Developing primary education and the expertise of primary teachers in a National Education Service

Posted on by admin

Tony Eaude

Introduction

This article considers the role of primary education and of teachers of young children in a National Education Service, drawing especially on research on teacher expertise and how this is developed. Any such discussion must take account of the context of primary education having been less well-resourced, and often seen as less important, than other phases, with primary teaching usually thought not to require as great a level of knowledge or expertise as that needed to teach older students – views which I shall challenge.

The Cambridge Primary Review (Alexander, 2010) provides a well-argued and detailed view of how primary education should change to meet the demands of the 21st century. Drawing on the Review, Eaude (2015) argues that primary education has never really escaped the legacy of elementary education, where it was thought appropriate for young children to be taught a narrow curriculum based mainly on reading, writing and arithmetic – what Alexander calls Curriculum 1, – with little emphasis on Curriculum 2, including the humanities and the arts. Eaude (2018b) suggests that a world of constant change requires a holistic approach which develops children’s agency and the qualities and dispositions associated with global citizenship. Drawing on these, this article makes the case for moving away from the current narrow approach based on delivery and performativity (see Ball, 2003) which fails to meet the needs of young children and has de-professionalized teachers in the primary sector, as elsewhere.

This article summarizes briefly some key ideas on expertise and what the expertise of primary classroom teachers involves, as discussed in Eaude (2012), which drew on the international researchon teacher expertise in Chapter 21 of the Cambridge Primary Review. It then considers how such expertise is developed, as explored in Eaude (2018a), before examining the implications for a National Education Service, especially in terms of professional development, with the conclusion summarizing the argument. The issues raised are complex and often debatable, but further detail is available in Eaude (2012 and 2018a).

Expertise

Eaude (2012) acknowledges that being ‘an expert’ is often viewed with suspicion and that teachers, especially in primary education, are reluctant to see themselves as such, and that terminology such as ‘novice’ may be off-putting. However, he suggests that examining the idea of expertise can help to raise the status of teaching as a profession and identify those aspects of pedagogy which teachers require, and should try to improve.

Berliner (2001: 463-4) summarises various propositions about expertise, in general, as follows:

  • expertise is specific to a domain, developed over hundreds and thousands of hours, and continues to develop;
  • development of expertise is not linear, with plateaus occurring, indicating shifts of understanding;
  • expert knowledge is structured better for use in performance than is novice knowledge;
  • experts represent problems in qualitatively different – deeper and richer – ways than novices;
  • experts recognise meaningful patterns faster than novices;
  • experts are more flexible and more opportunistic planners and can change representations faster, when appropriate, than novices;
  • experts may start to solve a problem slower than a novice but overall they are faster problem solvers;
  • experts develop automaticity to allow conscious processing of more complex information;
  • experts have developed self-regulatory processes as they engage in their activities.

Eaude (2012) adds that:

  • experts, in any field, make an activity look easy and effortless, but thatwhen someone less expert tries to act in similar ways they soon find out how difficult it is;
  • expertise is demonstrated in performing an activity, not just talking about it and needs to be constantly refreshed over time;
  • what expertise involves is usually understood best by people with similar expertise, although it is manifested in many different ways;
  • the features of expertise are subtle, often tacit and hard to articulate, both for the person with expertise and for observers.

A vital distinction is that between expertise in a relatively static situation, such as a chess match, where there is usually time to deliberate, and a fluid one, such as a sports match or teaching a class of young children, where there is not. Expertise in fluid situations involves abilities such as making and constantly checking hypotheses, interpreting cues, seeing potential difficulties in advance and so avoiding them and changing course quickly, improvising when necessary and exercising peripheral vision. Expertise in such situations entails relying heavily on intuition and case knowledge – ‘I’ve been in a similar situation before and so know roughly what to do’- as well as a deep knowledge of the task and the context. These abilities are acquired and refined to some extent through experience but require much more than that, in ways discussed later in this article. The next section considers how these features of expertise apply to teachers, especially primary classroom teachers who spend most of their time with a class of young children.

