This article was downloaded by: [Stony Brook University]On: 26 October 2014, At: 16:48Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: MortimerHouse, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Teacher Development: An international journal ofteachers' professional developmentPublication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rtde20

Decisions, decisions, decisions: the process of‘getting better at teaching’Denis Hayes aa University of Plymouth , United KingdomPublished online: 20 Dec 2006.

To cite this article: Denis Hayes (1999) Decisions, decisions, decisions: the process of ‘getting better at teaching’,Teacher Development: An international journal of teachers' professional development, 3:3, 341-354, DOI:10.1080/13664539900200090

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13664539900200090

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the “Content”) containedin the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis, our agents, and our licensors make norepresentations or warranties whatsoever as to the accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose ofthe Content. Any opinions and views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors,and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Content should not be reliedupon and should be independently verified with primary sources of information. Taylor and Francis shallnot be liable for any losses, actions, claims, proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and otherliabilities whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to orarising out of the use of the Content.

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any substantial or systematicreproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in anyform to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

Teacher Development, Volume 3, Number 3, 1999

341

Decisions, Decisions, Decisions: the process of ‘getting better at teaching’

DENIS HAYES University of Plymouth, United Kingdom

ABSTRACT In the light of the demands made by exit competences on student teachers and those in their first year of teaching, this article examines the influence of decision-making as a factor in ‘getting better at teaching’. It begins by examining a variety of models which purport to explain the way in which decisions are made, the factors that influence the process and the difficulties facing those who assess competence. Suggestions are made about the relevance of experience, the cyclical nature of development and the tension between rational decision-making and spontaneity. The value of using competence statements to describe the complexities of classroom teaching is challenged and the article concludes by warning that the existence of tightly-bound exit competences has the potential to suppress creativity and enterprising teaching as student teachers settle for compliance rather than operating innovative forms of decision-making.

Introduction

The use of closely defined criteria for establishing and monitoring pupils’ achievement targets and progress has become commonplace in educational thinking and impacted on the work of primary teachers in England. In particular, specific targets have been set by the national government for pupil achievement in English and mathematics, so that the test results of comparable groups of pupils in different schools can be published and contrasted. Schools whose pupils fail to achieve the targets or where annual improvements in standards cannot be demonstrated are closely scrutinised by inspectors from the Office for Standards in Education (OFSTED) until there is evidence that the shortcomings have been rectified. The Department for Education and Employment (DfEE) reserves the right to recommend closure of schools that fail to register the necessary improvement over a specified period of time. In the prevailing political climate, ‘naming and shaming’ schools that fall below the required standards has formed part of the government strategy for levering up performance. There has been no shortage of advice from the Government about how improvements can be achieved,

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Ston

y B

rook

Uni

vers

ity]

at 1

6:48

26

Oct

ober

201

4

Denis Hayes

342

and the introduction of a national strategy for teaching literacy and numeracy has underlined the view that the Government is determined not only to tell teachers what to teach but also how to go about doing it (DfEE, 1998a, 1999a).

In the same way that serving teachers have been required to respond to government directives about the curriculum and its delivery, teacher education and training has been subject to specific requirements about the standards that newly qualified teachers must reach, based on the assumption that a description of teaching in the form of competence statements can be interpreted, translated and transposed into classroom practice. This assumption has resulted in the publication of criterion-referenced statements relating to qualified teacher status, most recently in Circular 4/98 (DfEE, 1998b), a part of which refers to the exit competences demanded of student teachers in their planning, teaching and class management (Annex A, Part B) before the award of Qualified Teacher Status (QTS). Similarly, the reintroduction of an Induction Year following QTS (DfEE, 1999b) has been accompanied by further criteria to measure teaching performance, using competence statements.

Despite the comprehensiveness of the competence standards listed in Circular 4/98, there is no guidance in the document about the process by which they may be achieved, the strategies needed to ensure success, the impact of contextual factors on progress, or any ideas about the development stages typically associated with the route to competence. The standards are, therefore, terminal statements, devoid of map, compass or survival kit as basic resources for the long haul. In particular, and despite considerable evidence of its prime significance as a component of successful teaching, there is no overt reference to the importance of decision-making in guiding teachers’ planning, teaching and class management. This puzzling omission must be posited on one or more of three explanations: (a) those who compiled the 4/98 statements did not know how they might be achieved or did not think they needed to know; (b) the compilers assumed that it was the job of the training providers to sort out the details; (c) the compilers believed that providing student teachers conformed to the stated requirements, the means by which they did so were unimportant. It is the second and third of these possibilities that are most pertinent to this present article.

