. Would you agree?
Lastly, teaching a group of 15 kids about something they love to do, such as play baseball, for example, is a lot different than teaching 30 students about the Atomic Theory. All this to say that, regardless of how much you know, there is a lot more needed to be a great teacher than subject mastery and on-the-job training. If Lawlor’s argument carries any weight, then all teachers would need degrees in psychology, sociology and two or three teachable subjects, at the least, to be a master at everything they do within a day’s work, as an educator.
In response to your question Delsey, “Do I spend more time learning about the subjects I teach? Or do I spend more time finding better ways to teach what I already know?” I agree with Nathan, teachers are life time learners, and we are always trying to keep the balance of being a master of our craft, and then being a master of teaching our craft.
I find that it is a hard balance to keep, but there needs to be focus on the theoretical learning to advance as teachers, as well as the job training to be able to teach in a manner for the students to excel in.
Your question offered a great way of looking at these two positions, and it did make me pause and think. As for where I landed for an answer, I’m not quite sure. I suppose that I am at an advantage as far as my subject goes. I teach English, so I suppose so long as I read a lot, and maybe go to all of my monthly book club meetings, that should about cover keeping up with learning in my subject area, right? 😉 However, I don’t know if knowing everything there is to know about my subject IS enough. Given that in teaching we must also assess the learning, as well as deliver the material, is it really enough for me to know all the “stuff”? What about getting my students to know the “stuff”? And what about informing them and their parents about how well they know it? Doesn’t that all go beyond subject knowledge? Reading the Lawlor “pamphlet” (which was quite unlike any pamphlet I have ever seen), I was picturing everyone’s favourite teacher from Ferris Bueller. He seemed to know his subject very well. His method did not appear very effective though. Overall, in my experience, and like the others in this part of the thread, I would agree more with Orchard and Winch in that a balance of all areas are needed for effective teaching.
“Do I spend more time learning about the subjects I teach? Or do I spend more time finding better ways to teach what I already know?”
Subject knowledge in my profession working in art galleries is definitely important, but I think the ability to read a class and their level of understanding and adapt is significantly more important to lead a successful school tour. Since our second tour program started at the end of January I have seen over 1,000 kids come in for school tours. They have been all different ages, learning levels, schools, teachers and so on. Even though I have a written script, no two tours are ever the same.
Throughout my MA in Art History I realized as a TA that in order to have my students be successful with a broad subject like art history, it was less about mastering the subject (like what time of day Leonardo Da Vinci preferred to paint at) and instead I needed to teach them the necessary skills and strategies one needs to be able to analyze any work of art, made by anyone, anywhere, in any century. It is essential to teach them how to see, how to think and what kinds of questions to ask. This teaching strategy for my subject has now helped tremendously in my new position designing art gallery school tours. We change our exhibitions every two months and more often than not I am not an expert on whatever the new artist or collection is. However, I know that as long as I stick to those same foundational skills for how to look, read, and interpret art, I will always be able to adapt to whatever a particular class might be interested in discussing when visiting the gallery.
Would more educational theory help my practice at this point now knowing that this is the venue I am going to teach in? I definitely think so and this is where I agree with Delsey’s point that now with my on-the-job training I know I would be able to fully understand how educational theories could evolve my practice. I don’t think there can be a standard beginning, middle, and end to teacher training as we too are learners and we are all going learn in different ways with different paths that work best for us.
I think that there needs to be a balance between theoretical learning and on the job training for new teachers. As I read Lawlor’s article I found myself wondering: How will these master teacher’s be chosen? Will these ‘master teachers’ instil their own theories and biases on the new teaching trainees if there is not a specific body (perhaps a university department of education) in place that decides what is important in the way of theoretical learning? She compares teaching, as a profession, to other professions, “Doctors must know medicine; lawyers, the law; accountants, accountancy; pharmacists, chemistry.” (7) I think it would be a hard point to argue that in each of these mentioned professions the ‘new trainees’ learned everything solely on the job. I’m quite certain doctors need to learn a ‘little bit’ of background theory in order to positively impact their patients during their on the job training.
Perhaps if the issue of teacher training is approached in a different light. One in which we view the students and their ability to become successful, to the best of their ability, as our main subject. Teachers need to have an understanding of: how students learn; the different learning styles; the various social, emotional and physical issues that may impede that learning; how to best motivate; how to build a sense of community where every student feels safe and valued; educational research and the ability to decipher and judge the importance of this research through knowledge gained by the study of theory and empirical research. Teachers need to be able to first support the student in their learning before they can impart knowledge. As Orchard and Winch point out, “…the best teaching practice combines elements of technical know-how with knowledge of research and theory, including a conceptual map of the educational field. Practical wisdom of this kind enables teachers to act in practically appropriate ways in a variety of complex setting.” (14). “…we call this ‘good sense’. We believe every teacher needs it.” (14).