Teacher expertise and the expertise of primary classroom teachers

The Cambridge Primary Review (Alexander, 2010: 417-8), drawing on Bond et al.’s research, identifies thirteen main areas of teacher expertise, here grouped under five headings:

            teacher knowledge

  • better use of knowledge;
  • extensive pedagogical content knowledge, including deep representations of subject matter;

            setting objectives and providing feedback

  • more challenging objectives;
  • better monitoring of learning and providing feedback to students;
  • better adaptation and modifications of goals for diverse learners including better skills for improvisation;

            understanding and responding to events

  • better perception  of classroom events including a better ability to read cues from students;
  • better problem-solving strategies;
  • more frequent testing of hypotheses;
  • better decision-making;

            climate and context

  • better classroom climate;
  • greater sensitivity to context;
  • attitude and beliefs
  • greater respect for students;
  • display of more passion for teaching.

Alexander (2010: 418) indicates that these were ‘correlated with measures such as students’ higher levels of achievement, deep rather than surface understanding of subject matter, higher motivation to learn and feelings of self-efficacy’, especially with younger and low-income pupils. However, while this is a useful framework, what ideas such as ‘better’ and ‘more challenging’ mean must be considered in relation to the specific context of the primary classroom.

One key aspect of teaching is to find ways to combat historic disadvantage on the basis of factors such as sex, ‘race’/ethnicity, class and/or (dis)abilities. Doing so requires creating genuinely inclusive environments, with relationships that are supportive but firm, and expectations that are ambitious but realistic. With young children, especially, such an approach involves teachers knowing about, and drawing on children’s existing ‘funds of knowledge.’ Gonzales, Moll and Amanti (2005) use this to describe those types of knowledge, usually associated with minority or working-class cultures, which are not, or not highly, valued in schools, often practical activities, though I would extend the term to include a wide range of activities such as cooking, photography or videogames which many children find more engaging than school learning, to develop procedural – know-how – as well as propositional – know-that – knowledge. Moreover, countering disadvantage involves seeing children holistically to identify the factors and barriers which may be hindering progress, whether socially constructed ones such as discrimination on the grounds of sex, ‘race’/ethnicity, class or (dis)abilities, or more individual ones such as difficulties at home or in the child’s life outside school.

Shulman (2004: 96) writes ‘most of the embarrassments of pedagogy that I encounter are not the inability of teachers to teach well, for an hour or even a day. Rather they flow from an inability to sustain episodes of teaching and learning over time that unfold, accumulate, into meaningful understanding in students.’Cooper and McIntyre (1996: 78 ff.) highlight that the skilled teachers whom they studied balanced long-term aims, over an extended time scale, with short-term objectives.  While such teachers may focus their own, and their children’s efforts, on a particular skill or activity, they work on the ‘big picture’, not aiming only for short-term success, but laying the foundations for the future. Just as one would not judge a garden designer on only the quality of the rockery or the vegetable patch, teacher expertise should be assessed not on one lesson or one topic but more holistically. In other words, expertise involves a pattern of consistent high performance over time, not just meeting short-term objectives or putting on a good demonstration lesson. But the expectation that any teacher should be outstanding all the time is unrealistic.

In terms of the curriculum, a holistic approach, especially with young children, entails giving a high priority to Curriculum 2 – including the humanities and the arts – as well as Curriculum 1. It must enable both logical-scientific and narrative modes of thinking (see Bruner, 1996: 39-40) and ensure that young children are engaged as active learners. The humanities are vital in helping children to engage with complex issues related to what it means to be human and to explore their own, and other people’s, identities and cultures. Similarly, the arts are not a desirable add-on, but help children to explore some of the most profound aspects of human experience, whether as a performer or as a watcher and listener.  However, while the formal curriculum matters, pedagogy, the ‘how’ rather than the ‘what’ of learning and teaching, matters more.