The absence of any explicit reference to decision-making in the competence statements is even more striking in that it has long been recognised that an important feature of teaching performance is the way that effective and reasoned decisions are taken and enacted. Eggleston (1979) asserts that ‘decision-making is probably the central feature of the role of the teacher’ (p. 1). In similar vein, Calderhead (1984) refers to the heavy demands made on inexperienced teachers as they cope with numerous decisions, and their implications, during a typical lesson. If decision-making is central to effective teaching, it is essential that student teachers gain a firmer grasp of the factors influencing it, the way in which decisions are taken and refined, and the relationship that exists between decisions and effective teaching. The

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Ston

y B

rook

Uni

vers

ity]

at 1

6:48

26

Oct

ober

201

4

GETTING BETTER AT TEACHING

343

remainder of this article seeks to rehearse our present knowledge of teachers’ decision-making, and extend our understanding of the associated issues with a view to informing training providers about how they might help student teachers to ‘get better at teaching’ through improving their decision-making capability. In doing so, three points should be noted.

First, assessments of student teachers’ ability are, inevitably, context-related. The notion that competence checklists can be used without reference to the prevailing classroom circumstances defies common sense. (See numerous examples in Calderhead & Shorrock, 1997.)

Second, improvements in teaching performance (however measured) must take account of the struggles that face all teachers in moving from the safety of well-established to more innovative and effective practice. If ‘good enough to meet the basic requirements’ becomes the norm, fewer cases of outstanding classroom practice can be expected.

Third, the interpretation, monitoring and administering of standards’ statements imposes additional work on to student teachers, who are already busy in planning, teaching and managing. Care needs to be taken that their obsession with compliance does not deflect from their propensity to evolve effective decision-making strategies.

Getting Better at Teaching

Models of Decision-making

Many experienced practitioners seem able to make effortless decisions about classroom practice in a way that inexperienced teachers find baffling. Numerous studies have been carried out in an attempt to establish a satisfactory theory to explain how this ‘natural’ ability develops. For example, early work by Jackson (1968) suggests that a model of classroom decision-making is needed to distinguish between preactive and interactive contexts – preactive decisions taking place outside the lesson time, interactive decisions happening during the lesson. As an acknowledgement of the demands that interactive teaching makes on teachers, Peterson & Clark’s model (1978) relies on cue observation as the most significant factor in influencing teachers’ decisions, as they constantly seek to interpret signals from what is happening in the classroom and respond appropriately. According to this model, the more effectively a teacher is able to identify and interpret the cues, the greater the likelihood of successful teaching and learning. Peterson & Clark’s model highlights the importance of knowing how effective cue interpretation evolves; for instance, whether is it through trial and error, through learning to reflect more intelligently on classroom episodes, through taking advice from others, or through a combination of factors. Similarly, although Calderhead (1984) refers to a number of different models which emphasise the importance of teaching experience in decision-making, we are still left to grapple with the

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Ston

y B

rook

Uni

vers

ity]

at 1

6:48

26

Oct

ober

201

4

Denis Hayes

344

concept of ‘becoming more experienced’. (I return to this important issue later.)

Kwo (1994) emphasises the importance of determining the relationship between ‘interactive thought’ and decisions, and questions the extent to which the process of decision-making is in harmony with student teachers’ thinking. Kwo cites several studies which indicate that around one-half of decisions occur as a result of cues from pupils; the other half depend on antecedents originating in the student as a person or the environment in which the decisions took place.

Other studies of classroom decision-making acknowledge that student teachers who seek to improve their classroom practice differ from qualified teachers in that the former cannot make their decisions without some reference to the class teacher’s (and tutor’s) priorities and expectations (e.g. Hodkinson & Hodkinson, 1997). It is unclear how much the development of teaching skills is affected by the subliminal messages that student teachers receive about acceptable practice from more experienced practitioners and the assiduity with which they are prepared to respond. Nevertheless, any model has to consider the extent to which a student teacher’s ability to make more effective decisions is the result of careful consideration, instinctive reaction, responding in a way that will meet with a tutor’s or host teacher’s approval, or a deep-seated impulse that defies ready explanation (McCallum et al, 1993).

