Evaluation of a Paired-Placement Project: Interim Report

EVALUATION OF A PAIRED-PLACEMENT PROJECT

Carol Murphy Beth Gompertz

School of Education University of Exeter Heavitree Road Exeter EX1 2LU

[email protected] [email protected]

Paper presented at the British Educational Research Association Annual Conference, University of Glamorgan, 14-17 September 2005

INTRODUCTION

The project, funded by the TTA, was set up to investigate the use of paired placements for the final school-based work experience on a one year primary PGCE programme. In this project a paired-placement constitutes the placement of two primary trainee teachers in one classroom supported by one classroom teacher. The University of Exeter programme spreads the support of trainee teachers between the school based classroom tutor and the mentor. The tutor’s role is concerned with the more informal day to day support of the trainee teacher. The mentor, another member of the teaching staff in the school, has a more objective role and will carry out supervisory conferences every few weeks during the placement.

The rationale for the paired placement could be viewed from several perspectives. An initial response might be to see it as expedient, an opportunity to reduce the number of schools needed for final placement trainee teachers. Although it can be a problem finding a large number of schools who are in a position to accept trainee teachers into their schools, this cannot be seen as the main reason. The support the trainee teachers receive is of far more importance. However it could mean that we are able to use schools with a strong and positive ethos for teacher training, or even use school-based tutors who demonstrate effective teaching practices more efficiently. The paired-placement could also be seen as a training tool with the benefits of peer tutoring in a supported training environment. The growth of team teaching and professional learning teams (PLTs) is part of the national agreement proposed by the Workforce Agreement Monitoring Group (WAMG). Working in teams with other teachers and support staff is seen as one of the ways to raise standards and tackle workloads (DfES, 2003). It would enable schools to focus further on the individual needs of the every child. The paired placement may support trainee teachers in gaining the skills to teach collaboratively. DRAFT

Much has been written on the role of mentoring, the nature of teaching practices and the acquisition of teaching skills during school based experiences (Maynard and Furlong, 1993; Schon, 1987; Calderhead, 1987; Guillaume and Rodney, 1993). There has, as yet, been little research on the use of paired or multiple placements, particularly in primary classrooms. Perry’s (2003) work on a secondary multiple placement project in Cornwall raised issues related to this project. He recognised the expediency issue with the government’s desire to increase the number of ITT students. He also raised the issue of teacher workload perceiving that the multiple practice would mean ‘more mentoring in less time’. However Perry found that the school mentors perceived an increase in workload as an issue in managing multiple placements. In exploring this issue he suggested that it was the idea of workload rather than the reality of it. The trainee teachers appreciated the peer support. Trainee teachers also saw peer tutoring to be a positive training experience during their school based experiences in secondary physical education departments (Katene and Faulkner’s, in press). Peer tutoring was seen to have a particular advantage in supporting subject knowledge as well as in developing teaching skills.

If these studies are transferable into the primary classroom the possible benefits of a paired placement for primary trainee teachers might be:  innovative ways in developing skills of teaching, including subject knowledge;  more efficient mentoring and support;  richer experiences due to a close knit peer association;  preparation for team teaching as part of workforce remodelling.

THE STUDY

The participants of the study came from one cohort of the Primary PGCE Progamme with trainee teachers from a range of subject specialisms. The sample comprised of four trainee teachers (two pairs), two Mentors and one University Visiting Tutor. Each of the two sets of two trainee teachers shared a school based tutor and a mentor and it was the intention that they shared the same class of children.

Data was collected from: Initial questionnaires to SBT, Mentors, UVTs and trainees Interview to explore anticipation of experience in paired practice Email/diaries summarising outcomes (trainee) with felt response to process from all individuals (trainee + SBT) Email following Conferences (mentor + UVT) and other formal inputs.

RESULTS AND ANALYSIS

At this stage data from the initial questionnaires, pre-placement interviews with the UVT, and trainee teachers involved in the paired placement have been analysed to obtain both a general and a more in-depth view of the perceptions of a paired placement. The email diaries from the participants of the paired placements have also been analysed.

