THEORETICAL FRAMEWORKS FOR THE PRACTICUM
Di Bloomfield
Director of School Experience
University of New England
Armidale
AARE CONFERENCE: 30 NOV-4 DEC 1997, BRISBANE
ABSTRACT
The process of formulating a competency framework for the practicum
component of the Graduate Diploma in Education course is outlined in
this paper. Issues of power and ownership, implicit in this process
and in the relationship of the participants, are also examined.
The joint development of an appropriate competency framework, by
university and school-based teacher educators, is one response to the
challenge of clearly communicating expectations in learning to all
participants involved in the school experience components of
pre-service teacher education.
Issues pertinent to both the choice of a competency framework and the
collaborative process involved in its development, are examined in the
light of the work of Habermas and Foucault and from a
post-structuralist perspective. Implications for both the structuring
of practicum programs and the shifting roles of all participants within
the practicum are discussed.
INTRODUCTION
In claiming to bridge the sites between schools and the university in
student teacher learning, the practicum is commonly a point of focus
around which issues of power and ownership are contested. The
following binary distinctions are a useful means of highlighting common
planes of tension within the practicum, across which the values and
positions of the participant groups, that is student teachers,
supervising teachers and university lecturers, can range.
1. A university-certified knowledge-base as opposed to teachers' ways
of knowing
2. Hierarchical role relationships as opposed to asymmetrical
collaboration
3. Occupational socialisation into current best practice as opposed to
agendas of school reform and social justice. Cochran-Smith and Paris
(1995:195)
These planes of tension serve to provide fruitful points of focus when
considering a recent project at UNE which involved a group of lecturers
aspiring to work collaboratively with a number of experienced local
teachers. The aim of the project was the improvement of the practicum
programs. Not surprisingly, this work revealed a significant diversity
in values and priorities within the participant group, that proved to
be significant not only to the collaborative intent of the project, but
also to the decisions made by this group. Both the dynamics of this
project and its outcomes can be seen as expressions of the contested
dimensions of power and ownership associated with the practicum.
The impetus to set up a joint working group arose within the university
from a desire to shift their relationship with schools to one in which
not only the benefits of collaborative effort would inform the Graduate
Diploma in Education program, but also a culture of productive critical
inquiry could more effectively link all participants in the practicum.
A particular focus for this paper concerns the decision of the working
group to jointly develop a competency framework to function as a
guiding structure for the practicum. This particular decision was
taken in response to teachers within the group expressing a need for
more explicit statements of the university's expectations for the
practicum. It was hoped that such a structure would lead to
communication amongst those involved in the practicum program that was
clearer and more equitable and provide greater support for supervising
teachers in their assessment role. Within this paper, this particular
decision is analysed in some depth as a means of focussing on the
dynamics within the working group, as well as highlighting issues
pertinent to the practicum in general.
Referring then to the distinctions above drawn by Cochran-Smith and
Paris, with respect to this project, the aim to include the voices of
all participant groups in the practicum, could be seen to signal an
aspiration to transcend the dichotomy between university knowledge and
"teachers' ways of knowing". Paying increased attention to teachers'
voices in the decision making process, could be seen to signal a
valuing of working in ways which are less limited by assumptions of
"hierarchical role relations". The attempt to acknowledge the value of
contributions which differ in knowledge and experience, imply a closer
alignment with Cochran-Smith's concept of "asymmetrical
collaboration". However whilst the joint work within this project had
a stated aim of collaboration, collaborative intent does not
necessarily guarantee acknowledgment of differences in knowledge and
experience. Closer examination of the data from this project suggests
that a collaborative framework, if carrying the expectation for
consensus decision making, can serve to drive particular interests,
needs and desires from the realm of the public to the private. It is
suggested that in response to an expectation to work collaboratively
and to establish agreement in terms of practical outcomes, differences
in priorities and values were retained beneath a surface appearance of
consensus. Individual agendas continued to operate in more subtle and
covert ways, in particular at the level of particular interpretations
of concepts or the practical application of agreed to strategies.
A closer examination of interpretations of the concept of reflective
practice , an area of competency which was particularly highlighted for
inclusion in the competency framework by the group, is pertinent to
this claim. Data from questionnaires and focus group discussion,
revealed the higher priority given by university lecturers to the
"agendas of school reform and social justice" and thus toward a
conception of reflection slanted towards a socially critical
dimension. Some teachers, whilst accepting the need to incorporate a
significant emphasis on reflective practice within the competency
framework, retained a view that reflection should focus largely on an
individual's teaching performance and the extent to which it conforms
to the accepted norms of 'good teaching'. The different degrees of
emphasis and assumed meanings revealed with respect to reflective
practice within this group, could be seen to mirror the extent to which
participants valued "agendas of social reform and social justice" as
opposed to "occupational socialisation into current best practice", the
third area of tension identified by Cochran-Smith and Paris.
What is revealed within relevant literature (McIntyre:1996, Smyth:
1996, Zeichner and Liston: 1985, Zeichner and Gore: 1990) and also
within this working group, is that whether the focus is on teacher
education as a whole, on the practicum, on supervision or on a decision
to incorporate a competency framework, distinct differences in values
and beliefs amongst those involved in the praticum operate. More
specifically, in terms of aspirations for universities to work more
closely with schools in preparing student teachers for induction into
the teaching profession, the potential exists for these different
perspectives not only to be divisive but also to serve to define more
strongly positions taken up by those in the two different spheres of
teacher education, namely the schools and the university. It would
therefore appear to be important to attempt to discern the forces
serving to variously position the participants in the teacher education
enterprise, so that different ways forward may be envisaged. In doing
so it is important not to succumb to simplistically assigning
school-based and university -based participants in collaborative work
to either side of an assumed binary divide, university/school,
theory/practice, and to acknowledge in any interaction the complex,
contradictory, shifting dynamic that seems to be associated with
educational practice.