The Way It’s Done Here

One problem facing student teachers is that they have little idea about their placement school’s prevailing ethos and ‘the way it’s done here’ and may unwittingly contravene unwritten codes of behaviour and expectations. Elliott (1993) argues that qualified teachers’ attitudes to pupils’ learning is based on their experience of non-situational factors, which exist regardless of context, and situational factors which relate to the particular lesson context. Typical of a non-situational factor is the circumstance in which a child comes to school hungry, where the effect of the hunger on the pupil will be much the same, regardless of the lesson or the teacher. A situational factor, on the other hand, might relate to the particular form of organising for learning that the teacher uses in a lesson. A child who behaves inappropriately due (say) to the formal, didactic approach used by the teacher in one lesson, may be contented and cooperative in one involving more liberating collaborative problem-solving. Elliott suggests that not only are inexperienced teachers less likely to be aware of non-situational factors, but they also have less idea about which ones are significant when it comes to making decisions about taking a particular course of action.

Elliott (1993) further argues that student teachers gradually move from an analytical mode (making conscious decisions) to one of intuition, described as an ‘unselfconscious appreciation of the situation’ (p. 72), and finally to whole situation recognition, by which the student has ‘the ability to synthesise all the

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Ston

y B

rook

Uni

vers

ity]

at 1

6:48

26

Oct

ober

201

4

GETTING BETTER AT TEACHING

345

salient components into an understanding of the total situation’ (p. 73), either through conscious analysis (in the earlier stages of this ‘total situation’ phase) or intuitively (in the later stages). If Elliott’s analysis is correct, the issues he raises will have an impact upon a student teacher’s decision-making for at least three reasons.

(1) They may not have a complete grasp of the extrinsic (‘non-situational’) factors influencing pupils’ behaviour. (2) Even if they do know about these external factors, they will not always know how to take account of them when making classroom decisions. (3) A tentative classroom manner (due to lack of non-situational information) may undermine the student teacher’s authority and discipline (see also Copeland, 1981).

Student teachers may make faulty decisions because they do not have sufficient information about their pupils. Furthermore, they may not have had time to grasp classroom procedures, and ways of doing and saying things, that the resident adults and pupils have subconsciously absorbed and take for granted.

Experience and Intuitive Decisions

If effective decision-making is an essential component of ‘getting better at teaching’, it is important to consider the factors that combine to influence the process. Of particular interest is the development of the spontaneity that characterises effective practitioners, born of an intuition for making the right decisions. In this regard, Sutcliffe & Whitfield (1979) note that teachers make decisions based on a wide range of stimuli; some of the decisions appear to be instinctive (that is, without conscious awareness) and others are based upon a ‘conscious processing of alternative responses’ (p. 15). Calderhead (1984) goes further in suggesting that decisions that are routine and do not require conscious thought for experienced teachers, may require conscious decisions from the inexperienced. To better understand the significance of effective decision-making, we need, therefore, a clearer definition of what constitutes ‘experience’.

First, we can reasonably assume that rational (conscious) decisions about aspects of classroom practice are more likely to characterise inexperienced teachers, as they do not possess sufficient exposure to classroom life to be able to respond to situations spontaneously. Much of their teaching will therefore be predetermined (see Jackson, 1968, earlier). They will have carefully thought through each stage of the lesson, planned in detail, and taken close account of learning objectives, such that they can articulate their intentions and justify their approach to an external verifier (tutor, mentor, class teacher). Second, we may speculate that as student teachers gain more experience, they develop a firmer epistemology, with the result that some of their pedagogy becomes spontaneous and less consciously derived. That is, student teachers move from

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Ston

y B

rook

Uni

vers

ity]

at 1

6:48

26

Oct

ober

201

4

Denis Hayes

346

a position in which they are dependent upon more experienced practitioners to guide their actions, to one in which they become more secure about their own abilities and unconsciously use their repository of acquired skills and strategies. Paradoxically, student teachers may be more able to teach effectively as they gain classroom experience, but less able to explain why they do what they do, as the ability increasingly resides in the sphere of the mysterious capacity known as intuition. The paradox of seeing greater expertise associated with a diminished ability to articulate the reasons behind actions is frequently expressed by experienced teachers in terms of ‘I don’t know why I do things like I do, I just do!’ However, for student teachers there is a potential dilemma, for if assessment of their competence takes account of their ability to explain and justify their actions to the assessor, they must retain the strength of articulation that they possessed in the early stages and not lapse into perfunctory descriptions of their classroom practice, however effective the pupils’ learning might be.

