Sociology and Teaching

A New Challenge for the Sociology of Education

Peter Woods, Andrew Pollard, Peter Woods, Andrew Pollard

• Publisher: Routledge
• Year: 2017
• ISBN:
  9781351838443
• Edition: 1
• Topic: Education
• Subtopic: Education General

First published in 1988, this work considers the ways in which the sociology of education can inform educational practice. It examines the research which marries the two fields and considers the thinking behind it. It addresses key themes such as: sociological awareness or imagination, and how it might be stimulated and enriched by educational study; reflectivity for both teachers and sociologists; and ethnography, the major research orientation behind most of these studies.

Part 1

Sociology and Teacher Education

1

The Sociology of Education and the Theory-Practice Relationship in Teacher Training

Margaret Wilkin

EDITORIAL NOTE

In this initial paper Margaret Wilkin provides an overview of the relationship between theory and practice in teacher education during the 1970s and 1980s when the status and influence of the educational disciplines declined and that of the professional dimension of teaching increased. The influence of a number of potential agencies of change are considered. It is concluded that these agencies have played a negligible role except where they have been able to respond to opportunities created by central government. In the context of these structural and policy changes, Wilkin envisages a new role for the sociology of education if it can take advantage of the ‘space’ created by the rise in importance of professional aspects of teacher education. She is particularly optimistic about the possibilities for promoting theoretically informed classroom practice.

INTRODUCTION

The recent publication of a paper asking “What is the Use of the Sociology of Education?” (Leigh, 1986) is perhaps indicative of the current status of educational theory within teacher training. A decade ago it is unlikely that such a question would have been raised except perhaps by a perplexed or dissatisfied student. Then there was little doubt about the value of the sociology of education for intending teachers. It was to ‘illuminate’ or ‘inform’ practice. Today the disciplines of education rarely feature discretely in the curricula of teaching training institutions and the gradual erosion of their status, relative to that of practice – that is professional or methods courses, and time spent in schools – is one of the remarkable changes which has taken place in teacher education over the last two decades.

There are a number of factors which could have contributed to this development, and five of the most frequently cited potential sources of influence will be reviewed in turn, before the current position and function of the sociology of education is reconsidered. The five factors chosen are: the training institutions themselves, the Council for National Academic Awards (CNAA), the philosophers of education (and others) who have contributed to the ‘Academic Debate’ on the relationship between theory and practice, the National Union of Teachers, and finally, central government. In reviewing their respective effects on the curricula of the teacher training institutions, it cannot be assumed that any one of these bodies or institutions has contributed to the decline in the disciplines of education and to the emergence of professional courses as such a dominant preoccupation in teacher education in the same manner and to the same extent throughout the years since the Robbins Report Consistency of influence over two decades would be surprising; variability of influence is to be expected. It is also to be expected that constraints of varying power and effectiveness could have impeded the influence of any one of these areas to a greater or lesser extent, and some of these will be considered. It is concluded that, although the first four of the factors mentioned above may have shaped the shifting balance between theory and practice to a limited extent, it is nevertheless central government which has been the principle motivating force in this regard. This has been accomplished overtly and obviously (e.g. the James Report (DES, 1972)), but also less obtrusively by creating ‘spaces’ by which means one or other of the remaining four factors could enter into and help to determine the evolution of the theory-practice relationship.

