Working Document 1: Document analysis

Contents

1.1 Methodology 1

1.2 Limitations 5

1.3 Findings and Discussion-HEI-based phase 6

1.3.1 Teaching time 7

1.3.2 How Science Works (HSW) 9

1.3.3. Biology 10

1.3.4 Chemistry 15

1.3.5 Physics 16

Key points 17

1.3.6 Earth Science 18

Key points 19

1.3.7 Subject knowledge (SK) audits 19

Key points 20

1.3.8 Assignments 22

Key points 22

1.4 Findings and discussion-School-based phase 23

1.4.1 Documentation 23

1.4.2 Models for mentors working with trainees 23

1.4.3 Trainee entitlement on school-based training 26

1.4.4 Mentor training 32

Key points 32

1.5 Findings and discussion: self-help 33

1.5.1 Individual study 35

1.5.2 Peer support 36

Key points 37

1.6 Additional support for subject knowledge and pedagogy 38

Key points 39

1.7 Typology of HEI courses 40

1.8 Course structures 44

1.9 Summary 45

Appendices 47

References 49

1

Document Analysis

1.1 Methodology

All Higher Education Institutions (HEIs) in England and Wales offering a one year PGCE ITT course in

Science (including Biology, Chemistry and Physics, Geology and Psychology) covering KS2-3, KS3-4

and KS3-5) were identified from the Graduate Teacher Training Registry website (GTTR, 2009) (n =

64). Science staff were identified from the HEI websites and, where contacts were not clear, by

telephoning the HEI. All colleagues on this list (n=160) were emailed in December 2009 telling them

about the nature of the research, requesting copies of their documentation relating to university and

school-based programmes and assuring them of anonymity (Appendix 1). Where no reply was received,

a follow up request was made in January 2010. Documents were received from 24 HEIs. In total 81

documents were made available.

The representativeness of the sample was investigated according to a number of parameters (Table X.1).

Documentation was received from HEIs across England and Wales with no regional bias. Pre and post

1992 universities were both well represented and there were responses from HEIs offering the full range

of secondary subject specialisms and key stages (KS). The data in table X.1 suggest that there was no

bias with regard to geography, HEI type, KS or specialism.

.

Table X.1 Representativeness of the sample

Criteria Description

geography

2 East, 8 South and London, 3 South West,4 North, 5 Midlands, 2 Wales

institution type12 of 29 pre 1992 Universities (41% return)12 of 35 post 1992 Universities (34% return)

key stage KS2-3, KS3-4, KS3-5

specialismScience, Biology, Chemistry, Physics Geology and Psychology

The first step in arriving at a usable and reliable method of analysing the documents was the random

selection of one HEI’s documents. Criteria were independently drawn up by the investigators, discussed

and a single agreed list of criteria generated.. This list was used to independently analyse documents

from two further HEIs and these analyses shared. Any differences that arose were discussed, solutions

2

proposed and agreement reached regarding interpretation. As a result of this process, criteria were

refined, definitions of terms clarified and a coding system developed for further analyses (Appendix 2).

These revised criteria (Fig X.1) were used to independently analyse documents from a further HEI to

determine inter-rater reliability. This showed a reasonable consistency between the investigators and

these criteria and associated codes were then used to analyse documents from all 24 HEIs.

Spreadsheets were constructed to collate the data from each HEI. The spreadsheets consisted of three

pages; the first related to the HEI-based phase of the ITT course, the second to school-based training and

the third to any aspect of self-help (individual study and peer support). Each criterion (figure X.1) had a

column in the spreadsheet and this facilitated easier cross comparison between HEIs.

As Figure X.1 shows, common criteria were used to analyse the course content devoted to How Science

Works (HSW) and the subject specialisms. Topics were recorded as described in the documents and if

these were accompanied by descriptions of the session content, it was possible to identify if subject

knowledge or topic specific pedagogy were involved. In the same way it was possible to identify the key

stage on which the work was focussed and how it was covered.

Where documents identified details of the subject knowledge audit these were recorded as was any focus

on the audit of topic specific pedagogy. In some documents course assignments were used in assessing

and or validating subject knowledge and pedagogy and information on these approaches was recorded.

Comments cut directly from the documents were recorded in order to provide qualitative evidence and

page numbers noted to allow the researchers to revisit the original documents should this be necessary.

Possible points which required further investigation or clarification were noted in order to progressively

focus the research questions through other research instruments. A course synopsis for each HEI was

recorded in order to facilitate the development of a typology of courses. Although the method was felt

to be rigorous, limitations in the documentary analyses were noted whilst undertaking them, and these,

with other limitations, are discussed in the following section.

3

Figure X.1. Criteria used for the analyses of HEI documents

Sheet 1 (university-based part of the course)

Course – code (anonymised)

Overall teaching time (hrs)

Science teaching time (hrs)

How Science Works, Biology, Chemistry, Physics and Earth ScienceTopicSubject knowledge and/or pedagogyKey StageHow covered? (lecture, seminar, workshop, peer presentation)By whom? (university tutor, mentor/teacher, external speaker)Time (hours)Stage (early/middle/late)

Subject knowledge auditSubject knowledge/pedagogyFormatBy whom? (university tutor, mentor, self)How often?Who with? (university tutor/mentor)Action/follow up/ useSupport for action

AssessmentAssignmentSK/P audit

Comments/ prose and page references.

Possible points for questionnaire/ interviews

Methodology limitation notes

Course synopsis

4

1.2 Limitations

Three main limitations with the documentary analysis should be noted:

1. The documents received were not written for the purposes of this research.

2. They varied in their completeness

3. They varied in the level of detail provided on different course aspects.

An apparent absence of data does not mean that an activity does not take place or a topic is not

addressed. Conversely a course may not be run as it appears to be set out in the document analysed. For

these reasons the document analysis was not used primarily to produce quantitative outcomes but to

generate semi-quantitative and qualitative data. The main purpose was to generate questions to explore

in more detail e.g about the nature of SK audit and peer support using other research instruments

(questionnaires and interviews).

In addition, the strategy employed is likely to underestimate the extent of the focus on SK and topic

specific pedagogy (TSP) because where generic titles only were given for sessions eg ‘Questioning’ it

was unclear what subject matter might have been addressed in that session and how it was addressed.

On completion of the analyses of the documents from each of the 24 HEIs, the general patterns were

noted and these are presented in the next section.

5

1.3 Findings and discussion: HEI-based phaseIn the documents provided a variety of terms were used to describe roles within initial teacher training

partnerships in Table X.2 the use of terminology in this document is clarified (Table X.2).

Table X.2 Terms and descriptions used

Term Descriptiontrainee Student teacher engaged on one year PGCE

courseuniversity tutor Full/part time employee of the HEI

responsible for teaching and administration on ITT courses

mentor Subject specialist in partnership schools who has day to day responsibility for the

trainees when school-based

senior mentor Person in partnership school responsible for overall administration of school-based

components of PGCE coursevisiting speaker Non-university employee brought in to

teach specialist sessions e.g. Earth Sciences

While there was broad consensus about the component elements included in the documents received

from the 24 HEIs, only one (H027) appeared to have a clear unifying model around which the whole

course documentation was structured; a model which was reflected in documents intended for all

personnel involved in the partnership (Figure X.2).

