Classroom Pedagogy and Primary Practice

David McNamara, Professor David Mcnamara

• Publisher: Routledge
• Year: 2002
• eBook ISBN: 9781134889594
• Topic: Education
• Subtopic: Classroom Management

In this provocative book, David McNamara argues that a `teacher-centred' approch to teaching in the primary school, especially in the later years is actually in the best interests of the children - that the teacher must be seen to have ultimate responsibility for what and how children learn. He attempts to define the distinctive professional expertise of the primary teacher - the application of subject knowledge within the special circumstances of the classroom - and to show how this expertise can be articulated to establish a body of educational knowledge which is both derived from practice and practically useful to others. At a time when increasing emphasis is being placed on the role of the practising teacher as a mentor in intitial teacher education, this book will help teachers at all levels to define their own role in the creation of educational knowledge.

Chapter 1
On teaching

If we ask, ‘What is an accountant or a surgeon and what is the basis for their authority and expertise?’ the approach to finding an answer is reasonably clear-cut. We describe their work in terms of the activities and tasks they undertake and identify the body of formal knowledge which underpins and informs their professional expertise. The accountant must know tax law and the surgeon anatomy. There is an agreed body of knowledge and skill which must be acquired and demonstrated before anyone can claim to be practising as an accountant or surgeon. Teachers, too, are professionals whose work requires training and expertise but it is misleading and unhelpful to compare teachers with other occupations. To consider school teaching in the same manner as, say, the accountant and surgeon does not permit such a straightforward response. This is because teaching is a general form of behaviour which all sorts and conditions of people engage in from time to time. The accountant will teach his client how to organise his affairs for his financial advantage; the surgeon who devises a new operating technique may invite colleagues into his theatre so that he can teach it to them. In what follows I argue that teaching is one of the familiar ways in which people behave in various social contexts and then go on to ask what is distinctive about school teaching and what is the basis for the school teacher’s professional expertise? Another way to approach the question, ‘What is teaching?’ is to ascertain what teachers actually do in their classrooms. Thus in order to gain an appreciation of what constitutes professional practice it is necessary to attend to the ways in which the majority of teachers teach for most of their time because there appear to be some enduring characteristics of classroom practice which suggest that they are intelligent ways of coping with the demands of teaching in classroom environments. If we wish to consider how teachers ought to teach or make suggestions for improving the quality of teaching and learning it is prudent to establish how, in practice, teachers go about their teaching and why they behave as they do, rather than start with an ideal view of how teachers ought to teach based upon educational philosophy or psychological conjecture about how children learn.

TEACHING AS A FAMILIAR ACTIVITY

In all walks of life and in a variety of circumstances human beings teach and they do so without the benefit of training or the layering on of expert knowledge. Parents, doctors, preachers, sergeant-majors, insurance salesmen, journalists, and professors are among those who seek to teach and instruct and they manage, for the most part, without the benefit of lengthy professional training in teaching. It is hardly surprising, therefore, that there is a distinctive tradition within English educational thought which takes the view that teaching may be considered as an ‘amateur’ or ‘natural’ activity¹ whereby it may be claimed that most people engage in forms of teaching on various occasions throughout their lives and that they do so in a comparatively natural and spontaneous manner without prior training in the practice of teaching. In this context the notion of ‘natural’ is used to suggest that teaching can be thought of as a normal or ordinary activity which may be adopted readily by people who are placed in situations where they are required to take on the role of ‘teacher’. It does not embrace the notion that the ability to teach is genetically programmed or a physiological necessity, like the ability to breathe, and it is not intended to be prescriptive by implying that what is natural is preferable to that which is artificial. The advocates of this view of teaching argue that the distinctive quality of the school teacher is not that she has an arcane skill or that she has spent many years mastering a repertoire of methods and techniques but that she undertakes the commonplace activity of teaching within the particular framework of the school. What distinguishes the primary school teacher from the generality of teachers is that she must teach in special and peculiar circumstances where one teacher is responsible for teaching thirty-odd individual children who may or may not be disposed to learn. She must undertake this task over a long period of time with the same group of learners, usually for a year, all day and every day and in a closely confined space with only limited resources of time, energy and material at her disposal.² These circumstances impose a distinctive burden upon the class teacher and she will need professional training in order to acquire the expertise which will enable her to optimise her pupils’ learning. It is not the case that the beginner needs professional preparation in order to become a teacher, per se; it is rather that she needs distinctive training to become a teacher in a primary classroom. This view of teaching continues, often in covert ways, to influence deliberations about the nature of teaching, what constitutes ‘good’ or ‘effective’ teaching, and how teachers should be trained. For instance attention is often paid to the character or personality of the teacher. Intangible qualities such as ‘enthusiasm’, ‘commitment’, ‘dedication’, ‘sense of proportion’, ‘ability to form relationships’, ‘able to work with children’, and so on, must, so it is claimed, be demonstrated by potential entrants to the teaching profession and by those who are rated as good teachers. Indeed the personal qualities of the teacher are often judged more highly than her distinctive pedagogic skills³ and a recurring theme in the voluminous research into teacher effectiveness is that teachers who are rated highly on their general characteristics as people are often thought to be effective teachers.⁴ Personable qualities are difficult to disentangle from skill, technique, and knowledge of subject matter. Teacher training institutions have always been interested in the personal qualities of their entrants and the old training colleges were communities which sought to exemplify established values such as concern for others⁵ and educationists continue to stress the importance of developing the personal qualities of student teachers.⁶

