Teaching Practice TEI

By Andrew Milne-Skinner

E AllCrossing thresholds between principle and practice

"Teachers teach as they are taught, not as they are taught to teach." (old adage)

"He who can, does. He who cannot, teaches." (G.B. Shaw, Man and Superman, 1903)", ..and he who cannot teach, teaches teachers?"

USir, are you so grossly ignorant ofhuman nature, as not to know that a man may be very sincere in goodprinciples, without having good practice?" (Dr. Johnson, 1773)

Two metaphorsFirstly, as both teacher educators andtrainers, can we actually deliver the goods?(Or are we just backroom storekeepers?)Secondly, would you buy a cookbookwritten by a chef who has long sincestopped working in the kitchen?

ContextIn Austria, a difference tends to be drawnbetween Padagogiker (missionaries) andPadagogen (practitioners). In someAustrianuniversity English departments, manyteacher education courses have little orno direct access to school classrooms orteaching practice: a curious anomaly. Oneresult is that teacher education syllabusesmay not focus on contextual or appliedknowledge. So, how can educators bringcontext and experience into their theoryand methodology courses? What canbe the relationship between declarativeknowledge, procedural knowledge anddelivery skills?

ApproachIt's well worth looking at the range ofteaching options open to the educator fordelivering 'knowledge'. On a spectrumextending from received knowledge toexperiential knowledge, such optionsrange from lectures, reading and researchthrough tasks and discussions on to

observation, followed by simulations androle-plays, leading into micro-teachingand learning a new, unknown language,ending up in teaching practice.

lan McGrath (quoted by M. Spratt &M. Williams in 'Putting Knowledge intoPractice', IATEFL TTEd SIG Newsletter,July 2005, based on the March 2005Vienna Conference) offers two intersectingdimensions: a vertical one from knowingto doing, the other a horizontal one fromteacher-centred to learner-centred. Thetop-left quadrant he terms 'Feeding'(lectures, reading), the top-right 'Leading'(Socratic questioning, awareness­raising tasks), the bottom-left 'Showing'(demonstrating, 'mirroring') and thebottom-right 'Throwing' (teachingpractice, workshops).

Clearly, trainers/educators need to offera wide range of such options to suit avaried clientele. But university trainers/educators are often rather wary of holdinga live lesson in school in the presence oftheir trainees!

Why is this so?• Institutionalized inertia: tradition?• Only minimal contact with practising

teachers?• One-up-manship? Professional class?

Noblesse oblige?• Fear of losing control? (of the lesson,

pupils, oneself?)• Disliking working directly with pupils

(noise, potential chaos)?• Fear of losing face in front of own

trainees?

•

Trainees do comment that teachereducators don't know enough about thebrutal realities of the school teachingsituation, or don't pay enough attentionto its constraints. A teaching modelpresented by an educator may well be- hopefully will be! - questioned, orindeed rejected, by trainees as beingincompatible with the realities of theclassroom.

ThesisTeacher educators need to have the moralcourage of their didactic convictions totake risks, albeit calculated, in front ofpupils in a real classroom, in the presenceof their trainees.

Demo lesson vs. (prepared) liveeventBack in 1979 (30 years ago!) Rod Bolithoquestioned the use of 'demonstrationlessons' on initial teacher training courses.He argued they were authoritarian, artificialand invited 'ego-tripping'. That there wasalso a danger of them being regarded as"a statement of orthodoxy and imitatedas such". In 1990 (The Teacher Trainer,

vol. 4, no.1, Spring 1990) Ruth Wajnrybchallenged Bolitho's views, arguing that,because such a lesson is live, it is notguaranteed success: there is invariablyan element of unpredictability, andtherefore potential risk. Such 'events', sheconcluded, were welcomed by trainees.