Elliott et al. (2011) emphasize that skilled interpersonal relations are crucial for effective teaching and learning. This is especially so with young children, given that they are usually less predictable and more dependent on adults than older students are. In considering what is distinctive about the expertise of primary classroom teachers, Eaude (2012) highlights that primary classrooms are unpredictable with dilemmas and compromises ever-present and inherent in the teacher’s role. So teachers constantly need to make judgements in-the-moment, rapidly and accurately, and exercise what Sawyer (2004) calls disciplined improvisation.

All teachers must be able to manage what happens in the classroom.  Primary classroom teachers with a high level of expertise are in control of the class, but they do not overcontrol and so restrict children’s agency and creativity. Such teachers pre-empt and so avoid difficulties, rather than allowing these to occur and then re-acting. This involves abilities such as making accurate hypotheses, checking regularly whether these are accurate, interpreting cues, changing course rapidly when necessary and exercising peripheral vision to know what is happening in the classroom. These abilities depend on intuition and case knowledge, which is mostly tacit and hard to articulate.

One contested question is the extent to which primary teachers require subject knowledge; and the extent of this in different subject areas, given that they cannot have as much across the whole curriculum as a subject specialist is likely to have in one or two subjects. However, primary teachers require a deep knowledge of how young children learn, especially through activity and representing experience, kinaesthetically, visually and symbolically; and through dialogue, rather than mainly through listening. For instance, Donaldson (1992)highlights the need for activities to be meaningful to the children and relationships of trust if young children are to be engaged. And, as Shulman (2004) argues, pedagogical content knowledge – the ability to structure knowledge to make it meaningful and accessible to a particular group or individual – is more important than subject knowledge, as such (see Eaude, 2018a, Chapter 5, for a more detailed discussion).

Confidence, and a sense of teacher agency – being able to make one’s own decisions and professional judgements – underpin teacher expertise. Teachers must be encouraged and allowed to take risks without the fear of being heavily criticised when they make mistakes. Passion and enthusiasm are qualities strongly associated with teacher expertise, and frequently manifested by teachers working with young children, but these are too often squeezed by the pressures of delivery to cover an over-full curriculum and the demands of policy-makers in terms of accountability.

Recalling that expertise is associated with creating and taking unexpected opportunities, such an approach requires planning which is sufficiently fluid to allow the teacher and her class to follow children’s interests, questions and insights, while being clear enough in terms of aims and objectives to enable progression both within the particular area being taught and more generally.

It is vital that assessment is not conflated with testing and that all concerned recognize that many important aspects of learning and teaching cannot be measured with any degree of validity. There needs to be more emphasis on formative teacher assessment, and less on data, especially in terms of judging teacher quality. However, data can be valuable in identifying possible misconceptions of a group or an individual, though the nature of such misconceptions is likely to require more detailed observation and discussion.

Developing the expertise of primary classroom teachers

Eaude (2018a) argues that developing the abilities associated with primary classroom teacher expertise is difficult and takes a long time, drawing on Berliner’s (2001) conclusion that it takes up to five years for teachers to become experts. Doing so involves a great deal of practice in the context of the classroom, but practising the right things. To know what these are means that teachers need opportunities to watch other teachers in the classroom and try to identify, with them, the key aspects on which to concentrate.

Feedback is necessary to improve, though this is more complex than it may seem. Schon (1987) makes a useful distinction between reflection-on-action and reflection-in-action, with the former essentially looking back at what has happened and adjusting what one does in future as a result, and the latter essential when one has to make very quick judgements and has very little time to deliberate on feedback. While reflection-on-action is necessary, Eaude (2018a: 75) highlights the need in fluid, fast-moving situations for what Bateson calls calibration, where learning (as a teacher in this case) is embedded by acting fluently, without deliberate reflection, so that much of what the teacher does becomes automatic, enabling her to concentrate on what really matters.

To develop case knowledge, it helps for the teacher herself to be able to identify the salient points in any situation, such as when and how to intervene to avoid difficult situations occurring, though early-career teachers are likely to need mentoring to help in this process – and even experienced teachers can articulate this better when helped by a sympathetic observer. It is hard to know exactly how teachers develop peripheral vision, except by constantly looking and checking what is happening, to identify what requires action on their part and what to ignore.