The proposition that many human beings have a natural disposition to behave as teachers may be illustrated in a number of ways. On one occasion my 7-year-old daughter spent Sunday morning teaching her dolls arithmetic. At lunchtime she announced that they would be ready to go on to ‘takes’ and possibly ‘shares’ in the afternoon. Having the misfortune of an educationist for a father she was asked how she knew that the dolls were ready for takes and shares. This presented her with no problem. She had spent the morning teaching ‘adds’ and had given the dolls a test. They all scored at least twenty out of twenty-five, so they could go on to the takes. For her it was simply common sense to test the dolls’ competency in what they knew before proceeding to teach more difficult material. In New Zealand teacher trainers were faced with the problem of recruiting and training native Maori-speaking teachers because of the demand for bilingual education. It thus became necessary to encourage Maori speakers from various walks of life who had never considered becoming teachers to change their careers. At one university⁷ the inhibitions of prospective mature Maori student teachers were overcome by inviting them to a session where they listened to a tape recording of a teacher teaching a child to read. They then discussed the contents of the tape and considered how the methods used by the teacher could be incorporated into their own teaching. They were then asked if they would like to see a video recording of the same lesson to see what they could learn from that. This revealed an older child teaching her sister to read and the point is made that members of the audience will have often acted as teachers and that they have natural abilities which can be developed in the classroom. At the national level Cuba⁸ offers an instructive example. In January 1961 Castro declared to the United Nations that he would, within a year, eliminate adult illiteracy in Cuba which was then running at 20 per cent. To do this he mobilised the youth of the country during the summer months and together with available teachers over 100,000 young people were given at most eight days’ training before being dispatched to poor, isolated, rural areas (which we would immediately define as ‘deprived’) in order to teach adult illiterates to read and write. According to independent UNESCO evidence, Cuba’s adult illiteracy rate was reduced to 4 per cent by December 1961 and eventually fell to 2 per cent.

