The distinctive challenges of learning to teach

Our trainees and what they bring with them

History has never been a shortage subject. The quality of the applicants accepted to train therefore tends to be very high. A careful look at their CVs, the qualities, skills and experiences that they bring with them, can be inspiring, even somewhat daunting, for a new tutor or mentor! Obviously they still have a lot to learn, but we should not fix our sights so firmly on what has yet to be achieved, that we fail to notice what our trainees already possess.

Their previous experiences – as pupils, and family members, youth group leaders and sports coaches, undergraduates, postgraduates, and employees – exert a profound influence on the opinions that they now hold. Every research study [see, for example, Calderhead & Robson (1991)] into trainee teachers’ learning shows how enduring those ideas and assumptions can be. Everything new that we offer is filtered through them . Some research [e.g. Bird et al (1993)] has been very negative, implying that all trainees’ previous ideas about effective teaching and learning are unhelpful. This is far from true [see, for example, Bullough with Stokes (1994); Pendry (1997)] ; but the views they take into teaching must be examined and systematically evaluated. Past experience alone is not an adequate basis from which to judge. Trainees’ ideas need to be tested against both practical criteria and professional standards. Are they effective in this particular school context? What are the values that underpin them? Are they coherent and consistent? How far are they supported by wider research evidence? It’s not always easy to ask such questions of deeply rooted beliefs.

Views about history

Most postgraduate trainees have studied history at degree level. Some have degrees in related subjects such as politics or law. Even those who graduated long ago tend to have powerful preconceptions about the nature of history as a discipline and its role in education [see Wilson & Wineburg (1988)]. They may have strong opinions about the content that should be taught. They almost certainly have views about the kind of conceptual understanding or ‘skills’ that history promotes. Some champion specifically historical concepts and ways of thinking, while others emphasise more transferable general skills of analysis and argument.

Although many worry about gaps in their subject knowledge, all trainees tend to assume that they do at least know about history. This makes it difficult, but all the more necessary, to help them recognise and question their assumptions.

Views about teaching

Our trainees have spent years learning history. This ‘apprenticeship of observation’ [Lortie (1975)] means they all have a view about what makes for effective teaching. Many have strong memories of inspirational teachers, whom they are keen to emulate. Others feel they got through the education system despite the teaching they received. They are determined to offer young people something much more engaging or relevant. Such ideals can lead to disillusionment if the trainees cannot find experienced teachers who share them, or ways in which to achieve them. However, evidence suggests [Calderhead & Shorrock (1997)] that trainees with reasonably strong images of the kind of teacher they want to be find their own way much more effectively than those with less to steer by. Our job, however, is not simply to help them achieve their vision. They also need to re-think and re-evaluate that vision as teachers rather than as learners.’

Views about learning to teach

Many trainees are apprehensive: learning to teach may be unlike any other kind of learning they have done. Most assume that they will learn from experience. This is true, but practice does not necessarily lead to learning. We have to ensure that it does. We also have to convince trainees of the value of other sources that can help to make sense of and enrich what they learn from experience.

Where: adult learners in contexts geared for teaching children

Schools are not generally geared up for adult learning. They are busy, demanding places, primarily concerned with children’s learning. Even those teachers most committed to reviewing and refining their practice generally look outside the school context for help to do so. What is most valued in school is decisive action. Beginning teachers, acutely conscious of their ‘student’ status, are anxious to fit in. They want to be recognised as ‘proper’ teachers, able to take responsibility and act effectively. Our attempts to help them learn can seem to impede those ambitions. Unless trainees understand the purpose of the structured activities or simplified tasks that we set up for them, and see that they are valued by others, they may simply be frustrated by them.

What: the diversity of teaching expertise

There are many ways to bring about learning. Although the Standards for Qualified Teacher Status (QTS) set out common criteria, their achievement can be demonstrated in many different ways. As a list of generic values and competences, the Standards do not specify what good history teaching looks like. Even the National Curriculum and recommendations of the Key Stage 3 Strategy leave considerable scope for the use of different sorts of approaches Accepting such diversity is not necessarily easy, especially when a trainee’s approach differs significantly from one’s own. It can be difficult to distinguish between essential principles (agreed across the course), and personal preferences that reflect legitimate differences of opinion or style.