6

Fig. X.2. The Unifying Course Model for H027

The Standards for the Award of

QTS

 

The Framework for Dialogue

about Teaching

 Reflection on Achievement and Progress

  Tracking Progress

             

Agendas and Evaluation  

The Weekly Development

Meeting 

Handbooks, Reports and Documents

PrimarySecondary

  Demonstrations

             

The Supervisory Conference

  Extending Able Trainees   Tricky

Situations  Supporting Struggling Trainees

The existence and deployment of such a model could provide a coherence for all documentation linked

to the course.

The following sub-sections of the report are structured using the criteria from the documentary analysis

(Figure X.1) in sequence.

1.3.1. Teaching Time

From the documentary analyses it was not always a simple matter to determine the overall teaching time

in the 12 week HEI-based period and the proportion of this that was devoted to Science method teaching

time. Where this was possible it is presented in Table X.3.

Table X.3 Overall teaching time and science method teaching time form documentary analysis.

7

Overall teaching time(hours) Science method teaching time (hours)

% Science method teaching time

390 82 21317 246 78312 87 28266 172 65263 188 71189 150 80188 125 66154 102 66144 62 43131 69 53

Trainees’ contact time, with formal sessions led by university tutors or visiting speakers varied from 131

to 390 hours. This evidence suggests that teaching time varies widely between 11 and 32 hours per

week. Consequently, it would appear that some trainees experience on average nearly three times the

level of HEI-based formal teaching time than others. This could also indicate very different workloads

of university tutors.

For science method teaching, some HEIs identify staff contact time, directed time supervised by

university tutors and the self directed time that students would be expected to devote to study for each

module of the course. In one institution (H034) these times were 30, 60 and 300 hours respectively.

When considering the proportion of science method teaching time compared to overall teaching time the

situation is very variable. The amount of science method teaching time ranges from 21% to 79%. The

modal values for the percentage of science method teaching time suggest that about two thirds of the

overall teaching time is devoted to teaching of science method.

As with overall teaching time, so science method teaching time appears to vary from 62 - 246 hours.

This ranges from approximately 5 to 20 hours per week for each HEI-based week of study.

In summary the main points regarding HEI-based teaching time are:

Formal overall teaching time varies widely.

Percentage of teaching time directed to science method appears to be very variable.

The question arises as to whether there should be more standardisation across HEIs of both overall

teaching time and science method teaching time in one year PGCE courses. These findings may have

implications for tutor workload.

8

1.3.2 How science works (HSW)

Data in Table X.4 show that 8 of 24 HEIs had no identifiable sessions dedicated to HSW. However, it

could be that elements of HSW are embedded within other sessions and not apparent in course

documents.

The most common arrangement for the remaining HEIs appeared to be a single session dedicated to

HSW. (Table X.4)

Table X.4 Number of identified sessions with HSW in title

Number of identified sessions with HSW in title

Number of

sessions

0 1 2 3 4

Number of

HEIs

8 8 4 2 2

The time devoted to HSW, where identified, varied between 1 hour (2 HEIs) and 6+hours (3 HEIs), with

one HEI providing 15 hours. In some HEIs where HSW is clearly identified, specific aspects of this

component were listed. (Table X.5).

Table X.5 Examples of specific aspects of HSW in two HEIs

HEI A (H031) HEI B (H042)

Graphing and understanding and using data Investigative approaches

Fair testing How science works

Controversial issues The nature of Science

Ideas and evidence Teaching controversial issues

For HEIs where only a single session had been identified, aspects of the coverage of HSW was more

generic e.g. ‘Types of investigations’ and ‘Scientific enquiry’.

In summary the main point relating to HSW is:

HSW does not appear to be a major focus on courses.

9

If one, three hour session was the only time devoted to HSW in the HEI-based component of a one year

PGCE course then the question arises whether this is adequate for engagement with the issues involved.

HSW is a more recent curriculum innovation and some elements of it may be new, even to the graduate

who has gone straight from school to university to an initial teacher training course. Cultural

understanding and examining the ethical and moral implications of science may not have featured

prominently in their own school experience as might some aspects of a science investigation. It is likely

that in the school-based element of the PGCE course they would gain some experience of investigations

but it could be that pedagogies relating to investigations need exploring in more depth.

One place where the subject knowledge and pedagogies associated with HSW could be explored is in the

HEI-based sessions of a one year initial training course but the documents analysed appeared to indicate

that, typically, a single period up to three hours is what is devoted to the topic. One could ask if the

balance is right between that and the the time devoted to the teaching of Biology, Chemistry, Physics

and Earth Science. The question that arises is whether ITT courses devote sufficient time to an adequate

introduction to HSW?

1.3.3 Biology

In documents received from 20 out of 24 HEIs there were specific sessions devoted to the Biology

component covering KS 2-5 (Table X.6), with workshops (Table X.7) led by university tutors being the

most common method of coverage (Table X.8). In two HEIs the coverage was led by trainees. Data in

Table X.9 show that in 14 of 24 HEIs at least 13 hours were devoted to Biology with eight of these HEIs

spending 20+ hours, to a maximum of 48 hours. Most HEIs address the content of the KS3 and KS4

Biology curriculum rather than KS5. Where specific Biology topics were identified, two HEIs focussed

exclusively on SK (H028 and H034) while the remaining 18 HEIs appeared to also address TSP.

Table X.6 Biology sessions in HEIs relating to different key stages.

Key stage 2&3 3 4 3 & 4 5 3, 4 & 5 Not

10

identified

Number

of HEIs

1 3 1 10 0 5 4

Table X.7 Form of delivery of Biology sessions

Form of delivery Workshop Lecture Not clear

Number of HEIs 18 0 6

Table X.8 Means of delivery of Biology sessions at HEIs

Led by University tutor Trainees Not clear

No of HEIs 21 2 1

Table X.9 Total time devoted to Biology sessions.Total time (hours)

Not clear

3 4 6 7 8 13 14 16 17 20+

No of HEIs

1 3 2 1 1 1 1 1 4 1 8

Analysis of the documents showed an assortment of 63 specific Biology topics covered by the 20 HEIs

where Biology was identifiable. In the remaining four HEIs the generic title ‘Biology’ was applied.

Some courses had a mixture of specific titles and more generic ones such as ‘Biology misconceptions’

and ‘Starters and plenaries in Biology’.

Some HEI–based sessions provide detailed session descriptions in documentation which may allow

trainees to prepare more effectively, for example through revising their subject knowledge in preparation

for the session, indeed for some HEIs, pre-session tasks are a routine feature.

A secondary analysis first grouped the topics into five themes (Table X,.10): plants as organisms,

humans and other animals, variation and classification and living things in their environment and other,

then, further linked the themes to sub-strands of the Biology component of the National Strategy

learning Objectives (DCSF, 2009) (Table X.11). Allocating topics to sub-strands was occasionally

11

difficult, so that some topics e.g. ‘Organisms, behaviour, health’ were counted in more than one sub-

strand. These were allocated after discussion and agreement between members of the research team.