RELATIONSHIPS BETWEEN SCHOOLS AND UNIVERSITIES PERTINENT TO THE
PRACTICUM
In considering school-university relationships, musical metaphors have
been effectively employed by Cochran-Smith (1991), to identify
underlying assumptions concerning knowledge, power and language within
teacher education. Three contrasting models are proposed, namely
consonance, critical dissonance and collaborative resonance, each
highlighting different relationships between the knowledge bases of
universities and schools.
The first of these, consonance, in describing unison of sounds, is used
to represent relationships where there is an appearance of accord
between schools and the university concerning what constitutes
effective teaching. However, the common language and knowledge-base
within such relationships, in some cases specified in statements of
competency, arise largely from an acceptance of the foundational role
of university-based research and thus commonly an absence of "teachers'
voices" in curriculum construction. Implicit in both the stated
rationales and the structural arrangements of programs based on
consonance is the hegemony of university-based knowledge, expertise and
language. When a decision is made to incorporate a competency
framework into a practicum program, as emerged from this working group,
Cochran-Smith claims that teacher educators are 'training' experienced
teachers by constructing for them both their knowledge base and the
language with which to describe teaching experience. Within this model
therefore it is apparent that "significant messages about power,
knowledge and the process of learning to teach are implicit in
research-based programs based on consonance". (p.107).
Whilst Cochran-Smith's first model claims to align theory with practice
by underpinning both with a common knowledge base, the second model,
critical dissonance, assumes a stronger 'constructivist' view of
learning. It assumes that the links between theory and practice are
constructed by students in the process of their working within a
critical framework. In developing a critical perspective towards the
institutional and instructional arrangements of schooling, the
university-based portions of pre-service preparation serve to focus on
incongruities with the school-based portions. The rationale for such
an approach stems from the belief that much about present programs of
student teaching and in particular the practicum, serves to reproduce
existing practice and lacks a critical perspective. However, like
consonance, this form of relationship privileges university-based
knowledge at the expense of teachers' experiential knowledge. In
addition to signalling an hierarchical view as to the value of various
bodies of knowledge, critical dissonance, in highlighting difference,
can in fact function to heighten a divide between theory and practice
and contribute to what Feiman-Nemser and Buchmann (1985) call the "two
worlds pitfall", the separation of the worlds of practice/schools and
theory/university.
The third model employs the term collaborative resonance, conveying an
image of increasing intensity among echoing sounds. This metaphor is
chosen by Cochran-Smith to represents the assumed intensification of
learning opportunities claimed to come from productive collaborative
work. (Smyth, 1996; Gore, 1995; Wallace and Louden, 1994). It is
assumed that by establishing collaborative communities, the shared
knowledge bases of both schools and universities can be fruitfully
drawn upon and a culture of critical inquiry fostered. In practice
this model involves,
student teachers, cooperating teachers and teacher educators alike ....
in efforts to learn from, interpret and ultimately alter the day-to-day
life of schools, by critiquing the cultures of teaching and schooling,
researching their own practices, articulating their own expertise, and
calling into question the policies and language of schooling that are
taken for granted. (p.110)
Hargreaves (1997: 105) associates the trend within universities towards
the drawing up of more explicit professional standards for teachers via
structures such as competency frameworks with a pressure to defend the
professional status of teaching associated with the marginalisation of
teacher education within these institutions. By defining and
delineating more rigorously the knowledge base of teaching and
developing appropriate theoretical frameworks, he claims education is
moved in status from craft knowledge to "scientific certainty".
However, it is perhaps ironic that this movement within universities to
address issues concerning professionalism with respect to teacher
education, occurs at the same time as interest has increased in what
has been termed "site-based education". What is occurring is a
stronger acknowledgment of schools as crucial sites of student teacher
learning, (Gore, 1995) and an orientation within universities to share
the teacher education enterprise with schools. There is a trend
towards both a greater centralisation of the practicum within teacher
education programs, and also changed roles for those within the
programs. Hargreaves comments concerning the "social geography of
postmodernity" seem apt for the teacher education enterprise, where
"the boundaries between institutions are dissolving, where roles are
becoming less segregated, where borders are becoming increasingly
irrelevant" (1997: 101).
The fact that in this project there was an aspiration to develop a
framework via a collaborative process could indicate the development of
a shared knowledge base and a common language. By the increased
inclusion of teachers' voices within teacher education enterprise, an
acknowledgment of the worth of teachers' knowledge and experience is
conveyed. The metaphor of voice is taken by many as an indicator of
empowerment in implying "a strong sense of identity and purpose; an
ability to express ideas and convictions coherently, and an expectation
of being listened to" (Sumison, 1996:33). Whilst Hargreaves cautions
against assuming a unified "teachers voice" or the tendency in
collaborative work to be selective as to which voices to be receptive
towards, such work inevitably serves to shift power balances and to
hopefully share more widely the sense of ownership of the practicum.
Comments from the teacher participants at the end of the project
frequently indicated that this had occurred, " prior to these meetings
we had never had any chance to have any input and I think it has been a
big plus" and " at least now it would seem like we might be able to
help not only change the system but be part of an ongoing system."
(Soliman, Bloomfield and Levins 1997:13). However, the extent to which
power and ownership were in fact shared in this process cannot be
assumed from its collaborative intent. In terms of Cochran-Smith's
categories, the project's attempt at collaborative work could perhaps
be described as one in which it was hoped to facilitate a shift in
relationship between the university and its practicum schools from that
of consonance and critical dissonance to one of collaborative
resonance. The extent to which this was achieved is the topic of this
paper.