5

'iEA Teaching Practice

wBy Andrew

IcE

6

No risk, no fun? Besides, most experiencedtrainers can design a workable lesson,work proactively and respond flexibly tochanging classroom situations. Certainly,they are putting their credibility on theline. Can they practise what they preach?They may echo Harmer, citing authenticityof self, generating empathy and buildingrapport. But can they actually 'walk thetalk'? Or are they racked by nerves?

Indeed, there is the undeniableperformative element, but we need todistinguish between the artificial demolesson and the actual live event. Thelatter is for real - something dynamic, theformer a mere simulation, often static.

Mike Beaumont (2003) argues thateducators in language teachingmethodologies need to beconsistent abouthow they relate and integrate approach,method and technique. "Trainers can

practise what they preachby, for example, adoptinga task-based approachto training, which reflectsand models the task­based methodology theyintend (cf. 'wish') traineesto use in the languageclassroom."(p.54)(Incidentally, Martin Parrotoffers such tasks in hisvery useful Tasks forLanguage Teachers: AResource Bookfor Trainingand Development, CUP,1993.)

"Trainees can be presentedwith a coherent, andnon-contradictory, set ofprocedures to take intothe classroom.... It saysto trainees: here are a setof procedures that havebeen proved by experienceto be successful - theyactually 'work'. If this iscombined with a deepsense of commitment tothe method on the part

of the trainer, the effect can be verypowerful." (Beaumont, p.56)

The need for educators to practise whatthey preach lies at the heart of goodteacher education. (Wallace, 1991,p.18ff.) Wallace's reflective Model forTeacher Education is virtually a flowchart: combining received knowledge andprevious experiential knowledge, teachersoffer practice which they then reflect on.Loop feedback between re-practice andfurther reflection helps teachers to movetowards professional competence. WhileWallace tends to focus on in-serviceteacher development, encouraging actionresearch projects, his model can also beapplied to pre-service teacher educationand training.

Theory in practice"No matter how concerned teachers

may be with the immediate practicalities

of the classroom, their techniques arebased on some principle or other which isaccountable to theory." (Widdowson, 1984: 87)Here 'teachers' needs to include trainees,too. Their gradually emerging techniquesneed to be grounded on principles.Principled practice is the name of thegame!

Widdowson has defined the terms trainingand education as:

"(T)raining tends to convergence anda reliance on established technique,whereas education tends towardsdivergence and a readiness to breakfrom the confinement of prescribedpractices." (1983)

So, whereas teacher training is often'solution-directed', in-service teachereducation is more 'problem-oriented'.(Sadly, the term 'teacher education' has- as Peter Grundy has pointed out - beenhijacked by trainers and is mostly usedto describe professional skills rather thanteacher knowledge, especially as teacherknowledge provides the rationale whichjustifies the particular professional skillsthat a teacher employs.)

One key aspect that bridges trainingand education is - arguably - reflectivepractice. We have argued in Council ofEurope Workshops 15A and 15B (1994& 1996) that:"Reflective skills should be developedas an integral and practical part of allinitial teacher education programmes,emphasis being given to a principled,but flexible conceptual framework. " (SeeELT News, 1994-97)

The sort of critically reflective questionswe need to be asking here as teachereducators at the end of any session orlesson are not so much "Did I teachanything?" but rather "Have we learntsomething?"

The teacher educator as learner afterholding a live lesson.Such a lesson was one I held in several

ne-Skinner

111&;'········M~ ..•••....

<>j))

, III I'~ M Ii1I1E"mYJ

Teaching Practice TEA

variations (90 minutes or 45 minutes) in adozen schools across Tyrol in Septemberand October, 2008. It was based on WillyRussell's play Educating Rita. The originalplan was to market three performances ofthe play by Vienna's International Theatrein Innsbruck. The project then developedinto exploring the critical interface betweenmethodological principles and practice,The October lessons involved not onlythe class pupils and teacher, but alsouniversity teacher trainees.

Trainees' comments (in debriefing afterthe October lessons) seem to suggestthat a flexibly structured, and in parts evenfree-wheeling, live lesson does engagetrainees in reflecting on the principlesbehind the practice.