12

Table X.10 Number of documents referring to named Biology topics grouped according to themes

(/ separates different sessions).

Theme Topics Total

number of

documents

Plants as

organisms

Plant nutrition/Photosynthesis/Photosynthesis,

Respiration and Cell theory/Exciting things to do with

plants...No really!/Botany and more difficult

biology/Cells, tissues, organs/Cells/Systems of

cells/Starch testing (leaf)/Elodea and

photosynthesis/Plants and other living things in the

environment/

15

Humans and

other animals

Humans as organisms/Life

processes/Nutrition/Animal nutrition and

respiration/Breathing, respiration and

circulation/Microbiology/Food tests/Enzymes and

enzymology/Food and digestion experiments/

Dissection -dissecting offal/Energy in foods/

17

Variation and

classification

Sex and health education /Sex and

relationships/Sexual reproduction/Reproduction and

inheritance/Variation/Variation, classification and

adaptation/Genetics/Inheritance/Molecular biology

DNA/Keys and

classification/Biotechnology/DNA/Electrophoresis

and DNA isolation/

16

Living things in

their

environment

Interdependence/Environment and

interdependence/Variety of life and

behaviour/Organisms, behaviour, health/tree

beating/Fieldwork techniques/Learning field

techniques/Living animals in school/

10

Other Maths for biologists 1

13

Table X.11 Total number of topics cited in documents from the Biology component of the National

Strategy Learning Objective sub-strand.

Biology sub-strand Total number of topics

Life processes 43

Variation & interdependence 23

Behaviour 2

Table X.11 shows that the major focus appears to be on the Life Processes sub-strand for Biology. The

most frequently met topics being sex education/reproduction, plant nutrition and inheritance and cells.

One course document states (H030)

‘…we are planning to cover every possible topic/course you can hope to be teaching in

your role as a Biology specialist'

with equivalent statements for other subject specialisms but none of the other documents analysed make

a similar claim.

In summary the main points relating to the Biology component of PGCE courses are:

The major focus is on the Life processes sub-strand of Biology.

The most popular format is workshops

Some topic titles were very specific whilst others were more generic.

Most sessions are led by the university tutor

Key stage 3 only coverage was rare

Whilst there appears to be consensus regarding the coverage of Life Processes and Variation and

Interdependence, the same cannot be said for Behaviour. As Behaviour is a relatively recent introduction

to the KS3 curriculum, and therefore a topic that trainees are unlikely to be as familiar with, it might be

questioned whether more time should be devoted to the TSP and SK associated with this topic.

14

1.3 4 Chemistry

As with the Biology component, both generic ‘Chemistry’ sessions and those devoted to specific topics

were offered by HEIs. The number of documents identifying specific Chemistry topics is shown in Table

X.12. .

Table X.12 Number of documents referring to named Chemistry topics

Topic Number of documents

Acids and Alkalis 10

Particle theory 10

Periodic table 6

Atomic structure and bonding 5

Chemical and material behaviour 5

Rates/Kinetics 5

Chemical change 4

Energetics 2

Equilibria 2

Reactivity 2

Combustion 1

Materials 1

Similarly to Biology, teaching was through workshops led by university tutors with occasional input

from school teachers and visiting lecturers. Topic specific pedagogy was an aspect of sessions on most

topics.

Coverage of topics at KS3 only is rare. This may be because specialists are combined with non-

specialists in the HEI-based parts of the course or because HEIs are expecting trainees of all specialisms

to be able to teach more than one science to GCSE level. This latter strategy would exceed the basic

Training and Development Agency (TDA) requirement for 11 to 16 courses (TDA, 2010) that trainees

teaching those older than 14 years should have the knowledge and understanding to teach biology or

physics or chemistry as a single subject.

15

Further categorisation of the topics in Table X.12 was carried out using sub-strands of National Strategy

Learning Objectives (DCSF, 2009). This secondary analysis showed Chemical Reactions to be the most

popular sub-strand covered.(Table X.13). The most frequently cited topics (Table X.12) were ‘acids and

alkalis’ and ‘particle theory’ followed by the ‘periodic table’.

Table X.13 Total number of topics cited in documents from the Chemistry component of the National

Strategy Learning Objective sub-strand.

Chemistry sub-strand Total number of topics cited

Particle model 35

Chemical reactions 48

Patterns in chemical reactions 19

In summary the main points relating to the Chemistry component of PGCE courses are:

By far the most common topics appear to be acids and alkalis and particle theory

The most popular format is workshops

Most sessions are led by the university tutor

The vast majority of courses cover topics in KS3 and KS4, with KS4 more common where

trainees of all three main specialisms are taught together in one science course.

Key stage 3 only coverage is rare.

1.3.5. Physics

As with the Biology and Chemistry components, both generic ‘Physics’ sessions and those devoted to

specific topics were offered by HEIs. The frequency of specific Physics topics, identifiable in

documents, is shown in Table X.14. For physics topics too, teaching was mostly through workshops led

by university tutors with occasional input from school teachers and visiting lecturers as well as some

trainee input. TSP was a focus for sessions on most topics. Most topics are addressed at KS3 and KS4,

with KS4 more common, particularly where trainees of all three specialisms are taught together in one

science course. KS 3 only coverage is rare.

16

Table X.14 Number of documents referring to named Physics topics

Topic No. of documents

Energy 16

Forces 13

Electricity 13

Earth and space 10

Light/electromagnetic radiation 9

Waves 7

Magnetism 7

Electronics 2

Radioactivity 2

Heat 2

Data in Table X.14 suggest that there is closer consensus across HEI courses on the Physics topics that

should form part of initial teacher training than there is for the Chemistry and Biology components, with

Energy, Electricity, Forces and Earth & Space specified in more than 10 documents.

Secondary analysis of these topics using sub-strands of National Strategy Learning Objectives (DCSF

2009) (Table X.15) showed that Energy and Electricity were the most popular.

Table X.15 Total number of topics cited in documents from the Physics component of the National

Strategy Learning Objective sub-strand.

Physics sub-strand Total number of topics cited

Energy 31

Electricity 22

Forces 13

Earth and space 10

Key points

There is closer concensus between HEIs on Physics topics that should form part of the initial

training of science teachers than there is for Biology and Chemistry topics.

The most common topics are Energy, Forces, Electricity and Earth and Space.

17

The majority of sessions cover KS3 and 4. Key Stage 4 is more common when trainees of all

three main specialisms are taught together.

Most sessions are led by the university tutor.

The most popular format is workshops.

Key Stage 3 only coverage is rare

1.3.6 Earth Science

Data in table X.16 show that in nine HEIs there is no session devoted to Earth Science. One HEI provided course

documents linked to the training of Earth Science specialists (H030). Other than this HEI, only one other had

more than a single session devoted to Earth Science.

Table XX+16 Number of Earth Science sessions at HEIs supplying documents

No. of

Sessions0 1 2 2+

Number of

HEIs9 13 1 1

Fourteen out of the 24 HEIs appear to address the Earth Science component through workshops (Table X.17),

with half of these led by a visiting speaker, usually from the Earth Sciences Education Unit (ESEU) (Table X.18).

