Background, research questions and theory

There are a number of ways to describe the different functions of a teacher education programme. One can for example separate the formative function of contributing to student teachers´ learning and development, from the summative function of continuously controlling the student teachers´ abilities being prepared for “gatekeeping” when those abilities are seen to be insufficient. When it comes to the gatekeeping within a teacher education programme, this could be analyzed from a chronologic, quantitative and/or a qualitative perspective. A chronologic perspective highlights when sharp examinations occur and whether active gatekeeping are taking place early on in the programme or as a final step before graduation. A quantitative perspective highlights how many (or few) examinations there are, and a qualitative perspective could bring knowledge of what kind of examinations that are being used and what level of requirements that are at hand.

In the presentation I will discuss whether different gatekeeping strategies might influence the learning environment within a teacher education programme. A problem might arise if students get occupied with “slipping through gates”, in every way trying to avoid single mistakes, hiding what they feel is difficult and demanding.

Occasional failures could instead be seen as essential parts within any learning process, but such “productive failures” require a supportive learning environment where mistakes are welcomed and where students feel safe risking failure in front of teachers and peers (Fouché, 2014; O´Donnell, 2014). However, if the entry requirements to the programme are very low while the exit requirements are quite high, a thorough gatekeeping structure needs to be organized within the programme. This gatekeeping structure is risking contributing to student strategies of keeping their heads above water, inhibiting vital and essential parts of learning how to become a teacher.

The gatekeeping/development distinction could be discussed in general pedagogical terms, but also when it comes to the organization of a teacher education programme, as well as the organization of a single course within such a programme.

Two empirical findings will be discussed during the presentation, one with student teachers as informants and another with teacher educators as informants. The student teachers´ answers are related to the organization of a single course, while the teacher educators´ answers are related to the organization of an entire teacher education programme.

Research questions:

1)      How do student teachers describe a desirable five weeks long course, when it comes to different gatekeepers where a failure grade always is possible, in relation to learning/development where mistakes should be welcomed as a vital part of the learning process?

2)      How do teacher educators describe a desirable teacher education programme, when it comes to the gatekeeping structure?

Theory:

The findings could be discussed in relation to theories emphasizing the how-question in education, or in the way different educational environments socialize students´ into different ways to think, act and make meaning (Carlgren, 2015; Schatzki, Knorr Cetina & von Savigny, 2001).

Student teachers are being trained for a profession (teaching) that could be understood as a complex and sometimes demanding and challenging task (Shulman, 2004), involving a “chronic uncertainty” (Labaree, 2000). The question “what does the student teacher need to know?” would though be complemented by a question of what practices the student teacher are being exposed to and how this might influence his/her habits and dispositions as a future teacher (Nelsen, 2015). Issues of gatekeeping versus learning, or failures as something valuable versus failures as something always undesirable, could get highlighted from this perspective.

References: Carlgren, I. (2015). Kunskapskulturer och undervisningspraktiker. Göteborg: Bokförlaget Daidalos AB. Cochran-Smith, M. (2003). The unforgiving complexity of teaching: Avoiding simplicity in the age of accountability. Journal of Teacher Education, 54(1), 3-5. Cochran-Smith, M., Ell, F., Ludlow, L., Grudnoff, L., & Aitken, G. (2014). The challenge and promise of complexity theory for teacher education research. Teachers College Record, 116(5), 1-38. Fouche, J. (2013) Rethinking failure – when getting it wrong can increase students´ chances of getting it right. Science Teacher, 80 (8), 45-49. Gardesten, J. (2016). ”Den nödvändiga grunden” – underkännanden och erkännanden under lärarutbildningens verksamhetsförlagda delar (Doktorsavhandling). Växjö: Lnu Press. Goodwin, A. L. & Oyler, C. (2008). Teacher educators as gatekeepers. Deciding who is ready to teach. I M. Cochran–Smith, S. Feiman–Nemser, & D. J. McIntyre (Eds.), Handbook of Research on Teacher Education (s. 468–489). New York: Routledge. Labaree, D. G. (2000). On the nature of teaching and teacher education: Difficult practices that look easy. Journal of Teacher Education, 51(3), 228-233. Nelsen, P. J. (2015). Intelligent Dispositions: Dewey, Habits and Inquiry in Teacher Education. Journal of Teacher Education, 66(1), 86–97. O´Donnell, A. (2014). Another Relationship to Failure: Reflections on Beckett and Education. Journal of Philosophy of Education 48(2), 260–275. Schatzki, T.R., Knorr Cetina, K. & von Savigny, E. (Eds.). (2001). The Practice Turn in Contemporary Theory. London: Routledge. Shulman L. S. (2004). Professional development: Learning from experience. In Wilson S. (Ed.), The wisdom of practice: Essays on teaching, learning, and learning to teach (pp. 503-522). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass