Print this page
 

The context within which we operate

When constructing a PGCE course there are many parameters within which we have to operate. Some are external constraints, whilst others are to do with choices we make. There are clear over-laps between many of these, but for ease of examining them they have been separated into the following sections:

  • meeting the Standards for the award of Qualified Teacher Status
  • aims of the course
  • what do trainees need to be able to do?
  • the need to integrate school and university work effectively (this will also be explored in more depth in unit 4)
  • the time constraints of a 36 week course (where roughly 12 weeks are university based), and the particular structure of the PGCE within your own institution
  • the expectations and preconceptions of the trainees
  • the readiness of trainees to move forwards at particular moments
  • OFSTED requirements

Meeting the Standards
Clearly the trainees have to prove they have met the Standards to be qualified teachers. The course must provide opportunities to allow this to happen. Some of the Standards are more easily met than others, and the degree of challenge that they present may vary considerably depending on the nature of the schools within a partnership, e.g. teaching in an inner city school may present different challenges to an independent school.

Aims of the course
The main aim of each course is obviously to train high quality history teachers. But as trainers we may want to think more broadly than the Standards, especially as these are not subject specific. What are our broader educational goals for our trainees? Just as trainees have preconceptions about teaching, we also have views about what trainees need to be capable of achieving.

What do trainee teachers need to be able to do?
The Standards offer an idea of what trainees need to be able to do (see the TTA website for details). Research also offers an insight into this area (Grossman, P. L., Wilson, S. M. & Shulman, L. S. (1989), Booth, M., Shawyer, G. & Brown, R. (1990) Husbands, C., Kitson, A. and Pendry, A. (2003)) The following areas have been identified as important:

  • Subject knowledge – this entails not just substantive knowledge, but also an awareness of how the discipline works: an understanding of second order concepts like causation and the way in which they shape the subject. It also encompasses views of the subject’s role within the curriculum.
  • Knowledge of teaching strategies – essentially to do with how the subject can be broken down and delivered in an accessible fashion
  • Knowledge of pupils – particularly of how they learn – which makes it possible to judge which teaching strategies will prove effective in helping pupils make sense of the past
  • Classroom management – not just how to discipline a class and individuals, but how to organise pupils for particular tasks and make effective use of the time within a lesson
  • An ability to evaluate and reflect on one’s own practice in order to improve

These issues are not independent of each other. Good subject knowledge alone will produce limited results in the classroom, unless the trainee is able to turn this into usable teaching ideas that take account of what is known about how pupils learn, the particular context of the school or class they are teaching, and their ability to manage a class effectively to get the ideas across. Trainees’ decision-making processes need careful nurturing, so that they can come to recognise why it may be appropriate to adopt a particular approach with one class but not another.

Integrating school and university work
The split between school and university as locations for trainees’ learning raises critical questions about which learning is best done in university, which is done in school, and what links can be made between both? This is a crucial area. Research offers different ideas about how to conceptualise the different roles of each (McIntyre (1990), Husbands (1994), Furlong, J., Barton, L., Miles, S., Whiting, C. and Whitty, G. (2000)). Think through what is distinctive about the university side of the course, which cannot be gained from school based experience, and how they can complement each other. School based work can simply be seen as ‘practical experience’. However, trainees do not simply need to be ‘exposed’ to practice, they need to learn something from it, so school based work needs to be seen as a series of explicit learning activities. There is also a tension about whether the learning in the university should lead into learning in the school or whether what is learnt in school should lead into learning in the university. Clearly, there needs to be a close link between university and school based work, but each may take a driving seat at different times in the year.

Another issue is who actually plans the course? To what extent should mentors be involved in planning, especially if they are expected to deliver part of the course? This raises issues about how to involve them in this role. If they are not involved in planning the course, what is their role in reviewing the course? Courses need to evolve, and mentors who are heavily committed to the course can offer a good insight into what works, where something is not appropriately timed and so forth.

Working within a timeframe
A key constraint is time. In a 36 week course, where roughly 12 weeks are university based, and where some of that time will be spent doing generic work, what can be fitted in which meets the needs of the trainees? In addition, courses are structured differently: you may need to deliver most of your training in the autumn term before the trainees spend a long period of time in school, or you may have a few weeks, followed by a short time in school, followed by another round of university based work, before a final school based period.

Expectations and preconceptions of the trainees
The trainees bring their own preconceptions to the course about teaching and views about what the course will entail (link to unit 1 and 2). We need to acknowledge and work with these views. In some cases these views are valid and need to be built on and extended, in other cases they need challenging if the trainees are to move forward. Research (Korthagen (2001)) shows that the pressure to change often prevents change, as people become resistant to challenges to their views, so stick to tried and trusted methods. Change will occur when:

  • It is directed by an internal need of the trainee
  • It is rooted in the trainee’s own experiences
  • The trainee reflects in detail on their own experiences and can recognise the need to move forward

The course needs to allow the trainees to become aware of their own learning experiences, to offer meaningful experiences for them to reflect upon and to encourage them to reflect in depth on both of these.

Readiness of trainees to move forward
A very important consideration in course design is when to tackle particular issues. When will trainees be ready to examine interpretations or significance? At what point in the course should they look at GCSE and A level work? At what point will individual trainees need moving on, and how can you meet individual needs within the course (link to unit 1).

OFSTED requirements
A final consideration is that the course needs to be compliant with OFSTED inspection criteria. (www.ofsted.gov.uk/publications/index.cfm?fuseaction=pubs.summary&id=315 and www.ofsted.gov.uk/publications/index.cfm?fuseaction=pubs.summary&id=2575 ) Although they should certainly not be the starting point for course design, it is important that the programme you create is checked against them.