Table XX+17 How the Earth Science topic was covered

Format Workshops Not identified

Number of HEIs14 1

Table XX+18 Table identifying who delivers sessions on Earth Science topics

Taught by UTExternal

speakerTeacher

Not

Identified

Number of

HEIs 3 7 1 4

18

One course training Geology specialists had a high level of input with three days of fieldwork and

separate sessions dedicated to eight specific aspects of Earth Science Fig. X.3

Fig. X.3 Topics included in an Earth Science specialist course (H030)

Earth and plate tectonics

Rocks and minerals

The rock cycle

Sedimentation

Earth and tectonic processes

Map work

Applied geology

Earth materials

Key points

HEIs tend to have either one session or none devoted to Earth Science

These sessions are generally in the form of workshops run by an external speaker

The question arises in HEIs where there are no dedicated Earth Science sessions as to whether support

with the SK and TSP associated with this topic is offered. Those HEIs that do offer sessions focussed on

Earth Science appear to give an approximately equal focus to that and HSW. It might be asked whether

such an equivalence is appropriate on one year courses.

1.3.7. Subject Knowledge (SK) audits

From the document analysis it appears that all courses require trainees to carry out SK audits with most

doing it through the use of exam questions (mainly GCSE or SATs). Two HEIs ask trainees to rate their

confidence in their subject knowledge as part of the SK audit.

In some HEIs it is apparent that a pro forma is used for the purposes of SK auditing but in others this is

not clear. Almost all the course documents suggest the SK audit is used more than once with three times

during the course being the norm. It is rare, with only two examples among the documents received, that

topic specific pedagogy associated with the SK is addressed in the audit. An example of this

arrangement is shown in Figure X.4.

19

Key points

All courses require trainees to carry out an SK audit

Course documents did not provide ready and easy access to detailed information about SK audits

and for this reason they were the focus of questions in the tutor and trainee questionnaires and

interviews.

20

Figure X.4 An example of part of a Subject Knowledge and Topic Specifid Pedagogy audit (H024B)

Science National Curriculum Subject Knowledge Audit Key Stage 4 Science Name

Instructions for filling the subject knowledge grid: For each of the sections from the National Curriculum programmes of study we would like to know your level of confidence about:

(i) subject knowledge (ii) teachingPlease use the following scale for confidence in subject knowledge: 1 2 3 4

Very confident Confident Not so confident No confidence at allPlease use the following scale for confidence about teaching this section: A B C D

Very confident Confident Not so confident No confidence at all

1a-d 2a-d 3a-c 4a-c How Science Works ( Notes) 5a 5b 5c 5d 5e Organisms & Health (Notes)

Start of course

Start of course

End of phase 1

End of phase 1

After SP1

After SP1

After SP2

After SP2

6a 6b 6c 6d Chem. & material beh.( Notes) 7a 7b 7c 7d Energy, Elec & Rad (Notes) Start of course

Start of course

End of phase 1

End of phase 1

After SP1

After SP1

After SP2

After SP2

21

1.3.8. Assignments

Where documents provided by HEIs included assignments, it appears that some require

trainees to address issues linked to subject knowledge and topic specific pedagogy.

Examples of assignments dealing with SKP from four HEIs included:

1. Task - a critical appraisal of a scheme of work and its deficiencies (H045)

2. The student will negotiate the focus of a curriculum package of teaching and

learning materials …, conduct a literary review including published research,

providing a theoretical underpinned rationale for the curriculum package and

evaluate the effectiveness of the package. (H028)

3. Subject Pedagogy Assignment; Making Science lessons more effective: ‘to find

out the ideas that pupils bring with them to their formal learning of particular

scientific topics’. (H030)

4. Critical analysis of an aspect of pedagogy within your subject area: ‘choose a

small unit of work and plan for its teaching’. (H026)

However in many cases trainees were given a range of possible assignment topics to

choose from and, therefore, may not address SKP through a formal assignment during

their ITT course.

Key point

Although subject knowledge and pedagogy may form part of assessed work in

PGCE courses, practice varies widely.

22

1.4 Findings and discussion: school-based phase.

1.4.1 Documentation

Some HEIs have documents prepared specifically for mentors, trainees or senior mentors

while in others there is generic documentation for all roles in the partnerships; trainees,

tutors, mentors and senior mentors.

1.4.2 Models for mentors working with trainees A number of models of ways for mentors working with trainees are found in the

documents

One model for this for this process is termed ‘Review, Plan, Train’ (HO25) and is

illustrated in Figure X.5.

Figure X.5. A ‘Review Plan Train’ model

23

Student prepares for the meeting by thinking through:(1) developments over the past week (by considering which targets have been addressed and which new ones might be established and so on)(2) broader issues of their training related to the Standards.

Mentor prepares for the weekly meeting by, for example, discussing with other colleagues the progress of the student over the last week, considering the wider training appropriate for the student at this point.

Mentor and student meet to discuss previous progress and provide an input into the subject training. The weekly training sheet is a focus for this with the mentor amending and/or adding to the student's original notes and previous needs analysis/audits.

Fresh targets are set and recorded on the sheet.

Both student and mentor sign the sheet as a record of the training.

Another HEI (H024B) has a model that identifies the structure of a meeting as a set of

standing agenda items. These standing items are:

1. Review of targets (5 minutes max) – from previous week

2. Students present (pre-preparation) tasks (up to 30 minutes plus)

3. Mentor input (10 minutes max) – this is focussed on the ‘topic of the

week’.

4. Setting tasks (2 minutes) pre-preparation tasks for the next meeting.

5. Setting targets (5 minutes max) – for following week

6. Student agenda – these are issues that the students want to raise.

Yet a further model (H029) refers to an approach to adopt as

DO REVIEW LEARN APPLY

The models described to this point relate principally to ways in which mentors can work

with trainees. One institution (H027) provided a model for discussion about teaching

which the course presents as having a universal application; that is across all curriculum

disciplines, university tutors, partnership schools, mentors and teachers who were not

mentors. Non-mentor teachers were relatively rarely referred to in documents from other

HEIs. In the documents from this HEI there was an expectation that the mentor would

take responsibility for inducting other teachers in the science department with the model,

with the importance for the trainees of having a coherent approach from all teachers that

they interact with stressed. This may be an important aspect of the model, as it will be

shown later in the report that classroom teachers are seen by trainees as a key resource for

their development of SK and TSP.

The model is referred to as a ‘Framework for dialogue about teaching’ and is represented

in Figure X.6

24

Figure X.6 . Framework for dialogue about teaching’ (H027)

At the centre of the model is the ‘topic title’ about which the teaching is concerned

and around it are cells representing all the aspects that could form a part of the

dialogue about teaching linked to that subject topic.

One of the cells is of particular interest to this research; subject knowledge. Subject

knowledge in this model is seen as addressing all aspects of the trainee’s subject

knowledge including:

Academic knowledge - knowledge, understanding and skills of the subject

(called/referred to in this document as subject knowledge).