While we may accept that teaching may be a form of natural behaviour that people engage in from time to time, it does not follow that they will all be good at it. The psychologist Stephens⁹ has developed a masterly thesis seeking to explain teaching and learning in terms of natural propensities. (Possibly because his analysis offers such a threat to the academic education community his work has been studiously ignored, even though he reworks a massive corpus of information drawn from educational research as evidence to support his case.) As part of his endeavour Stephens elucidated the characteristics of those people who are disposed to become good teachers. Teachers must have a knowledge of subject matter (history, algebra or whatever) which other people approve of but have only a passing concern for. That is, the teacher must know the subjects she is to teach in school; these are likely to be subjects which other people in society consider important but not to the extent that they, themselves, would wish to teach them. The teacher must have a willingness, an urge, or even a compulsion to communicate knowledge to others and be the sort of person who is prepared to linger over her subject and if necessary go over material repeatedly. The teacher must care about her subject to the extent that she spontaneously reinforces appropriate responses by non-verbal and verbal gestures and be a person who is so concerned about knowing the subject correctly that she rapidly ensures that mistakes are remedied. What is required is prompt reinforcement arising from a genuine commitment to the subject rather than deliberate or postponed reinforcement undertaken as a matter of duty or because it is seen by some psychological theory as the correct way to proceed. In order that the teacher may motivate her pupils and for her expressions of approval or disapproval to have an effect upon them she must be a person who through her demeanour is taken seriously. She may be loved, admired, or feared, but she must count and not be disregarded. Teachers, argues Stephens, are more likely to have an impact upon pupils’ learning if they have a genuine concern for the material they teach and that children should learn it. He goes so far as to utter the heresy that teachers do not necessarily have to be kind or pleasant people, they may not even like children but they must care deeply that what is taught is learned correctly. A common Chinese model of teaching and teacher training, bears a striking resemblance to Stephens’s analysis.¹⁰ It is based upon a view of the teacher as a virtuoso performer who plays a leading role in the transmission of knowledge to pupils. Knowledge is placed at the core of teaching and its possession is regarded as the most important requirement for the teacher. Teachers are expected to operate under the belief that all children can learn. While teachers must be expert in their field and possess deep knowledge they must, when teaching, put on a performance which requires giving of oneself and having ‘heart’. During practice sessions student teachers spend much time observing and taking instruction from master teachers who are themselves practising teachers. Students are required to devote time to developing their critical skills by reflecting upon their own teaching and discussing it with experienced teachers who have observed their practice; in a manner rather like the critique of an artistic performance.

To summarise thus far; there can be no doubt that the knowledge which we teach to children changes dramatically over time but there is considerable merit in the proposition that the teacher’s ability to convey that knowledge may be seen as a natural disposition which is acquired to a greater or lesser degree by all human beings. I have a geography and astronomy textbook for use in schools which was in its third edition in 1810.¹¹ Among the fascinating gems of information is a comment about the moon to the effect that, ‘the inhabitants of the opposite hemisphere… will never see the earth; unless prompted by curiosity, they make a voyage to behold the extraordinary phenomenon’.¹² Yet in the introductory pages much sound advice on teaching is offered such as:

At the beginning of each section is given an abstract of the problems contained in that section, together with the principles upon which they are founded. This will serve as a sort of connecting chain, and enable the learner easily to review the whole of the problems contained in the work.¹³

This was some two hundred and fifty-odd years before psychologists introduced the notion of ‘advanced organisers’ into educational discourse!

The proposition that teaching is a ‘natural’ mode of behaviour and that people have a disposition to engage in teaching acts is the basis for my proposal that teaching should be viewed as a familiar, practical activity.
The notion that teachers may be ‘born and not made’ has much to commend it as a starting point, but its limitations must be recognised.
These include

• A failure to recognise that while most people may have a disposition or propensity to teach they are not all equally good at it. People in other walks of life may be required to teach but we are all likely to have been on the receiving end of awful or bungled ‘teaching’ when someone has sought to teach us but lacks the skill and sensitivity to do so. We may have a natural propensity to aid the sick but it would be dangerous to permit everyone to practise medicine. Successful professional performance requires identifying tyros who may be better than others as performers and then providing appropriate training.
• A failure to appreciate the particular circumstances in which lay people usually teach. The sergeant-major may be a remarkably effective teacher on the parade ground, but what he is teaching is comparatively straightforward and he has enormous power to ensure that his learners attend to him and execute his instructions exactly. The driving instructor has only one highly motivated learner, and there is much evidence that parents can be particularly effective teachers, precisely because they can engage in one-to-one interaction with a ‘pupil’ with whom they have an affective bond.¹⁴ The circumstances in the school classroom are, of course, quite different; one teacher is responsible for the instruction of many pupils of varying abilities and aptitudes within the constraints of scarce time and resources.
• Teachers in other occupations will typically spend only a limited proportion of their time teaching and it will be only one part of their professional responsibilities. They are, moreover, unlikely to be in a situation where they are also responsible for the conduct of those whom they teach. Crucial to the task of primary school teaching, on the other hand, is the requirement that teaching is the whole job—it lasts all day—and, moreover, it is an unusual form of teaching in that it also demands that teachers ensure the orderly behaviour of their charges while teaching.