Responding Appropriately

The foregoing dialectic also suggests that however well student teachers learn to articulate their thinking and rationalise their decision-making preactively, they may still lack the experience to interact effectively with pupils due to an inability to ‘read the runes’ during lesson times. As a result, they may respond spontaneously to situations and events, but do so inappropriately. In developing a satisfactory model to explain how teachers get better at teaching, we have to consider that interlaced through a proposed continuum between conscious decision-making (i.e. rationally derived) and subconscious decision-making (i.e. spontaneously derived), there are bonding threads of ‘experience’ and of something which can only be referred to rather vaguely as a ‘natural ability’ or discernment. Inexperienced teachers may learn to react spontaneously but lack the wisdom of experience and the sensitivity which characterises the very best practitioners. At the other extreme, experienced teachers may defer making a spontaneous decision because they ‘sense’ that a more considered (rational) approach is necessary and want to take their time deciding.

To understand more adequately teachers’ ability to act instinctively and know the most appropriate form of action to take, we should note that the majority of experienced teachers, like the majority of experienced drivers, are rarely taken by surprise by classroom events. They usually manage to stay calm in an emergency, select the correct strategy, quickly correct errors, and react decisively as problems arise (see, for example, the seminal work by Kounin, 1970). Inexperienced teachers, on the other hand, despite the most conscientious study, reflective application to the task and awareness of significant contextual factors, often find it impossible to behave like their experienced colleagues. The explanation for this inability can be explained to some extent as follows:

�� the children may not respect the student teacher’s authority;

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Ston

y B

rook

Uni

vers

ity]

at 1

6:48

26

Oct

ober

201

4

GETTING BETTER AT TEACHING

347

�� student teachers may lack a full understanding of the implications of their decisions and actions;

�� student teachers may not always know what importance and significance to attach to different facets of classroom life.

Although teaching skills and strategies may be well rehearsed and thought through in advance of the lesson, inexperienced teachers are less able to anticipate the likely outcomes of their actions. Only a close involvement with pupils over a period of time can bring about a gradual shift from being a ‘learner driver’ who stares hard at the bonnet, to the confident and relaxed teacher who makes everything work together in harmony, is able to look ahead, foresee problems and take prompt action when necessary. One way or another, a failure to read the runes or to make appropriate spontaneous decisions has implications for improving teaching effectiveness. At heart, all decisions about appropriate teaching must be balanced against the immediacy of responding to individual learning needs (Galton et al, 1999).

Getting Better at ‘Getting Better’

Decisions and Decision-making

Getting better at ‘getting better’ at making decisions requires that student teachers give careful thought to appropriate teaching strategies, classroom procedures and the implications of their actions. However, the thrust of the arguments explored so far suggests that decisions may not necessarily take place as a result of decision-making. That is, some decisions will ‘just happen’ without recourse to logic or pre-formulated plans (spontaneity); others will occur after careful consideration and the weighing of alternatives (rational decision-making). Furthermore, Swann & Brown (1997) suggest that it is not only the ability to think and reason that controls decisions, but also responses to a variety of factors that are sometimes within the practitioner’s control (such as the lesson content) and sometimes not (such as the pupils’ previous experiences of learning). Decisions that result from carefully conceived and executed judgements may not provide for the immediacy required to maintain the momentum of a lesson or react to pupils’ learning requirements and behaviour.

We should also note that teachers’ aspirations may not be reflected through their actions. Segal (1998), for instance, argues that there is often a tension between teachers’ beliefs about teaching and the way they go about it; thus, ‘espoused’ theories of teaching and ‘theories in use’ (Argyris & Schön, 1974) might differ due to the need for teachers (especially, it might be argued, inexperienced ones) to survive rather than any commitment to a desired course of action (cf. Woods, 1979). The need to survive becomes even more acute for student teachers who are working in someone else’s classroom and under constant scrutiny.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Ston

y B

rook

Uni

vers

ity]

at 1

6:48

26

Oct

ober

201

4

Denis Hayes

348

Propositions about getting better at teaching must, therefore, take account of the diversity of factors which impinge upon classroom decisions. The assumption that teaching skills can, by a simple process of accretion, be systematically gained and improved over time, without an acknowledgement of the numerous other influences which help to shape classroom practice, is akin to a ‘virtual reality’ game in which the sensations and images are clearly defined but the emotional and practical dimensions are neglected (see, for example, Richardson, 1990). All teachers strive to make effective classroom decisions, but sometimes the urgency of deciding and the compelling necessity for self-preservation may combine to annul the process of decision-making in favour of a less rational spontaneity.

