Implications

This book has introduced a new paradigm of teaching: that of teaching as a knowledge-based profession. It is based on the model of knowledge bases and on a broad interpretation of the term ‘knowledge’, which encompasses concepts, facts, processes, skills, beliefs, attitiudes and values. It is important to understand that the model does not present a static view of knowledge for teaching, but the vision of knowledge as interacting sets implies that teaching knowledge is constantly being revised. In addition, the model of teaching knowledge illustrated in the case studies in this book shows that one’s pedagogical content knowledge varies in the exact composition of the sets of knowledge bases according to the subject being taught. This notion has considerable implications for primary teachers in particular, which will be explored in this chapter.

In Chapter 1, I discussed seven different paradigms of teaching and argued that they were all in some ways partial models of teaching. Teaching as a common-sense activity is unsatisfactory for its dismissal of the complexities of teaching knowledge; what may appear to be a pragmatic and intuitive way of working is in fact informed by a range of knowledge bases. Teaching as a craft has its emphasis on the skills of teaching, whereas I would argue that while complex craft knowledge is essential for expert teaching, it is only part of what is required, and only one of several knowledge bases. Teaching as an applied science is also partial in that knowledge from the four ‘foundation’ disciplines of history, philosophy, psychology and sociology are only part of the knowledge base for expert teaching; in addition teaching is not so simple as applying theory to practice, for theory and practice operate together in a symbiotic relationship. Teaching as a system is an equally unsatisfactory paradigm. Its rationality has an appeal in the emphasis on specifying objectives clearly in order to recognise if we have achieved them: the paradigm is apparent in the current vogue for target-setting and evaluation. However, it ignores the complexities of teaching, and particularly the often multi-layered nature of one’s goals and approaches in teaching, which this book has sought to illustrate. Teaching as reflective practice is clearly an important paradigm: the need for honest reflection at the highest levels in order to develop as a teacher is shown in the chapter on knowledge of self (Chapter 7), but knowledge of self, and the ability to reflect are only part of the knowledge bases for teaching.

Teaching as competence has emerged as a powerful paradigm, in that it seems logical and practical to break down teaching into a number of different skills, qualities and abilities, but as a paradigm of teaching it has serious weaknesses. Teaching is such a complex job that typically one is using a number of skills simultaneously, for example, choosing words carefully, listening to what children say, scanning the class to pre-empt order problems, and making mental notes for future action. The standards in Circular 4/98 (DfEE 1998a) by which all new entrants to teaching are trained and judged, are a messy conception of teaching. There are serious weaknesses in these standards. They are representative of a technicist conception of teaching: master all of these and one will be a good teacher. Teaching of quality is not merely a matter of acquiring skills; it is based on a number of interacting knowledge bases, which underpin the skills, qualities and abilities outlined in the standards. The standards are poorly organised, with a division between subject knowledge and teaching. Such a division is inappropriate, once one has an understanding of pedagogical content knowledge. There is an overemphasis on teaching rather than children’s learning. There are no gradations in the standards: they are either there or not there in a teaching performance. In reality, teachers are likely to be better at some aspects or skills of teaching than at others, and a scale with gradations might be an improvement. This has now been suggested in the Hay McBer Report (DfEE 2000). A more serious criticism is the fact that they lend themselves to a tick-box mentality in training and assessing teachers. There are far too many of them, and they atomise teaching inappropriately. I would argue that a more holistic and multi-layered approach is necessary. The competence paradigm in general and the standards in particular, are only a partial representation of what it means to teach.

Readers will note that I have left until the end any comment on the paradigm of teaching as an art. This is because the new paradigm of teaching as a knowledge-based profession, has perhaps more in common with teaching as an art than with any other paradigm. Teaching is a deeply complex intellectual and practical activity. I have conceptualised it as a creative act (Turner-Bisset 1999a). As shown in some of the case studies and examples given in this book, teachers select from the store of experience, pedagogical repertoire and wealth of possible representations, the most appropriate teaching approaches and representations for specific learners in particular contexts. Expert teaching is a synthesis of knowledge, skills and understanding from all of the knowledge bases; in deciding which elements to use and fusing them in the act of teaching, teachers are immersed in a creative activity. This understanding of creativity is based on an idea of it being about synthesis, not so much of original ideas, but of existing ideas and knowledge put together in new and sometimes unexpected ways. Also expert teachers, by verbal and non-verbal channels of communication, create the kind of ethos, in which there is mutual respect, children can speak out and take risks, and in which there is created in children a thirst for learning and an enthusiasm for whatever subject is being taught, as in the example of Kirsty’s maths lesson. In this sense the teaching as an art paradigm is present in the new model. However, I would argue that teaching as an art is not innate; it can be taught and learnt. Just as artists may master craft skills in order to create works of art, teachers master a whole range of skills, knowledge and processes, in order to create lessons which engage children and which communicate concepts, facts, skills and attitudes to them.

Thus the new paradigm of teaching as a knowledge-based profession has elements in it of the other paradigms, but I would argue it is a more complete model, because it addresses all of the subjective and syntactic knowledge for teaching. It also has some advantages over the itemised standards and the lists of qualities, skills and dispostions which dominate the findings from research into effective teaching, because the model is underpinned by the knowledge bases described in this book. I offer this conceptualisation of teaching as a source for reflection and professional development. It is useful for beginning teachers in comprehending what they need to know in order to becomes teachers. It is also potentially useful as a framework for professional development. Finally, it might be of use to policy-makers in understanding the complexities of teaching, and the rich and varied knowledge bases which comprise the teacher’s expertise. It must be said however, that the model has implications, in particular for primary teachers.

The examples given in this book in the case studies are subject-specific. Teachers have been shown to be teaching well in one subject, and only just adequately or inadequately in others. The case studies have been chosen deliberately to illustrate this point. This happens for a number of reasons. It might be partly because of needing to develop the subject knowledge base in an area of the curriculum, or needing to develop knowledge of particular learners, or one’s pedagogical repertoire, or because of contextual factors. Kirsty, who was happy to be labelled an expert teacher of maths, was less happy with English, and with history, because she did not consider she had the pedagogical content knowledge for those subjects. She stated that she did not really know how to go about these subjects in the same way in which she did maths. To be an expert teacher in the primary phase is a massive undertaking. It would be necessary to have subject specific pedagogical content knowledge in all subjects of the primary curriculum. This understanding has implications for the recruitment, training and professional development of primary teachers.