Pedagogic knowledge - how to teach the subject.(referred to in this study as

topic specific pedagogy)

25

Topic Title

Understanding Learning and

Development

Subject Knowledge

Professional Knowledge

and Enquiry

QTS Standards

Values and Beliefs

School Communities

Curriculum knowledge - the relevant Foundation Stage/National Curriculum,

frameworks and examination specifications.

Although other HEIs may have further models embodied in terms such as ‘training

schools’ or ‘training departments’, explanations of these were not explicit in the

documentation received and are, therefore, not reported here.

1.4.3 Trainee entitlement on school based training

HEI documents refer to four different trainee entitlements: a mentor meeting, a written

lesson observation, a verbal debrief of the lesson observation and observing the lessons of

experienced teachers. Where these entitlements exist, they are viewed as weekly

entitlements. Most courses include these elements in their courses but they may not be

described as ‘entitlements’.

It was common practice for the documents to suggest that in each week of a school-based

placement trainees would have one formal meeting with the mentor. The length of the

meetings varied between 30 minutes and a minimum of 60 minutes. This would suggest

that, over a 24 week period in schools, trainees in some HEI partnerships could receive

twice the formal contact time with mentors. This picture may be even more complex, for

trainees could receive more substantial informal contact time not only with their mentors

but also with other science teachers in the department.

A weekly written evaluation of one lesson that the trainee had taught was another

entitlement, although in some documents it was clear that trainees might expect to receive

more than one each week or that there might be other, less formal and possibly verbal,

appraisals in a week. However, one document (H037) was very clear in stating that not

all lessons taught by the trainees should be commented on so that there was space in

which to learn and develop new skills.

26

A distinct time for a verbal debrief on the observed lesson was seen as a trainee

entitlement in some HEIs although in others this verbal debrief was an integral part of the

lesson observation or the formal meeting with the mentor.

Observing experienced teachers, sometimes with a direct focus on subject knowledge

and pedagogy (eg when trainees were due to teach the same lesson/content in the near

future), were, in some HEIs, also part of the weekly entitlement. In most documents,

however, this activity appeared less formal and with a focus on generic pedagogy.

Weekly formal mentor meeting.

The weekly formal meeting with the mentor is part of the school based training which is

run by a subject specialist and is additional to the more generic school based training

organized/provided by the senior mentor in most partnership arrangements.

There was considerable variation in the documentation with respect to the formal mentor

meeting programme content. Some documents appeared to indicate that the contents of

these meetings were generic in nature and with a similar focus in each week of the school

practice :

‘The subject-based weekly training session is central to the school-based training

programme. It provides a regular, formal opportunity for the subject mentor and

student to discuss recent progress, review lesson plans, consider the implications

of lesson evaluations and to identify and plan future training needs in relation to

the Standards.’ (H033)

It may appear that the meeting is centred on lessons that had been taught in the previous

week and lessons that were to be taught in the following week. Whilst there is no specific

mention of subject knowledge or topic specific pedagogy in this quotation other HEIs did

suggest that in these meetings the trainee could seek guidance on subject knowledge

while in others the advice for mentors in that they could

27

'…provide suggestions when the student teacher is planning sequences of work

and individual lessons, advising on approaches, resources, methods and

materials.' (H025)

In contrast, some documents, identified a varied weekly programme of content for these

meetings where trainees in different schools across the partnership would experience

some common subject focus to their weekly meeting:

lesson starts and ends

first experience of being in charge

classroom management

organisation of teaching files

marking pupils' work

class management and timing

use of ICT

review of progress

final report (H029)

In common with other documents that provided a programme of this sort, there appeared

to be limited content that was linked to subject knowledge or topic specific pedagogy,

indeed in the H029 programme for the formal mentor meeting content, there was only

one meeting (out of 24) where subject knowledge was specified. However, this may not

be an issue if, in addition to the weekly formal mentor meeting, there is a separate

discussion of the lesson(s) observed where issues linked subject knowledge and

pedagogy are considered.

Some documents suggest that the subject knowledge audit is part of the formal mentor

meeting programme with the frequency of this suggested as weekly, at the start and end

of the practice, at the end of practice only or not at all. The mentor role in validating the

content of the subject knowledge also appears to vary. Evidence about the subject

28

knowledge was limited in this section of documents too and, as was explained in the HEI-

based section of the document analysis, further exploration of this aspect was made

through questionnaires and interviews.

It appears that trainees are expected to carry out work in preparation for the mentor

meeting, with up to one hour being suggested for this activity while in other HEIs pre

preparation does not appear to be a formal expectation.

.Several HEIs have forms that serve as a record of the mentor meeting. Most of these

documents were formative in nature and some have spaces for comments on subject

knowledge and topic specific pedagogy.

In some HEIs it was the trainees who were responsible for the completion of these

documents while mentors checked the accuracy of the content and signed to validate it.

Written lesson appraisals

The documents show that trainees can expect to have written comments made on at least

one lesson that they have taught in each week spent in school and for some HEIs this is

identified as a trainee entitlement.

For most HEIs there is a standard form on which these lesson appraisals are written and

there is considerable variation in the layout and content of these forms. Some forms have

a summary in the form of a tick box arrangement linked to the QTS standards that the

trainee has shown in the lesson while others have a series of headings under which the

observing mentor or teacher is expected to comment. These boxes may include subject

knowledge and topic specific pedagogy.

In at least one HEI there is no structural format to the written lesson appraisal forms. HEI

(H024C) provides direct support for mentors and teachers which suggests that written

lesson appraisals could include:

29

Description of what the student/pupils are doing (but this should always

be accompanied by an evaluation ie good or less good, to be useful to the

student.

Recording word for word what the teacher says (as this may include

incorrect science or loose language – suggest alternatives)

Reporting word for word what pupils say (as this may indicate

misconceptions missed by the student teacher)

Posing questions – why did you do this?

Informing – in this school the expected approach is…

Suggesting – some teachers…

Advising – it is a good idea to…

The same documents goes on to suggest that the lesson appraisals should cover aspects of

QTS standards relating to:

Subject knowledge

Planning

Monitoring and assessing learning

Class management

and professional practice (H024C)

A further HEI (H040) gives the following advice to mentors completing the lesson

observation form;

‘Although classroom management will usually be an element of the observation,

students also need to have comments about their subject knowledge development,

assessment and other elements from the summary sheet.’

A third HEI (H034) gave mentors examples of the type of advice, relating to topic

specific pedagogy that might be included in written appraisals:

30

Use an appropriate analogy to explain “current flow”.

Use language that makes the scientific content of the lesson accessible

to lower ability students.

Correctly demonstrate the use of a “microscope”.

Provide clear direction for setting up and carrying out the

“photosynthesis” practical?

Use role play to model “particle theory”.

For many HEIs there was limited apparent advice for mentors about lesson appraisals.

However, it is quite possible that HEIs might include similar sorts of guidance and

support for mentors through other means such as mentor meetings or training and that

explicit guidance, such as that indicated above, may not form a part of the

documentation (eg guidance for lesson observations on a website supporting mentors).

Verbal debrief

As with written lesson appraisals, there was little apparent guidance for verbal debriefing

of lesson observations in most HEI documentation but, as has been suggested in the

preceding section, it is quite possible that training and guidance for this activity occurs in

other contexts and has no formal place in course documentation.