Such lessons need to have impact, bevibrant, engaging, learner-interactive,well-paced, rhythmic, clearly sequenced,and cumulative in effect Trainees needto be able to work out the aims andobjectives of such lessons withoutthem being declared by the educator.Observation tasks need to be focussedand selective: e.g, pacing, degree oflearner-centredness, how transitions aremanaged, how the homework is integralto the overall structure, which differentroles the teacher plays, and so on.

It may seem that I am advocating aproduct-defined approach to a teachereducation program by focussing on end­products, namely lessons. But this is noreturn to the 1970s demo lesson. We needto 'demolish' any such idea! A process­oriented approach to educating futureteachers, including training in teachingmethodologies through procedures,activities and tasks, is now largelyaccepted.

But have we thrown the 'process'­baby out with the 'product'­bathwater?If we accept that reflective processesneed something to focus on, thenengaging live lessons by experiencedteacher educators - 'events' in the best

sense - can provide that very focus. Suchevents exemplify the pragmatic strategiesand possible solutions, even improvised,that experienced, 'reflexive' professionaleducators exercise. 'Reflexive' in the sensethat teacher educators practise what theypreach. Their sapiential authority and theirpersonal authority (presence, rather thannecessarily charisma) merge and fuse.Institutional authority recedes into thebackground.

In an ideal world, for example, with anUbungsschule - an outlet, a testingground, a forum for experimentation, alaboratory, rather like in a teaching hospital- the teacher educator would also act asmentor to trainees, holding up the mirrorto herself! himself. In practical terms theeducator/ mentor would negotiate andwork out principled lesson plans togetherwith trainees, inviting them to team-teachsuch lessons. Once they have gained thenecessary self-confidence, trainees takeover, create their own lessons, hold themand evaluate them.

Such joint work could involve a sequenceof: awareness-raising, concept-building,analysis and evaluation, practicalapplication, actual presentation, evaluation(with constructive, supportive feedback,ego offering alternatives here and there)and round-up. Educator/mentor andtrainee could carry out a 'SWOT' analysis(strengths, weaknesses, opportunitiesand threats). What is vital here is how thepresent, negative 'weaknesses' can beused as future, positive opportinities inre-training. Here again Wallace's ActionResearch model comes into play.

In short, the old apprenticeship andcraft model of the 1970s needs radicalrevision to emerge as collaborativeteaching and cooperative developmentThis helps educators, trainees andpractising teachers to explore, investigateand understand better what happens inclassrooms and why certain approacheswork well: an on-going process throughouttheir careers.

References:Arnold (2005), Beaumont (2003), Bolitho (1979),80rg (2006), 80wen & Marks (1994), 8rumfit(1980), Edge (1992), Gower (1995), James(2001), Kerry &Mayes (1995), Lee &Woo(2001), Malderez & 8odoczky (1999), McGrath(2000), Medgyes & Malderez (1996), Parrot(1993), Pickering (2005), RaMa11 & Thornton(2001), Spratt & Williams (2005), Ur (1997),Wajmyb (1990; 1992). Wallace (1991; 1998),Widdowson (1983; 1984), Woodward (1991,1992; 2001), T Wright (2005),

Andrew Milne-Skinner studied ModernLanguages at Sf-Andrews, Sorbonneand Cambridge. Teaching inAustrian GymnaSium from 19/5 to 1984.At the UniverSity of InnsbrUCK since1977, lecturing in British Cultural Studiesand training in English Fachdidaktik. Afounder-member of TEA, he co-edited'ELT News' 1992-98 Co-authorof 'Meanings in Use' (obv). Stillclosely involved in m-service teacherdevelopment programs across Austria.President of Austro-British Society Tyrol.

livloF (Innsbrucker Modell derFachdidaktik) , UniversitBt Innsbruck

andrew. milne-skinner@uibk.ac.at

7