To develop pedagogical content knowledge, rather than just subject knowledge, primary teachers must learn to identify children’s misconceptions and how these can be overcome. This indicates that assessment must be continual and integral to teaching, rather than seen as a separate activity. The ability to plan fluidly and to assess continuously depends largely on confidence and experience. But teachers in the early stages of their career or in areas where they are less confident will usually need to plan in more detail than a teacher with greater expertise.

Berliner (2001: 466) points out that expertise is not just a characteristic of the person, but of the interaction of the person and the environment in which they work. One vital aspect of how teacher expertise is strengthened is recognizing that this is not only an individual process, but a collective one, within professional learning communities (see Stoll and Louis, 2007) where all teachers learn from each other; and where taking risks, and making mistakes, is normalized as a necessary aspect of teaching, whatever one’s level of experience.

Implications for a National Education Service and for professional development

It may reasonably be asked whether the vision of primary education outlined in this article and the place of teachers in enabling this is achievable. Such an approach will require a different view of primary education which strives to ensure that all children receive the balanced and broadly-based education to which they are entitled by law. This will not just involve changes to the formal curriculum, assessment processes and accountability mechanisms, but a change of culture among teachers and the relationship between politicians, policy-makers and the profession.

There will always be a debate about the sorts of knowledge young children need to know; and issues such as the role of subject specialists, especially in Key Stage 2, with the answer often depending on specific issues such as the size of school and the range of subject expertise available. For instance, there are arguments in favour of subject specialists, particularly in some subject areas at the older end of the primary school, though a continuity of relationships is very important, especially for those children who find learning difficult, and there are practical problems in small schools. However, a National Education Service must;

  • view education as not just a preparation for employment but as a process which helps children to internalize the qualities, dispositions and values associated with democratic citizenship (Nussbaum, 2010) and the intrinsic motivation to act appropriately on their own;
  • see primary education as an essential part of this process and place more trust in primary teachers, encouraging a view of professionalism based on autonomy and an extended, rather than restricted, view of professionality (see Eaude, 2018a, Chapter 8 for a discussion of different models of teacher professionalism and the implications for primary teachers); and
  • provide sustained opportunities for professional development and the expectation that teachers will participate in these, with more resources allocated to enable this.

The evidence suggests that, to have a lasting impact, professional learning opportunities must:

  • be of appropriate duration, over at least two terms, usually a year or longer;
  • have rhythm, with follow up, consolidation and support, so that participants grasp the rationale and use their understanding to refine practices and support implementation;
  • be designed for participants’ needs, so that there is overt relevance to teachers’ day-to-day experiences and their aspirations for their pupils, while allowing for differences to be revealed and discussed;
  • create a shared sense of purpose, so that teachers can collaborate and engage in peer learning and support; and
  • be aligned across various activities, so that the focus is not just on specific activities but consistent with the principles of how children learn.

TDT (2015: 11)

Teachers manifest their expertise in different ways, so that no one template is suitable for all teachers, with the current Teachers’ Standards presenting a limited view of what teachers require. Moreover, initial teacher education (ITE) and continuing professional development (CPD) must be seen as a continuum, with the early-career phase, in the years soon after qualification, especially significant. While the best approach to ITE requires more detailed discussion than is possible here, one must recognize that a one-year course is not long enough to develop a high level of expertise. Therefore, a greater emphasis on professional development and support – for instance through opportunities to observe other teachers and mentoring – in the years soon after qualification will be essential to help embed key features of expertise and to broaden teachers’ perspectives, for instance by considering recent research in psychology and constantly reviewing how teachers’ practice reflects what they are trying to achieve.

CPD opportunities should be based mainly on learning in the context of the teacher’s own school, though with regular, sustained opportunities to visit other schools and watch other teachers, rather than attending courses, especially one-off events. Such an approach will require more money and resources than at present. However, if primary education is be accorded the importance that it deserves, this is essential.