One HEI (H027) offered support for debriefing trainees in the form of generic questions

that could be asked by mentors or teachers. The questions suggested included:

Having taught that lesson, is there any aspect of your academic

subject knowledge that needs development?

What’s the difference between what you needed to know for this lesson

and what you wanted the pupils to know?

How have your resources for this lesson taken account of social and

cultural diversity?

31

Was there a particular theory of teaching and learning that informed

the preparation for this learning?

How did the theory work in practice?

It is evident from the first of these questions that conversation with the trainee about

subject knowledge would form a part of the debriefing.

Observing other teachers

An entitlement to observe teachers was uncommon but it is not unusual for a part of a

trainee’s timetable during school experience to be given over to observing other teachers.

In one HEI (H027) such observation is not only an entitlement, but it is also suggested

that the trainee should observe a teacher who is teaching a lesson that the trainee will be

teaching in the near future and for the trainee to focus on the subject knowledge and the

topic specific pedagogy of that lesson.

1.4.4. Mentor training

Some documents refer to mentor training prior to the placement of trainees in mentors’

schools and during and/or after the placements. Information in the documents provided

indicated that initial training varied from 3 to 9 hours. In one institution (H024) a mentor

in their first year in the role would experience 15 hours of training before meeting with a

trainee and then a further 6 hours during the course of the first year of mentoring. In other

institutions training for mentors appeared to be 3 hours in total.

Key points

Variability of practice appears to be a key feature of school based work as was found for

work in the HEI. The most striking variation appeared to be linked to:

32

the time devoted to the weekly mentor meeting

the content of mentor meetings

mentor training

From the evidence in the documentation it appeard that there was a limited focus on

subject knowledge and topic specific pedagogy in mentor meetings, written lesson

observations and in observations made of experienced teachers although some HEIs

appeared to have practices that directly addressed these issues. Such practices might

merit wider dissemination.

1.5 Findings and discussion - self-help.

The purpose of this element of the analysis of the sample documents was to address the

research question:

What informal/self-help access is available for science SKP in the initial

training year and in what forms?

The information about this research question, available from the documentation, was

sparser than for other questions and it almost exclusively referred to access during the

university based phases of the course.

There were 3 HEIs (H033, H035, H037,) where no mention of self-help or informal

access/support to/for subject knowledge and topic specific pedagogy was found. The

remainder of the documents did refer to self help with, for most, this being down to

individual motivation and initiative. One institution made the responsibility very clear:

'…subject knowledge acquisition is your responsibility' (H039)

While another stated that trainees need to:

‘…spend their own time reading up on unfamiliar areas’ (H022)

33

Some HEIs make it clear that while subject knowledge is mainly a personal responsibility

there are other support mechanisms available:

'[development of subject knowledge] is largely based on self-study and peer

teaching but also addressed in some main method sessions' (H030))

In the documents analysed a number of different terms are used in describing self-help. In

the interests of clarity in this report self-help is referred to as being in two forms:

individual study and peer support. The latter term is applied to contexts where two or

more trainees are working together. Each of the two forms of self-help, individual study

and peer support can be offered in two ways: formal, meaning timetabled and informal.

A wide range of resources were identified as support for self help which included human

resources such as the university tutor, mentor and peers as well as material resources. In

some cases a list of suggested resources that might be used was provided, while in others

more direct access was provided to the resources through the HEI’s virtual learning

environments (VLEs). Such resources included:

Bibliography or reading lists

Subject guides produced by the HEI

Textbooks from KS3 to 5

Teachers’ TV

Exam papers

KS3 SATs

QCA scheme of work units

BBC Bitesize

Commercial revision websites eg SAM learning

Videos/DVDs/CDROMs

In addition, some HEIs suggest or require that the outcomes of self help, whether

individual study or peer support, are shared via the VLE.

34

In HEIs where the self help support was formal, the usual arrangement was for light or

limited monitoring by the university tutor but in a small minority of HEIs a tutor was

present at all sessions. One HEI in the sample (H023) had formal individual study that

was school based. The resources supporting formal sessions included those provided for

the informal individual study and, in addition, included support from technicians and

tutors, particularly when practical activities included chemicals, living things and

apparatus.

1.5.1 Individual study

In some HEIs individual study is afforded a formal status through time being allocated on

the timetable for it. Informal individual study was identified where further study was the

responsibility of the student with no specific part of the timetable allocated.

The amount of time which trainees are meant to devote to individual study, formal or

informal, is not identified in most documents, but where time was mentioned this varies

from 90 to 300 hours.

In some HEIs individual study days are identified on the timetable while in two HEIs

there are individual study weeks that coincide with school half terms in the spring and

summer terms. Two other HEIs have a ‘research task week’ or a ‘writing week’ in school

half terms. Such practices contrast with HEIs where trainees have a formal teaching

programme or residentiall, out of classroom activity in half term weeks. This finding may

contribute to differences found in contact teaching time in the sample documents.

The driving principle behind the individual study appears to be common to most HEIs

and this is linked to the subject knowledge audit. This principle holds true almost

irrespective of the formal or informal nature of the individual study, the manner in which

it is structured or with the time devoted to it. The audit and the action plans arising from

it identify the priorities for individual study.

35

Irrespective of whether the individual study is formal or informal, in some HEIs required

tasks, associated with it, must be completed, while in others no such requirement is

identified. In one institution (H030), where the tasks are formal and required, trainees

collect evidence of work towards securing confident knowledge in a subject knowledge

evidence file and there is a check at a tutorial with the university tutor that the tasks have

been completed. Such validation of subject knowledge is infrequently identified in the

documentation studued.

1.5.2 Peer support

Peer support, in small groups of between 2 and 10 trainees working together, is used in

developing subject knowledge and topic specific pedagogy. Other terms used to describe

such activity are peer tutoring, peer support, group study, presentations to peers,

workshops organised by peers and microteaching. Group composition for peer support

activities is varied from, for example, grouping experts or novices to lead the sessions

such as physics specialists leading on physics topics or selecting those who are least

confident in the physics subject knowledge to lead. Some HEIs have peer support groups

with a range of specialisms and expertise. One HEI (H022) has a formal programme of

eight 3 hour sessions devoted to developing science knowledge which is peer led and

leads to the production of a portfolio of evidence of subject knowledge development.

Peer support activities vary from forming a small part of what are mainly tutor led

sessions to forming the main content of whole sessions. In this latter arrangement the

extent of tutor monitoring is variable from regular to infrequent.

In situations where complete sessions comprise peer support, particularly those where the

monitoring by tutors is infrequent, there may be questions about the accuracy of the

subject knowledge, the understanding of that subject knowledge and, if included, the

extent and accuracy of the topic specific pedagogy involved. Some HEIs organise these

sessions so that they are led by trainees who have previously taught a particular topic, but

36

this practice is not common. It is possible to envisage that trainees have gained subject

knowledge, understanding and topic specific pedagogy through teaching a topic and may,

therefore, have points of value to share with their colleagues. However, in contexts where

trainees have not had the advantages of these experiences and where the activities are

only loosely or not monitored by tutors, the advantages (usefulness) to peers may be

limited.