THE DECISION TO INCORPORATE A COMPETENCY FRAMEWORK
The specific choice by the project group to develop a competency
framework as an integral component of the school experience program, in
itself raises several issues, each of interest to consideraations of
power and ownership within the practicum
1. Competency Framework Models
Educators critical of the place of competency frameworks within teacher
education usually assume that they constitute expressions of a
"technical rationalist" approach, characterised by a utilitarian
orientation and informed by scientific principles. Such critical
voices accompanied the development of the National Competency Framework
for Beginning Teachers (NPQTL, 1996), which was chosen as the basis of
the particular practicum framework (see Appendix 2), developed by this
working group (Walker, 1996; Preston and Kennedy, 1995). Whilst this
national framework explicitly claims to be based on an "holistic" or
"integrated" approach to competencies, a "performance or more
behaviouristic conception" of competence is often assumed by those
critical of the place of competencies within teacher education (Preston
and Kennedy, 1995:4). In conceptualising competency in terms of the
relation between an individual's attributes, including knowledge,
physical and social skills, values and dispositions and the performance
of tasks, within a variety of practice contexts, Preston and Kennedy
propose that not only is the complexity of the teaching process
accounted for, with a necessary highlighting of professional judgement,
but also the flexibility to incorporate considerations of context.
Furlong and Maynard (1995 :28), also draw a distinction between
"performance" and "cognitive" models of competence, the latter
encompassing "intellectual, cognitive and attitudinal dimensions as
well as performance", and constituting what they term "intelligent
skill knowledge."(p.31). Not only does this cognitive model assume
that knowledge and understanding are intrinsic and essential to
meaningful action, but also that it encompasses a commitment to
critical reflection.
These two contrasting models in fact reflect the diversity of
approaches to the competency framework revealed within the working
group. Many of the teacher participants, with a priority to improving
clarity of communication between all parties in the practicum, saw
competencies in terms of a useful checklist for observable behaviours
and thus largely as an assessment tool. Comments from some lecturers
however conveyed a higher priority towards the framework contributing
to the students' construction of meaning, as characterised more closely
within the cognitive model. The competency framework, rather than
having the flavour of an assessment tool, for these participants
appeared to be conceptualised more as a support for student learning,
conveyed in such comments as : "learning outcomes from the practicum
should be tailored to each student's needs as identified by an analysis
of the competencies" and competencies should "help supervisors and
students to set goals" and should serve to allow students to "clarify
their rationale / philosophy of teaching". (Bloomfield 1997).
Therefore, despite the collaborative development of the competency
framework, different perceptions of its function emerged. Such a
structure then proved not to be definitive, and perhaps more accurately
functioned as a "text", meanings within which were variously
constructed. From a post-structuralist perspective, the reading of
such a text also serves to construct the identities of those
interacting with it. A similar diversity could therefore be expected
in terms of how the competency framework serves to define the
supervision role and the positions of the student teacher in
relationship to it.
2. Competency Framework as Text.
The inclusion of a competency framework within a program is an action
which serves to define the practicum and the identities of those
functioning within it. It potentially assumes the role of a powerful
text, functioning as a concrete expression of practicum discourse. At
the level of the university-schools relationship, a competency
framework within the practicum, serves to define those elements of
knowledge, skill and values deemed important within teaching practice.
Those that construct such a framework are in fact exerting control not
only of what counts as knowledge, but also at the level of language and
meaning. In purporting to define "good teaching" it provides the
fabric through which student teachers are linked to supervisors, and
thus also exerts some influence over the orientation of the supervisory
relationship itself.
However, it is interesting to consider the extent to which such
articulation of priorities does serve to control the practicum, in
terms of one particular decision, the highlighting of reflective
practice within this framework. The incorporation of specific outcomes
and indicators for reflective practice, was a response to such views as
:
Not just reflection but critical reflection should be a significant
process that is always occurring for ourselves (the lecturers) and our
students. Continually, in all units we should be exploring the
underlying 'taken-for-granted' assumptions". (Bloomfield,1997:10).
Data from group discussion and from questionnaires indicated that
reflection was not only perceived of lower priority by most teachers,
it was also commonly framed by them in terms of a personal evaluation
of the quality of teaching performance rather than as an orientation
towards critically questioning educational practices and contextual
influences. Thus whilst the collaborative efforts of the group
resulted in the inclusion of reflective practice as an essential
competence, comments from participants at the end of the project
indicated the persistence of quite different assumptions concerning the
range of meaning possible for reflection. It was apparent that a
danger exists in assuming that a text can convey fixed meanings via its
language. Any text does not carry with it control over ways in which
the readers will take up meaning. It is within the flexibility
concerning interpretation that any agenda for control, for example
through the designated use of a competency framework, can be
consciously or unconsciously resisted and subverted. Research
pertinent to this issue, (Martin, 1997; Edwards and Collison 1996) has
indicated, that teacher resistance frequently occurs when values and
priorities and the associated forms of supervision advocated by the
university, are not closely congruent with the personal practice of the
teacher:
despite teacher educators' efforts to clarify and promote their teacher
education program ideologies, values or pedagogies, each mentor
(supervisor) will interpret her (sic) role from her own teaching
practice. (Martin: 1997:195)
The competency framework when considreed as discursive text resists the
fixing of meaning. With plurality of meaning, interpretation assumes a
personal dimension and possibilities for oppositional practice,
resistance to control and in fact "reading against the grain" are
afforded.
3. The Competency Framework as an Assessment Tool
Teacher participants in the working group were vocal in identifying
assessment as a stressful procedure within supervision. There was
concern associated with effectively communicating to students the
specific criteria for assessment and for guaranteeing equity of
assessment between students and between different supervisors. A
recent study concerning role-related stress for teachers during
practicum (Fry and Martin, 1996), identified: "Having to accept
responsibility in failing a student teacher" as the most significant
factor, closely followed by "Differing expectations held by the
university", "Lack of clarity regarding duties" and "Exclusion from
decision making". These concerns closely mirrored those expressed by
teachers in the working group, concerns which were influential in the
decision to develop and implement the competency framework within the
practicum. This framework, in aiming to define in explicit statements
the qualities relevant to teaching expertise, was seen to offer for
supervisors greater support in their assessment responsibilities and
thus potentially to contribute towards a more equitable and valid
assessment process.