The Cyclical Character of ‘Getting Better’ at Teaching

The difficulties attached to an attempt to define the process of improvement in teaching through making more effective decisions, and the many combinations of decisions that are taken by a student teacher to ensure sound learning and discipline, suggest that a description of the processes operating in a successful lesson should accommodate something less easily described, namely, instinctiveness. The ‘instinctiveness’ which characterises more experienced teachers is indicated through comments such as: ‘It just happened ...’, ‘Something told me to ...’ and ‘I reacted without thinking ...’ and other expressions which suggest that it is difficult to have a complete grasp of the many cognitive and, perhaps, subliminal, operations that take place when decisions are made. Although time spent identifying positive features of good teaching in the lecture theatre or school staffroom provides a worthwhile canvas against which to illuminate aspects of good practice, the challenge for tutors is to consider how best to help student teachers develop the art (or is it science?) of ‘just knowing’, a strategy on which experienced teachers rely so heavily.

Furthermore, we have to consider that student teachers not only lack a basic knowledge of appropriate strategies for making effective decisions, but also may be unaware of what they need to know. As they become more aware of areas for development in their classroom practice due to regular dialogue with tutors and teachers, and their own reflective thinking (Pollard, 1996), they can persevere to improve their skill levels until they reach a point at which they feel, or are helped to recognise, that mastery has been achieved. Student teachers must then follow the often painful pathway by which they are alerted to, or become aware of, what remains to be achieved. They subsequently struggle to attain the more demanding levels of expertise before this new ‘level of competence’ is absorbed into their subconscious minds and becomes a spontaneous, instinctive component of classroom practice. Over time, this cycle of Awareness–Striving–Attainment–Spontaneity (ASAS) will be repeated at an increasingly sophisticated level of competence, though the length of the ASAS cycle from ‘unaware of incompetence’ to ‘operating instinctively’ will

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Ston

y B

rook

Uni

vers

ity]

at 1

6:48

26

Oct

ober

201

4

GETTING BETTER AT TEACHING

349

vary depending upon a range of factors which are difficult to define, but doubtless include intensity of work, quality of health, the weight of other commitments and a willingness to learn. During times of stress and overwork or acute anxiety, the temptation to maintain the status quo may prove irresistible, as progress to the ‘next level’ is likely to involve working through times of uncertainty and painful self-examination.

Kagan (1992) argues that in order for student teachers to move from a ‘novice’ state to one of competence, they need to spend time on an inward focus and reconstruction of their self-image. However, Grossman (1992) warns that once practitioners have established stable classroom routines, they may be reluctant to question them and begin the move towards a higher state of competence. Training providers can begin to help student teachers to understand that once these subconscious decisions (‘just doing it’) become established, it is time to re-examine practice and see whether a further cycle of awareness-raising needs to be embarked upon before atrophy undermines what has been gained. This will necessitate stepping back from a reliance on spontaneous decisions and a careful evaluation of practice as the student teacher works through the adjustments needed to reach the new and higher competence level.

Assessing Competence

Any assessment of student teachers must take account of the fact that students may be at different points within the aforementioned ASAS cycle and that their apparent struggles in the classroom may reflect their attempts to shift up a gear to new heights of achievement rather than a sign of a downturn in their fortunes. On the positive side, there are some signs that the Government is recognising that the fierce imposition of competence criteria may suppress teachers’ and pupils’ creativity and induce a ‘play safe’ mentality. First, a recent report from the DfEE includes the phrase ‘creativity and culture’ in its title (DfEE, 1999b), and second, the consultation document for a review of the National Curriculum in England (DfEE, 1999c) highlights issues relating to pupils’ identity, spiritual, moral, social and cultural heritages, aesthetic fields of achievement and, notably, ‘the opportunity to become creative, innovative and enterprising’ (p. 5). It remains to be seen whether the Government’s obsession with forcing up standards in literacy and numeracy allows for any significant progress to be made in other dimensions of school achievement. It is certain that a failure to allow student teachers to flourish in an enterprise culture, where risk-taking and imaginative teaching decisions are encouraged, may condemn them to the secure-but-mundane enclosures of well-trodden lowland paths.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Ston

y B

rook

Uni

vers

ity]