Some peer support, particularly that referred to as mini or microteaching, may be videoed

and discussed and analysed with the group or with the tutor in individual or small group

sessions.

Some course documents identify the end products of self help activities and these

include:

show & tell session notes

mini teaching task notes

circus of practicals

‘idiot’ guides

concept maps, topic webs/maps

Key points

The reason for using self help is linked, in most HEIs, to the subject knowledge audit

and, in particular, to developing areas of weakness in subject knowledge. The use of self

help in addressing topic specific pedagogy is less common. Many HEIs use the VLE as a

means of sharing both resources and the products of individual and group work linked to

subject knowledge acquisition.

Monitoring of these self help activities by university tutors or mentors is limited and this

may call into question the accuracy of the subject knowledge and the validity of the topic

specific pedagogy shared through these approaches.

37

1.6 Additional support for subject knowledge and pedagogy

Some courses see a limited need for support with subject knowledge

‘Your science mentor in school may be able to help you with suitable

references but don't expect them to "teach" you about the topic.’ (H036)

‘The enhancement of science knowledge and understanding is your

responsibility. We provide a structured framework to.identify priorities

and to generate this evidence, but no direct teaching.’ (H030)

While others see that there may be a place for it in the course:

‘Although we are not principally teaching content in University sessions,

quite frequently, in attempting to teach a topic, students discover that they

don’t really understand part of the subject. Inevitably then the course is, at

times, concerned with getting the science ‘right’.’ (H024A)

There is a clear focus on topic specific pedagogy as, for example, in one document which

states:

‘Curriculum sessions are not about teaching you science that you do not

know or have forgotten, they are about how to translate it into teaching.’

(H039)

Yet other courses provide formal sessions within the HEI-based element of the course

which focus exclusively on subject knowledge as a core part of the course (H029, H035)

There were a number of ways in which courses provide additional support for subject

knowledge and pedagogy. Some courses provide timetabled time within either or both

university or school-based parts of the course. For example some have a subject

38

knowledge enhancement week that is school-based, while others (H023) have half a day a

week during a school placement set aside for the trainees to enhance their subject

knowledge.

There is one example (H043) where there is HEI-based coverage of subject knowledge

and topic specific pedagogy for particular topics which is then followed up with

associated tasks linked to the same topic carried out in school. (This is the only evidence

from the documents analysed that provides a direct link between university and school

activities).

One document (H024B) refers to coaching sessions in a longer school placement. These

are 12 x 1 hour sessions, with teachers (coaches) who are biology, chemistry and physics

specialists, focused on a topic which the trainees are about to teach (point of need). The

content of these sessions is subject knowledge and topic specific pedagogy. The trainees

come to the coaching sessions with part of a coming lesson prepared which they present

to the coach who questions/evaluates and suggests developments and modifications. The

coach then makes an input on the topic linked to the subject knowledge or topic specific

pedagogy associated with it.

Key points

HEI courses vary from those which see the teaching of science subject knowledge to be

the sole focus of taught sessions through to those who see that there is no place for the

formal teaching of subject knowledge in either HEI or school-based elements of the

PGCE course.

Topic specific pedagogy has a clear place in formal HEI-based teaching in all HEIs but

the position with respect to this aspect in school-based phases is less clear in documents

39

1.7. Typology of HEI Courses

One goal of the first phase of the documentary analysis was to develop a typology that

would enable four HEIs to be identified for phase 2 of the study as stated in the research

proposal. An initial, emerging typology appeared to suggest that there were varying

degrees of ‘apparent’ provision of subject knowledge and topic specific pedagogy in both

specialist and generalist science courses (Figure X.7). The use of the term ‘apparent’

provision was adopted because of the limitations, described in section 1.2 of this report,

where the level of detail and completeness provided in the documents varied such that

some HEIs appeared to focus more or less on subject knowledge and topic specific

pedagogy than others.

Specialist courses were those labelled as ‘physics’, ‘chemistry’ and ‘biology’ where

physicists, chemists and biologists were taught in separate specialist groups for at least

some of the time and generalist courses where the specialists were taught together for the

whole time. For some HEIs the teaching provision for subject specialists identified in the

course documentation was different from the course descriptions in the GTTR, that is,

courses appeared to be specialist in GTTR documentation but generalist in the HEI

documentation.

The generalist science courses tended to be 11-16 courses where the size of the cohort

was small (<30) with typically a single university tutor leading the course..

40

Figure X.7: An initial typography emerging from the document analysis

Type of provision Type of course HEI

High apparent provision of subject knowledge & topic specific pedagogy

Specialist Science HEI 1

Generalist Science HEI 2

Low apparent provision of subject knowledge & topic specific pedagogy

Specialist Science HEI 3

Generalist Science HEI 4

More detailed documentary analysis revealed the apparent provision of subject

knowledge and topic specific pedagogy to range between being subject knowledge led or

pedagogy led and resulted in a modified typology (Figure X.8) where the characteristics

and activities associated with the types of provision are identified. It should be noted that

not all HEIs fell into these distinctive categories. Courses which gave the impression of

being subject knowledge led were those where session titles and descriptions of session

content suggested that the primary focus was on gaining a good understanding of the

topic to GCSE level and a secondary focus on how to teach the subject knowledge (topic

specific pedagogy). In contrast, others addressed the subject knowledge through topic

specific pedagogy; for example, by primarily focussing work on pupil misconceptions of

a specific topic and subsequently working with practical activities that might help pupils

to revise subject knowledge. Further exemplification of pedagogy led and subject

knowledge led sessions is located in section X.3.5 Purpose, content and activities of a

HEI-based session, in the tutor questionnaire section of the report.

41

Figure X.8 Typology indicating whether the provision was subject knowledge or topic specific pedagogy led

Subject knowledge & topic specific

pedagogy

Led by Characterised by Activities HEI

High apparent provision

Subject knowledge led(topic specific pedagogy addressed through subject knowledge)

Extensive list of specified science topics covered with emphasis placed on subject knowledge audits & action plans

Subject knowledge audits monitored by university tutors & school mentors.Peer support

HO30

Additional support for subject knowledge & topic specific pedagogy (e.g. coaching)

HO24

Pedagogy led (subject knowledge addressed through topic specific pedagogy)

Extensive list of specified science topics covered with emphasis placed on ways of teaching (modelling, misconceptions, practical activities etc)Pedagogy auditsAssignments focused on pedagogy

Practical workshops.Pedagogy monitored by university tutors & school mentors.Peer support.