The pre-placement questionnaires: DRAFT

Ninety questionnaires were returned by the schools:  41 School based tutors/ 8 Mentors/ 41 both  15 male/ 75 female  Age range 24 – 62, mean 41 (12 missing)

Ninety three questionnaires were returned by the trainees:  17 Early Years, 20 English, 23 Humanities, 22 Music, 5 Science (1 missing)  16 male/ 69 female  Age range 21 – 49, mean 26, (5 missing)

10 Teachers t

n Trainees e c r e 0 P strongly agree undecided strongly disagree agree disagree

happy to work in paired placement

Figure 1 Percentage frequency response to ‘Happy to work in paired placement’ 80 DRAFT 70

40 level of confidence 30 very confident

20 Teachers Traineesfairly confident t

n 10 ok e c r e 0 not very confident P strongly agree undecided strongly disagree agree disagree

happy to work in paired placement

Figure 2 ‘Happy to work in paired placement’ against confidence

Descriptive frequency analyses were carried out with the question ‘Happy to work in paired placement’ (see Figure 1). Over 70% of both teachers & trainees disagree or strongly disagree with the statement, suggesting that the majority of trainee teachers and the teachers were not in favour of being involved in a paired placement for their final placement. A comparison of the two graphs in figure 1 also suggests that a higher percentage of teachers strongly disagree.

The responses to ‘Happy to work in paired placement’ were also plotted against the confidence (figure 2). These graphs indicate the following points:  Confident Teachers, & Trainees who were low in confidence showed a more even spread of responses (Trainees 30/50, Teachers 15/70).  Confident Trainees, & Teachers low in confidence all disagreed (0/100).

No correlation analysis has been carried out so significance is not claimed but it is interesting to note that the more confident trainee teachers do not see the paired placement as attractive. Maybe they are eager to take their own class. Less confident DRAFT

trainee teachers might perceive the placement as more attractive due to the support from a peer. In contrast less confident teachers do not see it as attractive as they may be concerned about their role of the workload.

The questionnaires also asked the teachers and the trainee teachers to provide verbal comments to indicate the advantages and disadvantages they foresaw in a paired placement (Table 2).

Trainees’ comments Teachers’ comments Advantages Advantages  Peer evaluation and feedback  Peer support (pastoral)  Peer support (ideas & planning inc SS)  Sharing skills & planning  Team teaching  Lighter workload for trainee  More opportunities for observation  Compare trainee progress (peer, group, etc)  Opportunity to specialise  Moral support  Efficiency - dissemination of good practice. 30 made no comment

Disadvantages Disadvantages  Comparison and feelings of inadequacy  Over dependence  Over reliance and lack of independence  Limits individual development  Less opportunity to develop role of  Time/ workload (teacher) class teacher  Not realistic model  Potential interpersonal problems  Personality clashes  Effect on children  Effect on children  Time with tutor  Less support from teacher (pastoral & pedagogic)

Table 1 Trainees’ and Teachers’ perceived advantages and disadvantages of a paired placement.

The responses to the questionnaires suggest the following issues concerning a paired placement.  General resistance to paired placement model.  Recognition of peer support.  Concern in relation to workload and time.  Insufficient opportunity to develop independence and individual style as a class teacher.  It does not portray a realistic model of a primary class teacher.

The pre-placement interviews: DRAFT

These issues were investigated further in the pre-placement interviews. In looking for commonalties and unique cases the issues drawn out from the questionnaires are highlighted further.

 Attitude to paired placement model. The trainee teachers were not resistant to the paired placement model but as they had volunteered for the paired placement this would be expected. They had based this on their experiences of the first placement which had been a paired placement and the peer support they had gained from this experience. They were also looking to gain further teaching experiences in their specialist subject. The UVT did not seem so positive. Even though she had agreed to take part she seemed to see expediency as the main reason for the project. However she did see it as a way of questioning her UVT role and refreshing her viewpoints.  Recognition of peer support. Many of the trainee teachers gave this as a reason for volunteering for the paired placement, although one felt uneasy about being observed by a peer.  Concern in relation to workload and time. The trainee teachers did not see this as an issue as far as the paired placement was concerned. One indicated that they could share ideas in planning and in helping to collect evidence for the standards. The UVT was not certain how her workload would change but did feel that it would be an extra burden for the classroom tutor.  Insufficient opportunity to develop independence and individual style as a class teacher. The trainee teachers generally saw the development of independence and an individual style as important and did express some concern that they may not have the same opportunity to do this as a traditional placement. Some had discussed this with the school already. The UVT also expressed concerns about this.  It does not portray a realistic model of a primary class teacher. One trainee commented that she may not build the skills to teach a class herself. Another felt that the children may not see them as a teacher because they were working in pairs. There was also a concern that the children may confuse who to relate to and that this may cause management problems. However others stated that having more adults in the classroom would support the children further and bring in even more new ideas. The UVT indicated that it was very unlikely to prepare the trainee teachers for a traditional job as a primary class teacher.