at 1

6:48

26

Oct

ober

201

4

Denis Hayes

350

Gaining and Using Experience

It is also important to note that earlier attempts to identify characteristics of ‘experience’ indicated that any attempts to equate experience with effective decision-making and accompanying teaching behaviour must distinguish between the terms ‘experience’ and ‘experiences’. Experience comes about as a result of gaining experiences; however, mere exposure to experiences does not necessarily impact positively upon classroom practice and result in becoming the sort of successful practitioner that can be described as ‘experienced’. Two student teachers having similar experiences will benefit from them in manifestly different ways, due not only to their existing abilities and propensity for teaching, but also to the way in which they are able to use the information gained to enhance their teaching capability. Supervising tutors have the responsibility of helping student teachers to incorporate their accumulated insights into their practical teaching and adjust their existing notions about teaching-and-learning until they have penetrated beyond a purely intellectual appreciation of their significance, and the concepts have become absorbed into the fabric of their psyche. The process by which such an intellectual grasp is translated into subconscious thinking is not easily defined. It appears to rest upon student teachers’ ability to reflect intelligently on their classroom practice, their willingness to accept advice from experienced colleagues, and their mental aptitude for assimilating new thinking into their present understanding (Hayes, 1999).

In terms of the continuous decision-making operations which characterise the teacher’s role, we may surmise that the more efficient the translation from ‘purely intellectual’ to ‘subconsciously assimilated’ the process becomes, the more spontaneously the decisions emerge. Student teachers who are still operating solely at the intellectual level lose vital time while weighing up the options in situ, a situation that is likely to contrast unfavourably with the relative immediacy of decisions from those who have fully assimilated their experiences and can react to classroom events and incidents in an unpremeditated way.

The Challenge for Training Providers

The significance of teachers’ thinking, awareness and decision-making for the development of classroom teaching skills and strategies indicates that it is essential for training providers to spend time exploring their significance when devising training programmes. A failure to offer a carefully considered rationale for the means by which effectiveness can be achieved provides succour to anyone claiming that teaching ability can be enhanced through mere exposure to classroom teaching, rather than by using professional judgements within a properly conceived framework, based on an understanding of the teaching-and-learning process.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Ston

y B

rook

Uni

vers

ity]

at 1

6:48

26

Oct

ober

201

4

GETTING BETTER AT TEACHING

351

In developing a framework, training providers must not lose sight of the fact that teaching and learning has to be conducted in a dynamic classroom environment. The interactive, intense atmosphere of a classroom, in which pupils’ reactions and responses are largely unpredictable, and the impact of particular words and actions can alter the lesson direction and classroom climate, has to be taken into account whenever teaching ability is assessed. The lesson context is also important: for example, a circle time with 5 year-olds does not bear immediate comparison with an investigative science lesson with Year 11, as the desired outcome may be the same (sound learning and discipline) but the process by which it is achieved will vary with the circumstances.

The self-evident truth that teaching environments differ points up the inadequacy of an assessment of student teachers’ competence in which the complex job of teaching is broken down into an itemised checklist of desirable behaviours, without taking account of intention, awareness and intelligent application of knowledge that contribute to the different decisions and responses woven into the fabric of a lesson. Even when set criteria are used for assessment, their interpretation is still important, as we need to take account of the way teachers act and feel (Halliday, 1996). In doing so, we must also allow for the fact that the reason for classroom decisions may not be obvious to a casual observer. For instance, we can envisage a situation where Student 1 accepts a particular standard of behaviour from a pupil, while Student 2 regards it as unsatisfactory. The variation in approach is apparent in that while Student 1 ignores the behaviour, Student 2 immediately confronts it. The observer might conclude that the second student has higher standards than the first or that the second student’s monitoring skills were superior (as s/he spotted the misdemeanour that the first student apparently missed). However, a subsequent conversation with the students may reveal that the first student was, in fact, exercising a higher level of professional sensitivity than the second in deciding to overlook the behaviour. In the first student’s case, their monitoring may have resulted from (say) a greater knowledge of the particular pupil’s attention-seeking tendency or non-situational factors (see Elliott, 1993, earlier). The second student may have lacked the first student’s understanding of the situation; on the other hand, they might be a more courageous and determined teacher than their colleague in confronting the pupil’s behaviour. Either way, the observer would need to take account of the rationale underpinning the students’ decisions in order to make a satisfactory assessment of competence. Judgements about the quality of student teachers’ classroom achievements must not only take close account of pre-lesson decisions such as establishing learning objectives for pupils, providing resources and creating a worthwhile lesson structure, but also of understanding the student teacher’s educational priorities; in short, to understand where student teachers are ‘coming from’.