Lawlor argues in her article that new teachers can learn everything they need to know on the job, “…proposes that the PGCE and B. Ed. courses be abolished – and with them the university departments of education. Instead, graduates will, as happens in other professions, train on the job and be paid a salary from the outset.” (42). I beg to differ.
Deborah, I agree with you, providing the training and education received is sound. I also refuse to believe that there is one definition of ‘master teacher’ for a student teacher to emulate. What one student or student teacher finds oppressive, another will find inspiring. It is the nature of professional autonomy and the nature of people. We have diverse needs and skills. In a good school, the pieces fit like a jigsaw; each of our strengths building to a harmonious whole that meets the needs of our learners. There can be no comprehensive definition of master teacher. This is the reason we need to explore ‘different schools of thought’ (Orchard & Winch p. 20) because each will resonate differently.
I definitely agree with you Deborah, I think Orchard was not trying to eliminate subject knowledge or she wasn’t promoting for a theory-based teachers’ training program. I think she proposes that a combination of theory, practice, experience, expertise in the subject knowledge is necessary for fine teaching. This is true not only in teaching, but in other professions as well. One single element alone will not lead to the best results, often times, we need a blend of each type of skills to remain balanced. If a teacher is too theoretical, she/he will not know how to adjust according to reality, because theories often differ from realities when situations can vary very much. A person who relies completely on intuition and common sense may lack research abilities, management skills, etc., which are also essential skills to acquire to become a good teacher.
Should teachers be educated or should they be trained?
Lawlor has a very specific proposition for this question. She puts forward that teachers should be educated, not in the subject of educational theory, but specifically in the academic area that one will be teaching in. And then once mastery has been achieved they should be trained, but on the job in a supervised environment where they can develop their own individual style on the job. She feels that the actual act of teaching is a skill that is practical and comparable to playing an instrument or swimming. Lawlor is quite critical of the concept of Educational Theory as a topic worth studying on its own in an academic setting.
Orchard and Winch on the other hand disagree that teachers are simply “technicians” and instead propose that they should be considered “professionals.” (p. 5) They indicate that teachers need more than just the subject knowledge and on the job training that Lawlor insists upon. Orchard and Winch state that the best teachers need, “a conceptual framework within which to think about education, as well as practical professional knowledge and skills, informed by relevant research findings, and an understanding of the ethical dimensions of their work.” Throughout their pamphlet they cover the debate around these topics and detail how these three main elements of preparing a teacher should be put in place.
The topic of debate that I found particularly interesting is the one area that Lawlor and Orchard and Winch almost had in common to a point. Both agree that teachers do need on the job practice. The difference is that Lawlor was adamant that teaching itself is something that should be developed through on the job experience alone. She describes good teaching as having an “aura of mystery” (p. 7). She also details how learning specific research based teaching theories can pigeonhole teachers into one method and prevent them from developing their own style. Lawlor is adamant that the key to good teaching is mastery in the subject, the practice itself should come on its own through supervised and then individual practice. Orchard and Winch agree that “teaching does require a degree of technical know-how” and they also recognize the danger of all teachers “following guidelines and prescriptions slavishly.” (p. 12) The difference in their thinking is that simply mastering the academic subject isn’t enough. Orchard and Winch propose that in order for a teacher to “create bespoke lessons… to suit the particular needs of their own classes” they must “think and make independent judgments for themselves, based on their reading of the context in which their work is situated.” (p. 12) This is the key that I saw as lacking in Lawlor’s arguments. Mastery of a subject being taught is a valid argument, but how one can translate that academic basis into lessons that meet the needs of diverse learners without any backing in educational theory is baffling. She does not talk about the unique needs of learners, diverse classes, learning disabilities, or behavior challenges that are such a huge part of teaching any class about any academic subject. Orchard and Winch talk about the importance of teachers as professionals needing the educational backing to improvise, adapt, and meet unique needs. This is what is key for this, learning assistance and alternate education teacher.
While reading After reading both articles, I am torn by which article I resonate with more. When reading Orchard and Winch’s article, I find myself agreeing with all of their points. I believe “all teachers need professional education or training; that is to say, a planned intervention of some kind which prepares them for the demands of their chosen profession. Even those new to the role, who appear ‘natural’ or ‘born to teach,’ need induction.” (p. 8, 2015). This shows that Orchard and Winch believe that there needs to be a huge emphasis on the teacher training. The go on further to say that theoretical matter is important, but that there “is a failure to retain teachers, once trained” (p.9). Showing that teachers do not have the teaching ‘tools’ needed to survive the classroom. Orchard and Winch suggest throughout the article that there is too much focus on a teacher knowing all of the subject matter before the person has ever taught in the classroom, and with the imbalance of the teacher focus; it is causing many teachers to fail, because they do not have enough of the teaching experiences and guidance to succeed in a classroom.
