10 SES 02 B, Learning to Teach: Three Perspectives
Research shows that the transition from teacher education into working life is a challenge. The social responsibilities of a teacher’s work is constantly increasing and relationships seem to define newly qualified teachers’ (NQTs) first work experiences (cf. Aspfors, 2012; Hobson et al., 2007; O’Connor, 2008). Many teachers are thus meeting greater demands in their relations with colleagues, students (/pupils) and parents and more and more countries are having problems recruiting, developing and keeping good teachers in the profession (Achinstein, 2006; MacBeath, 2012; Rots et al., 2007; 2012). At the same time, Hattie’s (2009) meta-analysis shows that teachers' relational competence is one key factor for students’ learning. It is, in the meeting with the students, teacher students’ relational skills and professional identity is developed first of all (Aspelin & Persson, 2008). However, much of this interaction with pupils in the classroom is unpredictable and cannot be planned in advance (Valle, 2014). Furthermore, teacher education is often meeting critique for not being able to give teacher students enough authentic classroom experiences and prepare them well enough for their future work (Brouwer & Korthagen, 2005; Wideen, Mayer-Smith & Moon, 1998). A challenge for teacher education is consequently how to enable teacher students to develop their intuitive interaction skills and competence together with pupils in school in times when practice periods are frequently cut down due to economical reasons. Moreover, how to utilize net based learning platforms in developing these skills. Is it possible to see new alternatives for how future teachers’ relational competence together with students might be developed?
Research on teacher education is a relatively young research tradition in Norway. Both Munthe’s (2013) and Haugan’s (2011) review of research on teacher education show that a student-centered approach is missing. White Paper 13 (2011-2012) make also demands of a closer collaboration between teacher education and practice field. There are thus a need for research that continuously and innovatively develop the teacher education.
To be able to develop teacher students’ intuitive interaction skills, teacher education needs to create new spaces where teacher students and pupils/students can meet and interact. A communicative space can, according to Kemmis (2013), be defined as the “moments of deliberative and democratic human interaction focused on issues or problems opened up for discussion with the aim of mutual understanding and consensus”. In this paper we will therefore study the development of teacher students’ intuitive interaction skills through the lens of communicative space. We will draw on an emerging theory, practice architecture (Kemmis & Grootenboer, 2008), that explicates not only the individual practices of teacher students’ interaction with students, but also the arrangements which prefigure, enable and constrain the development of such a communicative space between teacher education and practice schools. In this way, the unique cultural-discursive, material-economic and social-political arrangements of the particular practice will be illuminated.
This paper builds on the results from two dissertation projects (Aspfors, 2012; Valle, 2014) and an ongoing joint action research project/PhD project in which the aim is to examine enablements and constraints of communicative space where teacher students’ intuitive interaction skills with students during teacher education can be developed. The study poses the following research questions:
1) What characterizes NQTs’ induction practice and relational experiences in the transition from education to work? (dissertation 1: Aspfors, 2012)
2) What characterizes the practice of teachers’ intuitive interaction skills? (dissertation 2: Valle, 2014)
3) What enables and constrains the creation of a sustainable communicative space where teacher students’ intuitive interaction skills with students can be developed? (joint action research project/phd project: Furre Moan)
Achinstein, B. (2006). New teacher and mentor political literacy: reading, navigating and transforming induction contexts. Teachers and Teaching: Theory and Practice, 12(2), 123–138. Aspelin, J. & Persson, S. (2008b). Yrkeskunnande-i-relation. Teoretiska perspektiv på lärares grundkompetens. Stockholm: Santéus förlag. Aspfors, J. (2012). Induction Practices: Experiences of Newly Qualified Teachers (Diss.). Åbo Akademi University. Brouwer, N. & Korthagen, F. (2005). Can teacher education make a difference? American Educational Research Journal, 42(1), 153–224. Hattie, J. (2009). Visible learning: a synthesis of over 800 meta-analyses relating to achievement. London: Routledge. Haugan, J.A. (2011). A systematic review of research regarding Norwegian general teacher education 2000-2010, Nordic Studies in Education, 31, 229-244. Hobson, A.J., Malderez, A., Tracey, L., Homer, M., Mitchell, N., Biddulph, M.,…Tomlinson, P.D. (2007). Newly qualified teachers’ experiences of their first year of teaching. Findings from the phase III of the becoming a teacher project. Nottingham: Department for Children, Schools and Families (DCSF). Kelchtermans, G. & Ballet, K. (2002). The micropolitics of teacher induction. A narrative-biographical study on teacher socialization. Teaching and Teacher Education, 18, 105–120. Kemmis, S. (2013). Communicative spaces and the public sphere. Keynote at PEP-nerwork meeting/doctoral school, University of Tromsö, 5.11.2013. Kemmis, S. & Grootenboer, P. (2008). Situating praxis in practice: Practice architectures and the cultural, social and material conditions for practice. In S. Kemmis & T. Smith (Eds.), Enabling Praxis: Challenges for Education (pp. 37-62). Rotterdam: Sense Publishers. MacBeath, J. (2012). The future of the teaching profession. University of Cambridge, Department of Education, Educational International Research Institute. Retrieved August, 2012, from www.educ.cam.ac.uk Munthe, E. (2013). Lærerutdanningsforskning - på langs og på tvers. Keynote at NAFOL seminar, NTNU, Norwegian University of Science and Technology, 20.11.2013. O’Connor, K.E. (2008). ”You choose to care”: Teachers, emotions and professional identity. Teaching and Teacher Education, 24, 117–126. Rots, I., Aelterman, A., Vlerick, P. & Vermeulen, K. (2007). Teacher education, graduates’ teaching commitment and entrance into the teaching profession. Teaching and Teacher Education, 23, 543–556. Skogen, K. 2004. Innovasjon i skolen. Kvalitetsutvikling og kompetanseheving. Bergen: Universitetsforlaget. Valle, A.M. (2014). Teachers’ personal professional competence (Forthcoming diss.). University of Nordland. Valle, A.M. (2007). Aksjonsforskning som forbedringsstrategi. Aksjonsforskning som strategi for praksisrettet utvikling i grunnopplæring og lærerutdanning. Ph.D-course in action research, Høgskolen i Bodø 24.8.2007. White Paper 13 (2011-2012). Utdanning for velferd; Samspill i praksis. Ministry of Education and Research. Wideen, M., Mayer-Smith, J. & Moon, B. (1998). A critical analysis of the research on learning to teach: Making the case for an ecological perspective on inquiry. Review of Educational Research, 68(2), 130–178.
- Search for keywords and phrases in "Text Search"
- Restrict in which part of the abstracts to search in "Where to search"
- Search for authors and in the respective field.
- For planning your conference attendance you may want to use the conference app, which will be issued some weeks before the conference
- If you are a session chair, best look up your chairing duties in the conference system (Conftool) or the app.