THE CHANGING RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN THEORY AND PRACTICE IN THE TRAINING CURRICULUM

The trend away from a training which gives considerable weight to disciplinary-based educational theory to one which gives priority to practice can be detected in a number of slight but subtle shifts in the structure of the curricula of training institutions. These modifications were slow initially but have accelerated during the late 1970s and 1980s, and have taken place in both BEd and PGCE courses. (The following trends are just a few of those which can be abstracted from: Alexander and Wormald, 1979; DES, 1979; McCulloch, 1979; Alexander and Whittaker, 1980; McNamara and Ross, 1982; Patrick, Bernbaum and Reid, 1982; DES, 1986; Furlong et al., 1986). The time spent by students in schools as measured in half days, has gradually increased. It is not at all uncommon to find block teaching practice supplemented by continuous or serial school experience for one or two days a week. The disciplines of education, if they appear at all as discrete subjects on the timetable, may be offered only as ‘introductions to …’ at first year level, and thereafter featured as options; or the limited time given to them is sometimes described as no more than ‘an acquaintance with …’ The disciplines may be ‘integrated’ or ‘applied’, contributing their respective insights to a single theme, which has been chosen for its relevance for classroom practice. The methods, perspectives and content of the sociology of education may be found in a residual and limited form under professional studies: Every course except two contains elements which could reasonably be termed educational studies’. Assessments have become re-weighted in favour of the professional aspects of the programme. Changes of nomenclature and status also reflect the fall from grace of educational theory. Teaching practice has become ‘school experience’, and ‘school-based training’ has accumulated its proponents. Departments of professional studies are created, and education studies come under their auspices. Deans of education disappear overnight to be replaced in college hierarchies by heads of professional studies. The humble ‘curriculum studies’ is now transmogrified and becomes ‘Advanced Professional Units’ taken at fourth year levels. Seminars in educational theory are held in schools and attended by practising teachers who contribute their expertise. Microteaching and other forms of skills training have been introduced, or students are required to develop personal theories of practice grounded in their classroom experience. These changes may be represented by two comments taken from the course accounts of two different colleges:

The structure of the course was designed to obliterate the traditional distinction between education and curriculum studies, uniting them both in the concept of professional (Alexander and Wormald, 1979, p.118).

Perhaps our most significant step was to define practical teaching as a subject. (Ibid., p. 145).

The new ‘school-based’ training which is emerging to surplant the theory-dominated courses of yesteryear, gives power and prominence to practice. Students will spend long hours in school, learning the craft of their profession from the practitioner. This must necessarily reduce the time available for educational theory as formerly taught, for an increased commitment to subject method, whether at primary or secondary level, must also be accommodated. Educational theory, including the sociology of education, has .since the late 1970s been on the wane.

To the sociologist of education, the loss of power and influence of the discipline may be seen as a threat, a disappointment, a challenge. The interpretive sociology of the 1970s did seem to offer not only insight into many of the problems which appear to be endemic in our schools, but also the hope of rectifying them. It implied both the possibility of influencing teacher behaviour and of shaping policy. That the sociology of education seems to have failed to change practitioner behaviour significantly can perhaps be attributed both to the teaching methods commonly found in the teacher training institutions and to the presentation of sociological findings. Following the recommendation of the Robbins Report (DES, 1963) that teacher education should be of degree standard, the formal teaching of the four disciplines of education became a means of demonstrating the academic respectability of the colleges. The disciplines of education were limited to the final year of the course, boundary maintenance between subjects was high, and their intrinsic value, rather then their potential worth as aids to the enhanced understanding of practice, was taken as axiomatic. Tutors in the new educational studies were recruited as much on the basis of their academic qualifications as for their professional experience. To the student, sociology of education was ‘theory’, and educational theory, however intrinsically interesting, has always had a bad press, unless its applicability for practice is immediate and obvious (e.g. Crompton, 1977; Patrick, Bernbaum and Reid, 1982). Even ethnographic accounts may seem irrelevant, for they have often been presented in an unfamiliar and esoteric style, which seems to disguise their utility for the inexperienced student confronting the problems of classroom management and control.

Teachers, on the other hand, tend to regard educational theory as the responsibility of the training institution. As one teacher recently expressed it The colleges talk about educational theory from books. It’s my job to deal with Johnny’s nosebleed or new pencils’ (Furlong et al., 1986, p.22). The disciplines of education are disregarded because the demands of the classroom take precedence. (There may be other reasons why teachers have ignored theory – that they have only limited access to it now that financial constraints have reduced the opportunities for in-service training, for example.)