When reading Orchard’s and Winch’s article I found myself reflecting on the school that I teach at, and the standard of education. I find myself wondering what is best for the students. Being able to manage all of the different levels of ‘needs’ from the students? Or being able to further the students’ education level to proficiency because of the mastery of subject by the teacher, and leaving the students behind that cannot keep up (I do not think this is how teaching should be done personally, but it is a topic of conversation at my school at every staff meeting it seems.).
Lawlor’s article states that “teaching remains alone the amongst the professions in having switched emphasis from mastery of the subject to the practice of teaching” (p. 8, 1990). Showing that teachers are focussing more on the ‘art of teaching,’ and less on the mastery of knowledge of their teachable subjects. Lawlor further goes on to say that “teachers are nor encouraged to develop the style of teaching which time and experience prove best for them. Rather, there is imposed on them, in the training courses and later, a single method of teaching, often at the expense of the subject itself” (p. 8). Lawlor believes that a teacher should be proficient in their teaching subject first, and that after they are proficient, the teacher will learn the art of teaching through trial, error, and experience.
After reading Lawlor’s article, I agreed with many of the points if the students that were being taught were high academic achievers, with little modifications or adaptations needed. In the 21st century, the reality of teaching is that many of the students have severe learning disabilities; and the teachers need the teaching training to combat these difficulties. The reality is that the standard of education is going down, but that is not because of the mastery of the subject by the teacher; the standard of education is a reflection of the needs of society at the moment. With mental health, special needs, lack of parenting, lack of ‘normal’ childhood, and socioeconomic issues entering the school in a rising rate; teachers need to be trained to deal with these problems, because these are the problems that are important in education right now.
In an ideal world I would say Lawlor has a valid point, and that teachers need to advance their academics first, and worry about teaching second. However, (as teachers we know this to be true) a teacher in today’s time is more than just a teacher; and therefore the expectations of what teacher training should be needs to change as well.
I found both of these articles quite interesting and, in some ways complimentary of each other too. In his paper Lawler contends that content mastery is most important for a successful teacher candidate and rejects the emphasis on educational theory which, he believes, results in uniform teaching styles (Lawler, 8).
Orchard objects to Lawlor’s practice centered approach stating that a strong teacher should have a proper conceptual framework, practical knowledge and skills and understanding of ethical dimensions arguing that common sense and “trial and error” should never substitute a decision grounded in theory (Orchard, 13). She does not doubt that mastery of content is important but believes it is only a part of the pie, so to speak, and she proposes a content and theory driven apprenticeship program for teacher candidates as a way to stress the importance of both of these (31).
Although Orchard does present a more balanced approach to the content vs theory dilemma Lawlor was more persuasive in his promotion of content mastery highlighting specific examples in Germany (content specific) and France (heavily academic) as potential models for a change in the British system. From my own experience in the B.Ed program 3 years ago I can say that I felt overwhelmed with the abundance of theory which we were assigned and felt unable to apply it during my practicum in an effective way, and I am certainly not the only one who felt this way. Many of the teacher candidates entered their practicums feeling unprepared due to a lack of practical teaching strategies, sufficient review of the curriculum and abiding to specific school protocol. Indeed it would have been far more beneficial had we been given advanced time with our content, which would have undoubtedly built the confidence of the candidates entering the classroom. From my own experience atleast, I would say that education programs (in BC at least) have over emphasized the theoretical aspect of teaching and, as a result, I believe Lawler’s article to be more pertinent in our current educational climate.
Lawyor’s article claims that the mastery of subject knowledge is the prerequisite to be the teacher, and after that the emphasis of teacher training should be put on the skills of teaching, which can ”be acquired only through experience, trail and error and careful, individual supervision”(p. 8). He states that time should be spent on practical experience rather than learning educational theory after obtaining the necessary subject knowledge. I have several arguments to his views in the article.
1. Educational theory is irreplaceable for good teaching.
No one could deny that teachers’ responsibility is for students’ better learning. The development of society raises higher expectations to teachers. Students’ learning is not only related with the teachers’ mastery of subject knowledge, but also with students’ social/ psychological/emotional status. With necessary theoretical knowledge, teachers can make logical judgments and well-informed decisions about students’ learning need and the most suitable teaching methods according to specific situation.