Judgements about teaching ability also need to be rooted in an awareness of significant tensions or points of disagreement between the teacher,

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Ston

y B

rook

Uni

vers

ity]

at 1

6:48

26

Oct

ober

201

4

Denis Hayes

352

supervisor and student that may influence the quality of teaching and learning. Reynolds & Salters (1995) summarise the position as follows: ‘correct interpretation of a situation requires accurate perception and understanding of relevant data’ (p. 356) and therefore a need to share an agreed conceptual framework. Thus, ‘learning about teaching and how to teach depends on a common understanding, which encompasses values’ (p. 356). Similarly, Grimmett & MacKinnon (1992) emphasise that teaching proficiency relies not only upon possessing certain skills and strategies, but also upon maintaining a certain disposition towards learning. Thus, ‘craft knowledge emphasises judgement ... It relies heavily upon intuition, care, empathy for pupils. It is steeped in morality ...’ (p. 429). Student teachers may not agree with their host teacher’s (or college supervisor’s) approach but feel obliged to compromise their own values for the sake of harmony and a successful outcome.

Conclusion

This article’s attempts to understand the means by which student teachers ‘get better at teaching’ has relied upon a number of propositions about decision-making which, in part, parallel the action-research model for the professional development of qualified teachers. Such a model indicates that progress towards being an effective practitioner depends upon student teachers’ determination to learn by investigating their own classroom practice and establishing ‘new thoughts about familiar experiences and about the relationship between particular experiences and general ideas’ (Winter, 1989, p. vii). Student teachers’ development is thereby stimulated through ‘a more deliberate consideration of daily experiences, intensive examinations of fundamental classroom processes [and] committed efforts to changing how the classroom works’ (Thiessen, 1992, p. 101). Furthermore, we have noted that the assumption that ‘gaining classroom experience’ will automatically result in more appropriate teaching decisions and effective teaching has to be treated with caution, as prerequisites of effectiveness include intelligent reflection on past experiences, familiarity with classroom procedures and the ability to accommodate the demands made by the particular context into decision-making.

Once the complexity of making teaching decisions is recognised, the practice of mechanically checking off teaching skills as ‘acquired’ or ‘not acquired’ becomes an inadequate mechanism for developing and assessing competence. Indeed, in trying to conform with standards, student teachers may be tempted to take decisions which reasonably ensure ‘compliance’, at the expense of creativity and innovation. The form of professionalism that values teacher autonomy, fresh thinking, new paradigms for learning and bold decisions about classroom practice is unlikely to be celebrated in a political climate where deferential submissiveness to externally imposed criteria and teaching strategies dominates the agenda. If student teachers are to progress beyond the level of banality, we must better understand that no matter how

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Ston

y B

rook

Uni

vers

ity]

at 1

6:48

26

Oct

ober

201

4

GETTING BETTER AT TEACHING

353

skilled, hard-working and capable a student teacher may be, there are dimensions of effective teaching that can only be gained through intelligent reflection on practice that gradually leads to a subconscious ‘just knowing’ and concomitant, spontaneous decisions. An essential element of this process is the freedom for student teachers to think expansively about teaching and learning and, with suitable support, advice and encouragement, to act courageously in pursuit of their objectives.

It is becoming increasingly clear that the formidable grip exercised by the exit competence statements which circumscribe classroom teaching ability is in danger of sapping the energies of tutors, mentors and student teachers, and enervating the potential and enthusiasm which many student teachers possess. Time would be more profitably spent on improving and enhancing student teachers’ ability to survive and prosper in the hothouse of classroom life by making well-informed, appropriate decisions, rather than agonising over the interpretation of cumbersome assessment criteria which take little account of context, individual circumstances or educational ideals.

Correspondence

Denis Hayes, Rolle School of Education, University of Plymouth, Douglas Avenue, Exmouth EX8 2AT, United Kingdom (dhayes@plymouth.ac.uk).

References

Argyris, C. & Schön, D. (1974) Theory in Practice: increasing professional effectiveness. London: Jossey–Bass.

Calderhead, J. (1984) Teachers’ Classroom Decision-making. London: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.