Conclusion

This article has argued for a view of primary education and teaching very different from that based on the ‘standards agenda’, performativity and delivery, one based on children’s entitlement and the expertise and professionalism of teachers to enable this. Such a view is required if historic disadvantage resulting from discrimination on the basis of factors such as sex, ‘race’/ethnicity, class and (dis)ability is to be countered; and if all young children are to be, and become, confident and resilient and able to cope with change and adversity. This will involve a better balanced and more broadly-based curriculum, drawing on children’s existing ‘funds of knowledge’; but also a more holistic view of children and their abilities, emphasizing procedural and personal/interpersonal knowledge, rather than focussing mainly on a limited view of propositional knowledge. It will require more emphasis on the humanities and the arts to help children to engage with complexity and to develop qualities, dispositions and values associated with democratic citizenship. However, even more important than the formal curriculum will be a greater emphasis on pedagogy and professional development, to enable a holistic, inclusive approach where primary teachers develop and strengthen, collectively, the features of expertise outlined above. This will require a policy context which encourages a view of teacher professionalism based on professional autonomy and trust, with less emphasis on data and measurable outcomes and a model of accountability and inspection which is developmental and supportive rather than punitive.

Dr. Tony Eaude was the head teacher of a multi-cultural Church of England First School in Oxford, UK, for nine years before completing a doctorate, entitled Beyond Awe and Wonder- a study of how teachers understand young children’s spiritual development. He now works as an independent research consultant.

References:

Alexander, R., ed. (2010), Children, their World, their Education – final report and recommendations of the Cambridge Primary Review, Abingdon: Routledge.

Ball, S.J. (2003), ‘The teacher’s soul and the terrors of performativity’, Journal of Education Policy, 18 (2): 215-228.

Berliner, D.C. (2001)‘Learning about and learning from expert teachers’, International Journal of Educational Research, 35: 463-82.

Bruner, J. S. (1996), The Culture of Education, Cambridge (Mass.): Harvard University Press.

Cooper, P. and McIntyre, D. (1996), Effective Teaching and Learning: Teachers’ and students’ perspectives, Buckingham: Open University Press.

Donaldson, M. (1992), Human Minds – an exploration, London: Allen Lane.

Eaude, T. (2012), How do expert primary classteachers really work? – a critical guide for teachers, headteachers and teacher educators, Critical Publishing, www.criticalpublishing.com

Eaude, T. (2015), ‘Primary education: can we escape the legacy of elementary education?’ in A Generation of Radical Educational Change – Stories from the field, 43-54, Routledge: Abingdon

Eaude, T. (2018a) Developing the Expertise of Primary and Elementary Classroom Teachers: Professional Learning for a Changing World. London: Bloomsbury.

Eaude, T. (2018b), ‘Addressing the Needs of the Whole Child: Implications for Young Children and  Adults who Care for them’, International Handbook of Holistic Education, 61-69, Abingdon: Routledge.

Elliott, J.G., S. E. Stemler, R.J. Sternberg, E.L. Grigorenko and N. Hoffman (2011), The socially skilled teacher and the development of tacit knowledge, British Educational Research Journal, 37 (1), 83- 103.

Gonzales, N., L. Moll, and C. Amanti (2005), Funds of Knowledge, Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Nussbaum, M. (2010), Not for Profit: Why Democracy Needs the Humanities, Princeton:  Princeton University Press.

Sawyer, R.K. (2004), Creative Teaching: Collaborative Discussion as Disciplined Improvisation,   Educational Researcher, 33 (2), 12–20.

Schon, D. (1987), Educating the Reflective Practitioner: Toward a New Design for Teaching and    Learning the Professions, San Francisco: Jossey Bass.

Shulman, L.S. (2004), The Wisdom of Practice – Essays on Teaching, Learning and Learning to Teach, San Francisco: Jossey Bass.

Stoll, L. and K.S. Louis (eds) (2007), Professional Learning Communities: Divergence, Depth and   Dilemmas, Maidenhead: Open University Press.

TDT (Teacher Development Trust) (2015), Developing Great Teaching – Lessons from the international reviews into effective professional development, Available online http://tdtrust.org/about/dgt (accessed 30 August 2019).