The email diaries:

The results of the email diaries are presented in Tables 2 and 3 and show the contributions from each paired placement – MM/CT and LH/KP. The intensity of the final practice both for the trainee teachers and the school based tutors may well be the reason that these contributions were not as regular as we had hoped. DRAFT

We were disappointed that one of the pairs MM/CT decided the placement would not be viable quite early in the practice. As MM stated in his diary:

“The paired placement in one class is not really working too well for CT and myself, so CT has moved into the parallel class and we are planning together. We found after trying to plan this half-term we could not get enough whole class contact that we both felt we wanted and needed. We get on well at a personal level but felt at this critical stage in our course that moving into different classrooms was best for us both.”

This was supported by the classroom tutor but she did then feel that she might not be able to support CT at the same level. CT did experience difficulties in his practice. We cannot assume that this was due to the initial paired stage or his move to another class. We do however notice that early on he seemed to find it more difficult to get to know the class and his UVT described his mode of teaching as ‘transmissive’.

Even though the other pair did keep working together, both in the classroom and in planning, the UVT felt that the paired placement may have hindered KP’s development in classroom management. This is not to say that KP would have found a traditional placement any easier and in fact the support of her peer may have helped her through some of her problems. Whatever the case, it is interesting to note that although the questionnaires suggested that the trainees saw the paired placement as more supportive the opinion of the tutor seemed to be that a paired placement was not suitable for a weaker trainee. We should bear in mind that LH and KP’s tutor’s comment in relation to a paired placement - ‘this should work’. DRAFT

Table 2: Paired Placement Diaries (Codes for comments: T = trainee, SBT = school based tutor, M = Mentor, UVT = University Visiting tutor): Trainees MM and CT Weeks Trainee MM Trainee MM/ Trainee CT Trainee CT 26/4 T: Observations, establishing relationships with children, SBT and M; working with peer and starting to team plan; no concerns; has learnt names of children

3/5 T: Developing own whole class mgt strategies; SBT: Trainees settled well; keen and enthusiastic; T: ‘Tried’ behaviour strategies; keeping order is a support and feedback from SBT and M; taught a in planning first week of teaching concerned concern; M and SBT helpful; teaching science. whole science lesson; concerns about planning about contact time; using parallel class PE; trying to learn names; feels more under and class mgt; paired placement not working – control; move to parallel class – will have to learn peer has moved to parallel class but are planning new names. together. “We found after trying to plan this half term we could not get enough whole class contact that we both felt we wanted and needed”; not a ‘personality clash’. 10/5 T: Developing further mgt strategies; feeling the SBT: Concern that as SBT no longer teacher of T: Using mgt strategies; learning new names; need for high level of feedback; planning with class CT is working with, less opportunity for joint planning for English and sharing ideas for peer; more prolific in talking about teaching and ‘chats’. science; feels new class’s behaviour is better. successes. 17/5 SBT: Concern about level of work in having responsibility for 2 students 24/5 T: Mgt strategies working; happy with feedback M: completion of CfCL*; noted support in and support; feels team planning is helping planning from peer. differentiation and assessment; taught a whole UVT: confirming points on CfCL; acknowledging day ‘solo’. need for extra support; concerns – lack of control, use of transmission model of teaching; does not think paired placment was the cause as moved apart early on. 14/6 UVT: using good teaching and mgt strategies; UVT: Researched and applying mgt strategies; excellent relationships with children and adults; relationships with children ‘warm’ but still planning with peer; contributing to school; formal/distant; finds giving positive feedback committed, enthusiastic, creative, hard worker. hard; sharing ideas with peer * Cause for Concern Letter DRAFT