But the decline in the sociology of education in the content of teacher education cannot be attributed to its perceived irrelevance alone since, as has already been pointed out, the dominance of disciplinary-based educational theory as a whole has been weakened. It is to a consideration of the factors contributing to this development that we now turn.

THE INFLUENCE OF THE TRAINING INSTITUTIONS

One source of pressure for change has been remarkably constant. This is what might be termed ‘in-house disquiet’. It has already been mentioned that over the years students have railed against the lack of applicability of educational theory for their work in schools. The conceptual and professional advantages of the greater integration of theory and practice have also been recognised and justified by the staff of the training institutions (Alexander and Wormald, 1979; Alexander and Whittaker, 1980). But dissatisfaction with the status quo and the desire to introduce new patterns of training are not in themselves sufficient to induce change. The curricula which exist in educational institutions represent people, their career interests and areas of expertise. Specialists in the discipline of education cannot suddenly be converted into tutors on professional courses. The difficulties of introducing change into well established structures of power and investment of self are illustrated by Smith (1977) who studied the outcome for educational theory in two colleges on the point of amalgamation. His conclusion suggests reasons for the initial prolongation during the 1970s of separate disciplinary-based courses.

It was clear that the (education) theory courses studied provided no guidelines for work in the classroom. The four disciplines of education in both colleges stood as separate entities without relation to each other … maintenance of the courses in their present form in a new college could be seen as being equally a preservation of the career investment of staff by establishment of territorial rights, or as the pressure exerted by the institution and department rather than as a response to a new challenging situation

(Smith, 1977, p.61)

Secondly the approval of validating bodies must be sought and this has not always been forthcoming (DES, 1979). That the validating body can in fact be quite a severe impediment to the introduction of a more practically oriented programme is evident from accounts of course development. In this case the validating body was a university:

The final assessment of students in the professional studies exams is limited to the more general and theoretical aspects of the course … the influence of the validating body has caused the withdrawal of those parts of the examination considered ‘less appropriate’. These have generally concerned the more practical aspects related to the teaching of subject areas of the curriculum … the absence of a school practice during year four may be another dimension of the same problem

(Foss and Owen, 1979, p.88)

But the validating body can also be perceived as discouraging a realignment of course design towards a professionally based training. This is suggested by McCulloch (1979), who in a study of BEd courses validated by CNAA found that the ‘CNAA emphasis on the need for academic rigour and honours standard, was felt by colleges to inhibit the use of school based work’ (1979, p.55). It is suggested therefore that pressures for change in the direction of increased professionalism which came from within the institutions themselves, although quite considerable, may have been constrained by internal structures and by the need to conform with actual or perceived limitations of validation procedures.

THE INFLUENCE OF THE COUNCIL FOR NATIONAL ACADEMIC AWARDS

The part played by the Council for National Academic Awards in steering or restraining the development of teacher education must have been very considerable, if only because of the numbers of institutions which turned to Council for validation following the 1972 White Paper and the subsequent abolition of the Area Training Organisations (Sharples, 1984). The evolving nature of the alliance between the CNAA and the institutions is neatly summarised by McNamara and Ross (1982): ‘the institutions having established their academic credibility in the eyes of the validating bodies could now begin the task of re-defining the degree’ (1982, p.41). McNamara and Ross also suggest that CNAA ‘particularly … made important advances towards defining what is meant by a professional degree’ (1982, p.40). This statement is supported by a re-analysis of the data given in their study of BEd degree courses. Of the fourteen institutions for which it is possible to abstract the information, those for which CNAA was the validating body placed their students in schools for a greater number of half days on average than did the institutions which obtained validation from the universities. This also appears to have been true for PGCE courses in the late 1970s (Alexander and Whittaker, 1979). Initially however the relationship between CNAA and the institutions seems to have been characterised by conservatism on both sides, for a number of reasons. It is doubtful, however, whether either party could have be...