Some findings concerning stress within the supervision relationship
would suggest that development of explicit statements of expectations
may only partially address stress issues. Research which has
highlighted the significance of the interpersonal dimensions within the
supervisory relationship, offers a different perspective concerning
sources of stress. Ruth Wajnryb's work in linguistic analysis of
supervisory conference conversation arose from a belief that due to the
high value given to the personal relationship during supervision, there
is a "tension between social- and goal-oriented imperatives." (Wajnryb,
1995:72). In analysing the supervisory conference as a speech act of
criticism, and using a linguistic framework of politeness theory, she
describes the conference as having an element of "fragility". This she
associates with what she terms "linguistic mitigation, a strategy
drawing on devices rooted in syntax and semantics that allow
supervisors the choice to undercut the force of their own
assertions"(Wajnryb, 1996:135). Despite the position of the supervisor
carrying the power to "drive the discourse", her analysis of conference
conversations indicated significant linguistic restraint on the part of
the supervisors. The basis of this she claims is a "clash of goals"
between "person-oriented needs" linked to the need to "save face" and
maintain "politeness" and the need to convey a message which
inevitably will have a critical edge. "Face" is representative of a
person's self esteem and thus supervisory conferences potentially
represent what are termed, "Face Threatening Acts" (Brown and Levinson,
1987). Mitigation serves to counteract threat to self esteem in
interaction, either by "positive politeness" whereby the interaction is
"face anointing" and draws upon language more appropriate to
interactions of friendship, or "negative politeness" in which avoidance
strategies are employed. Either of these strategies of mitigation
result in supervisory interactions which are inadequate in terms of
clarity, authority and productivity.
Her research clearly substantiates the significance of stress within
supervision identified within the working group, and in addition offers
another perspective on the role that the competency framework may
possibly play within the supervisory relationship. The competency
framework itself could function as a device which diminishes the
influence of the personal elements within the supervisory relationship,
by serving to metaphorically and physically distance the participants.
For example, the language of the framework is indefinite, expressed in
the impersonal language of statements of rule, regulation or
obligation. There is pronoun avoidance, "the student will..", rather
than "you will...", which serves to impersonalise interaction. The
framework, if taken as an official statement of expectations with which
a supervisor must comply, establishes a neutral ground which allows the
supervisor to increase the space between themselves and critical
comment. It thus could serve to diminish the clash Wanjryb proposes
between "person-orientated needs" and the need to convey critical
messages to the student By reducing the stress levels in what can be
a "emotionally charged situation", such a competency framework may
reduce the power of the "face-threatening-act" and allow supervisors to
present students with valid critical information and perhaps more
effectively focus on pedagogy. (Mansfield, 1986).
4. The Competency Framework with a Developmental Perspective
Analysis of a large number "learning to teach" models, in relationship
to a range of pre-service teacher education programs, led Kagan (1992)
to claim significant deficiencies in the way major developmental tasks
were identified and addressed within most teacher education programs.
For the teachers within this working group, the absence of a clear
developmental model within the practicum was perceived as significant
to the difficulty experienced in assessing students equitably.
Consequently, the teachers called for sets of expectations that could
define student performance in explicit terms for each of the three
practicum components within the Grad Dip Ed program, as consistent with
a developmental view of student teacher learning. The incorporation of
a developmental perspective within the competency framework thus had a
primary aim of contributing towards equity of assessment. However it
also presented the university with an opportunity to highlight as a
priority the development students' ownership of their own learning
journey. Associated with this was an aim to focus discussion towards a
developmental perspective with respect to supervisory relationships for
different student developmental stages. The developmental framework
employed, derived from work by Furlong and Maynard (1995) (see Appendix
1) , proposes a shift in supervision role from "model" to "coach" to
"critical friend" and finally "co-enquirer". The progression through
these forms of supervision relationship supports not only the
progressive development of student teacher autonomy and a reduction of
hierarchy within the supervision relationship, but also a shift in
critical focus from self towards broader external social and cultural
issues pertinent to teaching practice.
As with the decision to incorporate a focus on reflective practice, the
inclusion of a developmental perspective within the competency
framework, whilst arising from what appears to be collaborative
decision making, seemed to serve quite different agendas and concerns
within the group. The developmental perspective provided a more
specific assessment tool when integrated with the competency framework,
a detailed guide by which student teachers could chart their learning
journey and an opportunity to articulate appropriate supervision
strategies linked to each developmental stage. In particular, the
developmental perspective provided the opportunity to develop a model
of supervision which could incorporate significant shifts from what
could be termed the "apprenticeship model" to a less hierarchical
co-learner, or co-professional model. As with the decision to
incorporate a reflective practice perspective, collaborative
decision-making when examined at more depth, in fact encompassed the
satisfaction of quite different priorities and concerns within this
group
The place of difference and diversity within collaborative work is an
important consideration. In Andy Hargreave's (1994, 1997) work
concerning 'change' and in particular his efforts in questioning the
relevance of 'collaboration' within the change process, the importance
of acknowledging and accommodating difference is emphasised. In recent
work (1997), he stresses the importance of also acknowledging feelings
and emotions within the practice of educational change. With respect
to collaboration, he advocates moving beyond what he terms, the "safe
ones (emotions) like trust, supportiveness and satisfaction" to those
of greater passion and consequently risk, inevitably associated with
the articulation of difference(p.14). Referring to Goleman's work
(1995) concerning "emotional intelligence" and advocating such a
capacity as integral to effective collaborative work, he calls for the
heightened emotions accompanying diversity within change to be
acknowledged and embraced. In a similar vein, Michael Fullan refers to
"hope" within educational change :
Frustration, disagreement, intractable problems are common fare.