Calderhead, J. & Shorrock, S.B. (1997) Understanding Teacher Education. London: Falmer Press.

Copeland, W.D. (1981) Clinical Experiences in the Education of Teachers, Journal of Education for Teaching, 7, pp. 3–17.

Department for Education and Employment (DfEE) (1998a) The National Literacy Strategy: framework for teaching. London: Crown Copyright.

Department for Education and Employment (DfEE) (1998b) High Standards, High Status, Circular 4/98. London: DfEE Publications.

Department for Education and Employment (DfEE) (1999a) The National Numeracy Strategy: framework for teaching mathematics from Reception to Year 6. London: Crown Copyright.

Department for Education and Employment (DfEE) (1999b) All Our Futures: creativity, culture and education. London: DfEE Publications.

Department for Education and Employment (DfEE) (1999c) The Review of the National Curriculum in England: the consultation materials. London: Qualifications and Curriculum Authority Publications.

Eggleston, J. (1979) Making Decisions in the Classroom, in J. Eggleston (Ed.) Teacher Decision-making in the Classroom. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.

Elliott, J. (1993) Professional Education and the Idea of a Practical Educational Science, in J. Elliott (Ed.) Reconstructing Teacher Education. London: Falmer Press.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Ston

y B

rook

Uni

vers

ity]

at 1

6:48

26

Oct

ober

201

4

Denis Hayes

354

Galton, M., Hargreaves, L., Comber, C., Wall, D. & Pell, T. (1999) Changes in Patterns of Teacher Interaction in Primary Classrooms, 1976–96, British Educational Research Journal, 25, pp. 23–37.

Grimmett, P.P. & MacKinnon, A.M. (1992) Craft Knowledge and the Education of Teachers, Review of Research in Education, 18, pp. 385–456.

Grossman, P.L. (1992) Why Models Matter: an alternative view on professional growth in teaching, Review of Educational Research, 62, pp. 171–179.

Halliday, D. (1996) Back to Good Teaching: diversity within tradition. London: Cassell.

Hayes, D. (1999) A Matter of Being Willing? Mentors’ Expectations of Student Primary Teachers, Mentoring and Tutoring, 7, pp. 67–79.

Hodkinson, H. & Hodkinson, P. (1997) Micro-politics in Initial Teacher Education: Luke’s story, Journal of Education for Teaching, 23, pp. 119–129.

Jackson, P.W. (1968) Life in Classrooms. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.

Kagan, D.M. (1992) Professional Growth among Pre-service and Beginning Teachers, Review of Educational Research, 62, pp. 129–169.

Kounin, J. (1970) Discipline and Group Management in Classrooms. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.

Kwo, O. (1994) Learning to Teach: some theoretical propositions, in I. Carlgren, G. Handal & S. Vaage (Eds) Teachers’ Minds and Actions. London: Falmer Press.

McCallum, B., McAlister, S., Brown, M. & Gipps, C. (1993) Teacher Assessment at Key Stage One, Research Papers in Education, 8, pp. 308–318.

Peterson, P.L. & Clark, C.M. (1978) Teachers’ Reports of Their Cognitive Processes during Teaching, American Educational Research Journal, 5, pp. 555–565.

Pollard, A. (1996) Readings for Reflective Teaching in the Primary School. London: Cassell.

Reynolds, M. & Salters, M. (1995) Competency-based ITT: an Australian perspective, Curriculum, 16, pp. 121–129.

Richardson, R. (1990) Daring to be a Teacher. Stoke-on-Trent: Trentham Books.

Segal, S. (1998) The Role of Contingency and Tension in the Relationship between Theory and Practice in the Classroom, Journal of Curriculum Studies, 30, pp. 199–206.

Sutcliffe, J. & Whitfield, R.C. (1979) Classroom Based Teaching Decisions, in J. Eggleston (Ed.) Teacher Decision-making in the Classroom. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.

Swann, J. & Brown, S. (1997) The Implementation of a National Curriculum and Teachers’ Classroom Thinking, Research Papers in Education, 12, pp. 91–114.

Thiessen, D. (1992) Classroom-based Teacher Development, in A. Hargreaves & M. G. Fullan (Eds) Understanding Teacher Development. London: Cassell.

Winter, R. (1989) Learning from Experience: principles and practice in action research. London: Falmer Press.

Woods, P. (1979) The Divided School. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Ston

y B

rook

Uni

vers

ity]

at 1

6:48

26

Oct

ober

201

4