These points are not so much fundamental flaws that undermine the notion of the ‘natural’ teacher but are issues that must be addressed in developing the notion of teaching as a familiar practical activity because the idea of the natural teacher has much to commend it for three reasons. First, regarding teaching as a ‘natural’ or ‘ordinary’ activity which people periodically engage in enables it to be shorn of any pretence or arcane mystery. We do not need to dress up our considerations of teaching in jargon or fancy language. Discussions about the nature and quality of teaching can be conducted in ordinary language using the everyday or vernacular ways of talking which we routinely use. There is no need to invoke theory or terminologies shipped in from elsewhere. We do not, for example, need to draw upon a body of psychological or curriculum theory in order to reflect critically upon a teacher’s questioning skills; this may be done within the context of the material being taught and what the teacher aims to achieve, and we can engage in this process using everyday language.¹⁵ There is no need to invoke complicated conceptual schemes in order to understand the process of teaching normal children in conventional classrooms. We can and should use familiar language because, essentially, both teaching and learning are commonplace activities. In asserting this I am in no way attempting to belittle or question the teacher, her work, and expertise. The task of undertaking the normal human activity of teaching within the peculiar and demanding circumstances of the school and classroom is a challenging undertaking which requires special abilities, knowledge, and professional training. It does not follow that because teaching is difficult and complicated that we need esoteric explanations in order to account for what is going on. I may illustrate the point as follows. As I write this sentence I am, as ever, amazed that something is going on in my head— indeed it may not even be in my head— which can be translated, via my physiological system, to my hand and this enables me to make marks on a sheet of paper which can rapidly and easily find their way back into the minds of the teeming masses of English-speaking human beings. At one level this is a remarkably complicated process and I could spend years studying biochemistry, neurophysiology, and cognitive science seeking an understanding, or various understandings, of my routine everyday behaviour. At the completion of my studies I would have acquired many interpretations and conjectural accounts of how I am able to write. I may be more enlightened but if my concern is to improve the quality of my performance, that is what I write, all this studious endeavour is simply redundant. So, too, with teaching. The teacher will be concerned about the content of her lessons and the quality of her performance. She hardly requires educationists to provide their own complicated accounts of her sophisticated behaviour. Second, there is a distinctive emphasis upon the teacher’s own knowledge of the content of lessons. In order to teach the teacher must be a possessor of, and to some degree expert in, the knowledge which is to be taught. It is the knowledge of the subject matter to be taught which is a distinctive hallmark of the teacher. Third, the recognition that the process of teaching involves not only skill or technique but also the execution of a sensitive performance by a person whose dispositions fit them for the task of teaching in that they care for their subject, take it seriously, and are concerned that their pupils learn it effectively.

The view of teaching as a familiar practical activity claims our attention because it emphasises the putative teacher’s knowledge of the material to be taught and her disposition to teach; what it fails to recognise is that school teaching takes place in a peculiar arena, namely the school classroom. Teaching in this distinctive environment requires special training during which appropriate professional expertise is acquired.

THE INHERENT STABILITY OF TEACHING

Teaching in primary schools presents a special challenge because the practical activity of teaching is pursued ...

Table of contents

• COVER PAGE
• TITLE PAGE
• COPYRIGHT PAGE
• FIGURES
• ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
• INTRODUCTION
• CHAPTER 1: ON TEACHING
• CHAPTER 2: ON LEARNING
• CHAPTER 3: THE TEACHER’S RESPONSIBILITY FOR LEARNING
• CHAPTER 4: RELATING TEACHING TO CHILDREN’S APTITUDEs
• CHAPTER 5: ORGANISING TEACHING TO PROMOTE LEARNING
• CHAPTER 6: ORGANISING SUBJECT MATTER FOR LEARNING
• CHAPTER 7: PEDAGOGY IN PRACTICE: THE CASE OF SUBTRACTION
• CHAPTER 8: TEACHERS’ PEDAGOGIC EXPERTISE
• CHAPTER 9: THE PROFESSIONAL AUTHORITY OF THE TEACHER
• NOTES AND REFERENCES