Working together under these circumstances takes on radically different
meaning and urgency. It's not a matter of having trusting
relationships with like-minded people.....If we are to get anywhere on
a larger scale, we have to take on "negative" emotion. Hope is not
blind. It recognises that disagreement and matters of power are
central to working through the discomfort of diversity. (Hargreaves,
1997: 231)
Such a view implies that it is in the acknowledgment of difference and
the expression of the associated mix of emotions, that the fruitfulness
implied in Cochran-Smith's conception of "collaborative resonance" can
be attained. However it is with respect to "the matters of power" that
the degree to which difference is accommodated within processes that
aspire towards collaboration must be considered. Within this group
process it is also perhaps considerations of power relations that are
necessary to cast light on the ways in which difference was
accommodated and expressed.
HABERMAS AND COGNITIVE INTERESTS
Jurgen Habermas' theory of "knowledge-constitutive interests" as
outlined by Grundy (1989) appears to provide a valuable foundational
framework with which to explore diversity within educational theory and
practice. It is by discerning the interplay of the diverse interests
within a group brought together for the purpose of consensus work, that
the dynamic between different epistemological positions and their
associated discourses can become clearer. For Habermas, meanings are
found within discourse and discourses are products of human interests.
Whilst recognising the plurality of subjects, he claims that consensus
in meaning and subjectivity are products of communicative interaction.
Within Habermas' theory of cognitive interests, it is claimed that
knowledge is generated and organised in our society, according to an
interplay between three areas of interest, namely technical, practical
and emancipatory.
The technical interest, prioritises control through rule-following
action, assumed to arise from empirically grounded laws. Assuming a
positivist view of knowledge, technical interest values theory to the
extent that it is practical and prescriptive as opposed to
propositional. The decision to orientate the practicum curriculum
around a competency framework could be seen to fit closely with such an
interest. The framework, if taken to be a tool developed in response
to a technical interest would be assumed to be objective and
value-free. If developed within the authority of university certified
knowledge, the knowledge base from which it is derived and the
development process itself isolated from those involved with its
implementation. By prioritising the technical interest within the
practicum, the student teacher as learner is objectified, and the
learning process closely controlled within a hierarchical progression
from the university through the supervisor to the student teacher. In
reference to the developmental dimension of the competency framework
(see Appendix 1), and in particular, the forms of supervision
associated with each of the developmental stages, a technical interest
would seem to be closely aligned with supervisory roles identified as
"model" or "coach". Within such conceptions of supervision, a clear
hierarchy exists in terms of control over those forms of knowledge
given unquestioned status, what counts as appropriate skill and
expertise and the extent to which a critical orientation is possible.
Habermas' second knowledge constitutive interest, the practical
interest assumes knowledge construction to be subjective not objective
and understanding as emerging from practitioner interaction. The
outcome is a consensual development of meaning. Within the sphere of
this interest, with both students and teachers viewed as interpreters
of the curriculum, each exercising judgement, the focus is on
meaningfulness as opposed to effectiveness. With respect to the place
of a competency framework, the outcomes and indicators within its
structure would be viewed as hypotheses to be tested in classroom
practice. With assessment focussed more towards understanding than
performance, the framework becomes less appropriate as a prescriptive
assessment tool. The parameters for assessment would perhaps be more
negotiated, supporting students in judging their own practice within
the context of the learning situation. If viewed as a informative
guide to practice, participants in the practicum would assume greater
ownership of their learning experiences. It would be assumed then to
function less as a an instrument of surveillance and control. It is
evident that those supervision roles within the developmental model
identified as "critical friend" or "co-enquirer" draw closer to
functioning as expressions of a practical interest.
Habermas' third area of cognitive interest is the emancipatory. It
arises from the critical science field, and is described in terms of :
a fundamental interest in emancipation, and empowerment to engage in
autonomous action arising out of authentic, critical insights into the
social construction of human society. (Grundy, 1987:19)
The emancipatory interest in Habermas' view, combines both autonomy and
responsibility. It assumes a critical consciousness which aims toward
forms of responsible action addressing issues of justice and equity.
The empowerment inherent in autonomous action relies on a reflexive
link between action and self-reflection, with reflection slanted
towards a critical dimension Evaluation in terms of emancipatory
interest, is not simply "a look at the work of learning", but embraces
a critique of what is learnt and why.
Whilst it is evident that any enterprise will have all three
"interests" operational to varying extents, Habermas' work appears to
set up the emancipatory interest as an ideal. He cites autonomy and
responsibility as fundamental interests, and according to Grundy (1987:
17) justifies their prioritising from this perspective:
There must be an interest in freeing persons from the coercion of the
technical and the possible deceit of the practical.
In considering these fundamental interests, responsibility can be
clearly linked to the importance given by Habermas to development and
application of a critical social conscience within education. Autonomy
in action however could seem at odds with an aim towards "consensual
judgement making", perhaps emphasising individual meaning-making and
action at the expense of the collaborative? For Habermas however the
term autonomy, when utilised within the context of emancipation,
appears to carry the meaning of either individuals or groups operating
with a freedom from, or autonomy with respect to, the distorting
influences of ideology. The emancipatory interest thus would lead to
an aspiration to operate with an awareness of the political power of
hegemonic discourses, to discern ways in which meaning is prioritised
and thus with the freedom to apply a critical consciousness to
political and practical action. It is in fact embracing of
collaborative work rather than at odds with it.
With respect to the process involved in the development of the
competency framework by the working party, Habermas' theory of
cognitive interests aligns the practical interest with any process
involving consensual decision making. However, in this particular
process, because the university assumed the major responsibility for
guiding outcomes, and largely defined the parameters within which
shared meanings could be developed, a technical interest was not absent
from this process. It is on this basis that Habermas would see the
potential for "deceit" within a process which purports to be
collaborative. Pertinent to this view also is Hargreave's (1994)
identification of ways in which claims of collaboration can be
problematic. Thus with respect to what he terms "contrived
collaboration"....
collaboration can be administratively captured, contained and
controlled in ways that make it stilted, unproductive and wasteful of
teachers' energies and efforts. collaboration"
(p. 247).