2. The trainer/ mentor needs theoretical background to direct the trainee.
Lawyor supports the idea of arranging a mentor to give guidance to a trainee. However, every student is special and each classroom has its own character. The teaching methods that are useful in the mentor’s class may be unsuitable in the trainee’s class. How could the mentor explain to the trainee that his teaching is good and give guidance to the trainee without educational theory? The candidates should have basic educational theory about teaching and then grow in their practices.
3. The teaching quality cannot be guaranteed without educational theory.
Lawyor stated that one year’s on the job training can give new teachers teaching skills and address the shortage of teachers in some extent. However, he overlooked the point that the teaching quality of the class taught by the new teacher cannot be guaranteed. The class may be mistaught since the new teacher has no educational theory and the parents or schools will have no confidence in him, which parent will put their kids in a class taught by a teacher without any educational theory and teaching experience?
4. Is it really a waste for teachers to learn more educational theory?
The education in Finland is a successful example with high-educated teachers. All teachers in Finland must have master degrees and need do research while teaching. It is a vivid example to show that educational theory act as helper in teaching, which lies in to help teachers examine and reflect their teaching practice and make their teaching better.
After getting VPN, I finally can get on our course website – literally everything’s blocked in China, including UBC website and our blog. Anyway, sorry for the delayed response.
Lawlor mentions in his paper that there are severe shortages in the teaching professions in Britain, it’s extremely difficult to attract graduates from best universities to enter the profession and it’s hard to keep teachers from leaving the profession. This is partly due to the training programs offered to teacher candidates. Lawlor further claims that the emphasis of teaching training programs should shift to the mastery of subject knowledge, “It was with the object of placing the mastery of the subject at the heart of the teacher’s training, as the first prerequisite for good teaching…” (Lawlor, p. 8) Lawlor states that, at present, the teaching training programs focuses too much on standardized teaching styles and pay too little attention to subject knowledge, “… the training courses demeans the subject to being little more than a peg on which to hang modish educational theory” (Lawlor, p. 42).
It seems to me that obtaining a teaching license is a long and difficult process in France, Germany and New Jersey. Orchard mentioned in his paper that “… teachers need a longer, more rigorous and personalized training period to be adequately prepared. The report concludes that a minimum entitlement of three years should be offered to teachers…” (Orchard, p. 9). If we implement this same practice, wouldn’t we experience shortages in the teaching profession? It is true that perhaps those who have entered the profession are more likely to stay because getting the certificate was not easy and therefore they are more likely to “treasure” it. However, I think the difficult process may discourage people from entering the field because not everyone can wait for a longer period of time to become a teacher unless they are truly passionate about teaching and are more willing to go through the tedious process.
In Lawlor’s paper, it pointed out that training programs may discourage people from entering the profession, a reason that may contribute to leaving the profession is the salary. The pay grid increases by about 2% each year on average in Canada. For experienced teachers, we feel that we are underpaid with the amount of hours that we work for each day. This low pay scale will definitely encourage teachers to seek for other jobs and opportunities in other industries. “This change will not, however, help experienced teachers, many of whom feel that their skills and efforts are not rewarded financially, as they would be in other professions.” (Lawlor, p. 41).
In Orchard’s paper, it is argued that there is too little emphasis on standardizing teaching strategies and theoretical trainings in teaching training programs, and as a result, teacher candidates do not have enough research skills, management skills, and other skills that are necessary to deliver sound teaching practices. Orchard believes that “all teachers need professional education or training” (Orchard, p. 6) and “… theory has a necessary and unambiguous role to play in teachers’ professional knowledge.” (Orchard, p. 8). Orchard does not claim to ignore the importance of experience, “we agree the experience is an important element of teachers’ professional knowledge; but we also believe that what passes for intuition or common sense is an unreliable basis on which to make good decisions in the classroom” (Orchard, p. 13). I do agree with the point that it’s somewhat difficult and challenging to draw the line between theory and practice. “At the basis of the present, bad system of teacher-training, there lies a confusion between what can best be learnt by academic study, and what can be learnt only through practice.” (Lawlor, p. 8). However, I agree with Orchard that theory alone will not produce an excellent teacher, practice alone will not either. A combination of both is required to produce fine teachers.
Here is a link to a recent Washington Post article that tells of one teacher’s experience trying to balance this very thing we have been discussing.
http://wpo.st/FCKK1
I really wish that I had been able to post it earlier, but it’s from yesterday, so what can you do? I think that it could inspire some interesting discussion, although I’m afraid most of you have likely moved on from this post now. It’s still worth the read if you have time.
Thank you for posting that article Marci, it was a good read 🙂