HO29HO20HO22HO35HO32

Low apparent provision

Limited list of specified science topics with emphasis on generic aspects of pedagogy

Specific science topics not pre-determined but dependent on demand by trainees.Individual study

HO45HO25HO36HO27HO40

The typology illustrated in Figure X.8 was the format in which the typology existed at the

point where HEIs were selected for Phase 2 of the project. In order to be considered as

one of the case study institutions, HEIs needed to have submitted documents for analysis

and indicated a willingness to be involved further by identifying their response to the

tutor questionnaire. Twelve HEIs met these conditions and their positions within the

typology are identified by a code number in Figure X.8. Three institutions with high

apparent provision and three with low apparent provision were selected and, with respect

to high provision, one HEI was selected from each cell of the typology. Selected HEIs are

shown in bold in Figure X.8. The number of case studies selected for phase 2 was

42

extended from 4 to 6 in order to be representative not just of the typology but also of 11-

16 and 11-18 courses in both pre- and post-1992 HEIs, different cohort sizes, generalist

and science specialist courses and a broad geographical distribution. Selection of the

phase 2 sample is further explained in section X.X.X The sample.

Successive development of the typology of HEI courses led to a final typology

summarised in Figure X.9 which indicated the spectrum of HEI courses more accurately

than Figure X.8. The sample for phase 2 of the study is also shown in this typology and

was representative of five of the six cells.

Figure X.9: Final typology to illustrate the spectrum of HEI courses

Num

ber o

f spe

cific

ally

iden

tifie

d sc

ienc

e to

pics

co

vere

d in

uni

vers

ity se

ssio

ns

High (9+)

Low

Topic specific pedagogy led(Subject knowledge addressed through topic specific pedagogy)

H030H032A

Mixture/UnclearH024AH032B

Subject knowledge led(topic specific pedagogy accessed through subject knowledge)

H024C

Topic specific pedagogy led(Subject knowledge addressed through topic specific pedagogy)

H024B

Mixture/UnclearH025H036H027

Subject knowledge led(topic specific pedagogy accessed through subject knowledge)

43

1.8 Course structures

There are a number of ways in which course structures might be illustrated and this is shown in

the following figures. Some courses can be seen as predominantly separate for subject

specialists with a small common element.

Biology

Chemistry

Physics

Others are a mainly common course with a small specialist component, though the amount of

common and specialist course component varies between the extremes identified

Biology

Chemistry

Physics

Psychology/Geology

Some courses, for example those designated as ‘science’ have a common course for trainees of all subject specialisms

44

1.9 Summary

The document analysis seems to suggest that:

separate P/C/B courses seem to be quite closely associated with apparent high

level provision of SKP

there is an association of separate science P/C/B courses with older universities

relatively few HEIs are ‘apparent lower providers’ of subject knowledge and

pedagogy

all small size courses are, of necessity designated as ‘science’ often with a single

tutor responsible for about 25 trainees

small size courses tend to be 11-16

there is variation in provision with respect to a wide range of parameters including:

1. formal overall teaching time

2. teaching time directed to science method

3. the time devoted to the weekly mentor meeting

4. the content of mentor meetings

5. mentor training

there was a limited focus on subject knowledge and topic specific pedagogy in:

o mentor meetings,

o written lesson observations

o observations made of experienced teachers

in taught sessions which are HEI based:

1. HSW does not appear to be a major focus

2. the majority of sessions cover work at KS3 and 4..

3. most sessions are delivered by the university tutor

4. The most popular teaching format is workshops.

5. Key Stage 3 only coverage is rare

the reason for using self help is linked to the subject knowledge audit and, in

particular, to developing areas of weakness in subject knowledge.

45

monitoring of self help activities by university tutors or mentors is limited and

this may call into question the accuracy of the subject knowledge and the validity

of the topic specific pedagogy shared through these approaches.

innovations in the curriculum, be they science subject specific e.g. Behaviour and

specific aspects of How Science Works or generic issues e.g. APP are sometimes

directly incorporated into course documentation, whereas in other HEIs the

content of some sessions is left flexible in order to incorporate these new

developments.

It should be remembered that how these documents are used in practice is subject to a

number of factors, some of which are beyond the control of the HEI. For example, the

commitment and engagement of the partnership schools to the partnership agreement,

the nature of that agreement and the way in which it is monitored and implemented.

Above all, it will be the quality of the university tutor and mentor that influences

trainee experience:

‘…the quality of the next generation of teachers will, in large part,

depend on the quality of mentoring support they are given.’

(Furlong and Maynard, 1995),

46

Appendices

Appendix 1 Email sent to HEIs requesting course documentation

Dear First name .

Allan Soares and I are trying to find out more about the formal sessions provided for science student teachers on subject knowledge and pedagogy both in the university and school based phases of 1 year PGCE courses. As a first step we are hoping to look at the university and school based programmes in a range of institutions through accessing the course documents provided for students and mentors. We recognise that this will not give us the full picture but is a reasonable starting point.

 If you were able to email us electronic copies of the documents you give your mentors and students we would be most grateful. We will treat them with full confidentiality.

I am attaching to this email our documents which show the content of the university based phase work and our mentors' handbooks which show (amongst a lot of other stuff) the content of the school based element led by mentors. This is done in the spirit of encouraging you to share with us. Because we have 3 separate groups (P, C, B) there are 6 documents attached in all. If you have separate groups too, please can you forward this mail to your colleagues and encourage them to reply too? If you have a generic course for all scientists then the documents that they and their mentors get will be great.

Thank you very much for any help that you are able to give us with this

Best wishes

Roger

2009-2010 Student Handbooks and Mentor Handbooks attached for Science: Biology, Chemistry and Physics courses. Some emails blocked large attachments and in these situations fewer documents were attached.

Appendix 2 Codes used in the documentary analysis

0 = if evidence is sought for a column and not found? = unclearBy whom activities are carried out:ut = university tutor, m/t = mentor/teacher, ext = external

How covered:lecture = l, seminar = s, workshop = w, peer presentation = p

Stage on the course an activity took place:early = 1-10 weeks, middle = 11-20 weeks, late = 20 + weeks

SK/P –If the focus of the session was clear from any description provided

47

Subject areas: Physics/Chemistry/Biology/Earth Sciences:Topic titles and content used in the documents were recorded but had a view that these might be matched (at a later stage) to NC strands and sub strands/Key scientific ideas

SK/P auditTo be included only if this is part of assessment

Comments – brief prose and page number(s)

48

References

(DCSF (2009) http://nationalstrategies.standards.dcsf.gov.uk/node/16108. Accessed on 3/5/2010.

Furlong and Maynard, (1995), Mentoring Student Teachers, RoutledgeGTTR website

GTTR. (2009) List of providers of 1 year PGCE Secondary Science courses www.gttr.ac.uk/students/beforeyouapply/wheretotrain/listofproviders/. Accessed Novenber 30th 2009.

House of Commons (HOC), (2010) House of Commons CSF Committee, Fourth Report 2009 -2010, Volume 1 – Training of Teachers

TDA (2010) QTS standards Guidance (re Q15. www.tda.gov.uk/partners/ittstandards/guidance. Accessed on 22/7/2010.

List of Tables

Table XX Science ITT provision at English and Welsh HEITable XX Representativeness of the sample Table XX Representativeness of the sample

Table XX Approximate overall teaching time and science method teaching time form documentary analysis.

List of Figures

Fig 1 Document analysis criteria Fig. XX Topics covered in an Earth Science specialist course

Appendices

Appendix 1 Email sent to HEIs requesting course documentationAppendix 2 Codes used in the documentary analysis

49