It is within the dynamic between overt collaborative claims and covert
intentions of control, that the interplay between technical and
practical interests lies, and the potential for deceit. With respect
to the other dimension of emancipatory interest, that of
responsibility, and in particular the expression of a critical social
conscience, priorities seemed to vary within the group. For some,
developing teachers as independent critical thinkers emerged as a
priority. The stronger priority for the majority of teachers, appeared
to be associated with their feeling of responsibility to the profession
and what they perceived as maintaining necessary standards. Comments
were made within this group which indicated the strength of the
relationship the teachers perceived between their roles as assessors
within the practicum and that of "gate-keepers" of the profession.
Shirley Grundy sees professionalism as being guided by a practical
interest, in that she claims the traditions of the profession, the
guiding rules, are formally and informally developed within the
consensual practice of its practitioners. However, perhaps what was
revealed in this working group in reference to the practicum, was
tension between school-based and university based educators as to who
in fact are the "practitioners" and who has the responsibility to
define and guard the traditions or the norms of the profession. Work
informed by an emancipator interest would involve creating a climate of
critical reflection with an aim "to get behind the traditions", and
thus to bring forward the shared and divergent understandings taken to
define the profession. By this process perhaps, our understanding of
difference within apparent consensus could have been strengthened.
Consensus in essence is reaching a point of agreement as to what can
serve as "truth", the "norms" accepted as valid points of reference
around which difference can cohere. Essentially in developing a
competency framework to express appropriate expectations for the
practicum, this group was involved in work which aimed at reaching
consensus as to what are the areas of "truth" or the accepted meanings
and norms that serve to define the profession of teaching.
Consensus theories of truth recognise that within the construction of
human knowledge, what we are prepared to count as truth is that which
groups of people are prepared to agree is true. However, consensus
must be freely arrived at, not the product of coercion. Thus truth,
freedom and a justice that arises from the equality of participation,
all operate to make consensus and thus truth possible. "Truth" is one
of four 'validity claims' Habermas identified as significant to every
speech act. (Smyth, 1988: 106) Together with comprehensibility,
sincerity and appropriateness, these considerations serve to focus
attention on the extent to which consensus can arise as opposed to
coercion, in any dialogue. Habermas claims we can aspire to a neutral
situation of free dialogue. However, there is ambiguity identified
within Habermas' theories of communicative action. (Young 1990,
Cherryholmes, 1988). He appears to retain a commitment to the "moral
point of view" that of a "generalised other", thus supporting the view
that our search for knowledge cannot proceed without normative
commitments, " a standpoint of universal normative reason that
transcends particularist perspectives" (Young, 1990:106). Yet in any
democratic discussion, where participants express their needs, no one
speaks from an impartial point of view, nor does anyone appeal to a
general interest. By constructing a point of "impartial moral reason",
it could be claimed that Habermas sets up a dichotomy between a
"general will" and particular interests.
Because of this, particularity, feeling, inclination, needs and desire
are expelled from the universality of moral reason. (However )
Feelings desires and commitments do not cease to exist and motivate
just because they have been excluded from the definition of moral
reason. They lurk as inarticulate shadows, belying the claim to
comprehensiveness of universalist reason". (Young, 1990:103)
A distinction is thus created between the "the public as a realm of
reason as opposed to a private realm of desire and feeling." (Young,
1990:117). The establishment of a competency framework by consensus
can be seen as a process by which a normative position with respect to
the practice of teaching is defined. This process is underpinned by
assumptions of unity and universalism. As with Young's claim with
respect to an "impartial moral reason" such a process could be claimed
to create a dichotomy which privileges the universal and thus serves
to drive underground the personal and the particular. If the normative
position cannot be established in a way which satisfies the validity
claims as outlined by Habermas, consensus will not be achieved and
elements of difference, rather than providing "grist" to the
collaborative process will be isolated within "the private realm of
desire and feeling". What needs to be considered more closely then is
the extent to which the normative truths represented within a
competency framework, can be developed in such a way that dominant
human interests and power arrangements do not undermine the reaching of
a valid state of consensus.
FOUCAULT AND THE DISCOURSE OF POWER.
Habermas shares with the French post-modernist philosopher Foucault an
important assumption, the rejection of any separation of knowledge from
power, and the belief that "normative commitments, human interests,
ideologies and power arrangements infiltrate what we claim to know"
(Cherryholmes,1988: 91). However, where these two philosophers diverge
is in their understanding of "truth". Habermas could be seen as
essentially idealistic in appearing to propose that democratic and free
speech is capable of uncovering and working beyond underlying power
structures and ideologies, and as such in establishing a consensus of
"truth". Foucault is less optimistic and summarises the relationship
between truth and power in the following passage:
Truth is a thing of this world: it is produced by virtue of multiple
forms of constraint. And it induces regular effects of power. Each
society has its regime of truth: that is the types of discourse which
it accepts and makes function as true; the mechanisms and instances
which enable one to distinguish true and false statements, the means by
which each is sanctioned; the techniques and procedures accorded value
in the acquisition of truth; the status of those who are charged with
saying what counts as true. (1980: 131)
Thus any project seeking consensus, seeking to reach some point of
"truth", in Foucault's view will always be undermined by the specific
commitments, interests and power associated with the institutions or
individuals involved. 'Truth' then in this view will always have the
status of a political position, a norm or reference point without any
transcendental validity beyond that defined and maintained by the most
powerful voices. Post-structural criticism would seek to uncover ways
in which those powerful voices within institutions constitute and
regulate the discourses that articulate the positions of 'truth'.
The power associated with any discursive practices may be visible or
invisible. Within the context of the practicum, the visible expressions
of power are contained within for example the School Experience
Handbooks which outline roles and expectations for student teachers,
their supervisors and the university. The competency framework for the
practicum could be seen as an even more specific expression of power.