Table 3: Paired Placement Diaries (Codes for comments: T = trainee, SBT = school based tutor, M = Mentor, UVT = University Visiting tutor): Trainees LH and KP Weeks LH LH/KP KP 26/4 T(not dated): Whole T: Basing mgt strategies on SBTs; learnt names of children; planning to class teaching to start arrange contact time problem at first but ‘happy that it will work’; SBT next week; using and M supportive; finding it helpful to work with LH – discussing how reward systems; the day went, different perspective to the class teacher; pleased with ‘fantastic’ support from teaching attempts; working with a parallel class. SBT and M; paired 10/5 placement very SBT: LH and KP settled well; LH and KP taking supportive – planning whole class sessions and group activities; teaching together and ‘solo’, individual and shared activities; work well together – sharing ideas and share ideas and support each other; also teaching in information about the other year groups; developing warm relationships class; taught a music with class; LH developing good atmosphere in lesson. classroom; taking over the planning; use each other as classroom assistants; concerns – contact time, NQT in parallel class limits contact here; feeling ‘generally positive’ about paired placement. 24/5 SBT: Difficult to organise timetables; using class in another year group to get contact time – problems in working with children of different ages/needs/routines, record keeping; problem of ownership; support each other in planning; observing each other teach; discuss outcomes together; still feels it ‘should work’. 28/6 UVT: Using positive mgt strategies; not relaxed in front of whole class; lacking overview or ‘sense of ownership’ or confidence?; good relationships with children but passive; still a trainee –looking for support; developing teaching ideas with peer; “I think that the more limited opportunities for establishing herself in the class provided by the paired placement have impacted negatively on KP. She is the less outgoing and confident of the two and has not asserted herself enough to gain all she could have done, or might have done, in her own classroom. DRAFT

CONCLUSION

There seems little doubt that there is resistance to the use of paired placements in the final practice of the one-year PGCE primary programme in this study. Although the respondents acknowledge the advantages of peer support they also see disadvantages. The main one being that they see no guarantee that they will gain enough contact teaching time to develop the skills necessary to develop as a professional primary class teacher in the traditional sense.

A further reason may be the cultural or traditional view of the role of the primary class teacher. The University of Exeter’s model of initial teacher training is based on the apprenticeship model of learning (Lave and Wenger, 1991 ) whereby a ‘novice’ increases their participation in a community of practice. In this case the novice is the trainee teacher and the community of practice is the teaching profession. Trainee teachers start their training by being on the edge, or the periphery of this community. At this stage they will carry out small aspects of the teacher’s role, such as teaching short episodes. These teaching sessions are informed by observing the experienced teacher. They might also at this stage carry out learning activities that may not be seen as authentic to the teacher’s role but are ‘exercises’ to support their eventual role. As the trainee teacher moves increasingly inwards in this model of participation the feeling that they should be carrying out the authentic work of the class teacher becomes paramount (Edwards & Collison, 1996). A paired placement could legitimise the peripheral participation of trainee teachers but there appears to be a desire to develop competence by moving to full participation, to become the traditional primary class teacher.

This is not to say that the traditional view of the autonomous solo practitioner in the primary classroom is the only possible view and the advantages of collaborative team teaching have been considered (Anderson and Speck, 1998). As the contractual changes of the WAMG come into force in 2004-2005 more schools may employ team teaching and professional learning teams. This will give the status of team teaching a more authentic role on which trainee teachers on a paired placement may model their teaching. It may also prepare trainee teachers for teaching positions asking for these skills.

REFERENCES

Anderson, R. and Speck, B., 1998 “’Oh What a Difference a Team Makes’: Why team teaching makes a difference”, Teaching and Teacher Education, 14(7) 671-686

DfES, 2003, Raising standards and tackling workload: a national agreement – developed by Workforce Agreement Monitoring Group (WAMG)

Calderhead, J., 1987, “The Quality of Reflection in Student Teachers’ Professional Learning”, European Journal of Teacher Education, 10(3) 269-278

Edwards, A. and Collison, J., 1996, Mentoring and Developing Practice in Primary Schools, Buckingham, Open University Press. DRAFT

Guillaume, A. and Rodney, G.,1993, “Student Teachers’ Growth Toward Independence: An analysis of their changing concerns”, Teaching and Teacher Education, 9 (1), 65-80

Katene, W. and Faulkner, G., (in press) It takes two to tango: Perceptions of Peer Teaching as an Effective Learning Strategy in Physical Education. University of Exeter

Lave, J. and Wenger, E.: 1991, Situated Learning: Legitimate Peripheral Participation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press

Maynard, T. and Furlong, G., 1993 “Learning to teach and models of mentoring” in D. Mcintyre, H.Hagger and M.Wilkin (eds) Mentoring: Perspectives on School-Based Teacher Education. London, Kogan 69-85

Perry, J. (2003) Working with Multiple Initial Teacher Training Students: Experiences, Problems and Innovations (TTA/SCITT funded project)

Schon, D.,1987, Educating the reflective practitioner, San Francisco, Jossey-Bass Publishers