Discourses determine who has the authority to "speak", what is valid
knowledge, and the beliefs and values of those moulded by the
discourse. In addition, power from a post-structural perspective
shapes subjective feelings and beliefs and thus identities or
subjectivities. This is the invisible face of power, operating at more
subtle levels by shaping desire, by defining for the individual the
beliefs, values and behaviours to be taken up by those who operate
within the realm of the particular discourse-practices.
Foucault, in highlighting the power relations within any discursive
field, termed structures such as competency frameworks, "technologies
of power" (Sarup, 1988:64). He claims that it sets up a normalising
set of assumptions serving to define standards, in this case for the
behaviour of student teachers within the practicum. It is an overt
expression of the beliefs of those who assume authority within the
practicum. However the joint development process sought to incorporate
the voices of all the practitioners, aiming to achieve a sharing of
authority between schools and the university within the practicum
endeavour. Once incorporated into the practicum program, the
competency framework articulates what this group of educators perceive
as the necessary attributes for the student teacher at each stage of
their school experience within this program. It thus carries the power
to define the parameters of the "good student". It becomes a concrete
structure within which students are guided to position themselves in
order that they can be acknowledged by those within the profession. It
thus becomes potentially a structure of surveillance and disciplinary
power, both at the individual level and in terms of the perceived norms
of the profession.
Let me emphasise that using criteria such as these is not necessarily
inappropriate; the point is that they are normative and cultural rather
than neutrally scientific. That is, they concern whether the person
evaluated supports and internalises specific values, follows implicit
or explicit social rules of behaviour, supports social purposes, or
exhibits specific traits of character, behaviour, or temperament that
the evaluators find desirable. Use of normative and cultural criteria
in addition to and intertwined with evaluation of technical competence
is for the most part unavoidable.
Young, 1990: 204.
The notion of disciplinary power is vividly illustrated in Foucault's
presentation of the eighteenth century architect, Jeremy Bentham's
panopticon . This architectural structure designed for a prison,
consisted of a central tower surrounded by a semi-circle of individual
cells. Each inmate could be observed from the central point, however
none could know whether they were at any moment under surveillance or
not, and thus according to Foucault each took on the policing of their
own behaviour. Disciplinary power thus became internalised.
He (sic) who is subjected to a field of visibility, and who knows it,
assumes responsibility for the constraints of power; he makes them play
spontaneously upon himself; he inscribes in himself the power relation
in which he simultaneously plays both roles; he becomes the principle
of his own subjection. (Foucault, 1977: 202-203)
The competency framework then within this analysis could be termed a
"technology of self"' which serves to not only to define identities but
also to regulate the individuals. It is fruitful here to reflect again
on the different conceptions developed within the group as to the role
of this framework. For those whose priority is its use as an
assessment tool, an explicit documentation of expectations which can be
referred to by the university in seeking to define the supervision
role, or by the supervisor as the assessor of the student teacher, the
potential for control is clearly offered However, if the priority is
in terms of the competency framework as a guide to learning, to be
drawn on by both the student teacher and the educators, school and
university-based, the dimension of surveillance diminishes. There is
an increased potential for empowerment, via the more open access it
provides for all, to the dominant discourse functioning within the
practicum.
What emerges as a vital consideration in this process of implementing
change is how the participants within the practicum position themselves
and thus form an identity relative to the competency framework. It is
evident that it has the potential to empower both students and their
supervisors by sharing a body of knowledge which claims to express the
elements of teaching expertise. It also carries the potential to
diminish the participants' sense of power if taken up as an instrument
of surveillance.
Change, when seen as "engineered social change in a democratic society"
is claimed by Bronwyn Davies to require engagement with each of the
following:
* the structure and organisational patterns inside of which people
function
* the discourses through which those patterns are spoken into
existence, and
* individuals' patterns of desire (1996: 15)
The competency framework, explicitly placed within the curriculum of
the practicum represents a change in "structure and organisational
patterns". The cooperative development of the framework as text
represents an attempt to change the discourse, for example to make it
more inclusive of the teachers' work place knowledge. However as
Davies states :
"Discourses or discursive practices may shape individuals, their
inner/outer bodies, their patterns of desire. Or they may remain
separate from practice and desire" (p. 16)
It is the relationship perhaps between change and individual patterns
of desire, which is the most fundamental and yet most illusive element
within this process. Drawing on a post-structuralist framework, Davies
claims that desire is closely aligned with our sense of self. Desire
is complex. Individuals are shaped by multiple discourses , " ways of
knowing and desiring overlay each other, bump into each other, inform
each other" (p. 17). However it is by individual or collective
deconstruction of "the storylines, metaphors, images and practices
through which we know who we are" (Davies, 1990: 501), those multiple
discourses that shape us, that we can change our patterns of desire.
"It is by recognising the constitutive force of discourse, we can see
ourselves as being spoken into existence. We can also see both the
potency of speaking in new ways and the possibility of refusing old,
undesirable ones" (p. 504).
This is perhaps a more optimistic view than emerges from Foucault's
work. Whilst collaborative work may not have the potential to reach
some point of 'universal truth', it can work at the level of supporting
individuals and groups to unveil the discourses that interact with
their own patterns of desire. From such knowledge comes a stronger
sense of agency for all participants within a change process, and the
potential for that change to be more than superficial consensus. As
such, perhaps this is the fundamental challenge for collaborative work,
the inclusion of the personal, the interaction with individual patterns
of desire.
CONCLUSION
The crucial factor with respect to issues of power and ownership within
the practicum, particularly in terms of the introduction of a new
competency framework, seems to lie in the way it is positioned within
the practicum program. If offered as a definitive statement of
expectations that serve to define in a non debatable way the "good
student" on their developmental journey, it could serve to cement
hierarchical, disempowering practices that would seem to be at odds
with the collaborative aspirations of this working group. However, it
could be presented with an expectation, that as with any text,
deconstruction of the various assumptions and of the political and
cultural agendas underlying the choice, construction and implementation
of it as a framework, would empower those working within it. This
would open the possibility for discerning ways in which such change
within a program may serve to shift "patterns of desire", limiting or
expanding the ways in which the roles of lecturer, teacher or student
can be constructed within the practicum and each person's sense of
empowerment within it.
REFERENCES
Bloomfield, D. (1997). Competency Frameworks and Reflective Practice:
A Litmus Test for Collaboration within the Practicum. Unpublished
Paper.
Brown, P., & Levinson, S.,C. 1987. Politeness: Some universals in
language usage. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Cherryholmes, C.H. (1988) Power and Criticism: Poststructural
Investigations in Education. New York: Teachers' College Press.
Cochran-Smith, M. (1991). Reinventing Student Teaching. Journal of
Teacher Education, 42(2), 104-118.
Cochran-Smith, M., & Paris, C.L. (1995) Mentor and Mentoring: Did
Homer Have it Right? In J. Smyth, Critical Discourses on Teacher
Development. (181-202).
Davies,B. (1996) Power Knowledge Desire: Changing school organisation
and management practices. Canberra: DEETYA.
Davies, B. (1990) The Problem of Desire. Social Problems, 37(4),
501-516.
Edwards, A., & Collison, . 1996) Mentoring and Developing Practice in
Primary Schools. Philadelphia: Open University Press.
Feiman-Nemser, S., & Buchmann, M. (1985). Pitfalls of Experience in
Teacher Preparation. Teachers College Record, 87 (1), 53-65.
Foucault, M. (1980) Power and Knowledge. New York: Pantheon Books.
Foucault, M. (1977) Discipline and Punish: The Birth of the Prison.
New York: Pantheon Books.
Fry, G., & Martin, A. (1996). Teacher Stress During the Practicum.
PEPE Research Monograph: 1, 61-81.
Fullan,M. (1997). In A. Hargreaves (Ed), ASCD Year Book: Rethinking
Educational Change with Heart and Mind. (216-233).
Furlong, J., & Maynard, T. (1995) The Growth of Professional
Knowledge: Mentoring Student Teachers. London: Routledge.
Goleman, D. (1995). Emotional Intelligence. New York: Bantam Books.
Gore, J. (1993) The Struggle for Pedagogies: Critical and Feminist
Discourses as Regimes of Truth. New York: Routledge.
Gore, J. M. (1995). Emerging Issues in Teacher Education. Innovative
Links Project.
National Project on the Quality of Teaching and Learning. (NPQTL) 1996
National Competency Framework for Beginning Teachers. Leichhardt,
Australian Teaching Council.
Grundy, S. (1987). Curriculum: Product or Praxis. London:Falmer
Press.
Hargreaves, A. (1994). Changing Teachers, Changing Times. London:
Cassell.
Hargreaves, A. (1997). Rethinking Educational Change: Going deeper and
wider in the quest for success. In A. Hargreaves (Ed), ASCD Year
Book.: Rethinking Educational Change with Heart and Mind.(1-26),
Alexandria, VA: ASCD.
Hargreaves, A. (1997). The Four Ages of Professionalism and
Professional Learning. `Unicorn 23(2), 86-114.
Kagan, D. (1992) Professional Growth Among Pre-Service and Beginning
Teachers. Review of Educational Research, 62(2), 129-169.
McIntyre (Eds) Developing Competent Teachers. London: David Fulton
Publishers.
McIntyre, D. J., Byrd, D. M. & Foxx,S. M. (1996) Field and Laboratory
Experiences. In J. Sikula (Ed) Handbook of Research on Teacher
Education.. New York: Macmillan.
Mansfield, P. A. (1986) Patchwork Pedagogy: a case of supervisors'
emphasis on pedagogy in post-lesson conferences. Journal of Education
for Teaching, 12(3), 259-271.
Martin, D. (1997). Mentoring in One's Own Classroom: An Exploratory
Study of Contexts. Teaching and Teacher Education. 13(2), 183-197.
Preston, B., Kennedy, K. J. (1995) Issues and principles for the
application of the Draft National Competency Framework for Beginning
Teaching to initial teacher education. Canberra, Working Party on
Teacher Competencies.
Sarup, M. 1993 Post-Structuralism and Postmodernism (2nd edition)
New York: Harvester Wheatsheaf.
Smyth, W. J. (1988) A 'critical pedagogy' of teacher evaluation.
Geelong: Deakin University.
Smyth, J. (1996). Schools as Critical Collaborative Communities :
Working Papers. Flinders Institute for the Study of Teaching.
Soliman, I., Bloomfield, D., & Levins, L. (1997). Collaboration of
School and University-Based Teacher Educators for the Improvement of
the Practicum in Pre-Service Teacher Education. University of New
England.
Sumison, J. (1996) Empowering Beginning Student Teachers: challenges
for teacher educators. Asia-Pacific Journal of Teacher Education
24(1), 33-46.
Wajnryb, R. (1995). Teachers' Perceptions of Mitigation in Supervisory
Discourse: a report of a pilot study. South Pacific Journal of
Teacher Education, 23(1), 71-82.
Wajnryb, R. The Pragmatics of Feedback: Supervision as a Clash of
Goals Between Message and Face. PEPE Research Monograph: 1, 135-154.
Walker, J. (1996). Professional Standards for Teachers in Australia.
In D. Hustler & D.
Wallace, J., & Louden, W. (1994). Collaboration and the Growth of
Teachers' Knowledge. Qualitative Studies in Education, 7(4), 323-334.
Young, I. M. (1990). Justice and the Politics of Difference. New
Jersey: Princeton University Press
Zeichner, K. M. & Gore, J.M.(1990) Teacher Socialisation In Houston,
R.W. (Ed), Handbook of Research on Teacher Education. New York:
Macmillan.
Zeichner, K. M. & Liston, D. (1985). Varieties of Discourse in
Supervisory Practices Teaching and Teacher Education 1 (2), 155-174).
Bal intelligence" and advocating such a capacity as integral to effective collaborative work, he calls for the heightened emotions accompanying diversity within change to be acknowledged and embraced.