Skip to main content

About closing down university PGCE courses

In a recent blog post Donald Clark gave seven reasons for slashing university PGCE courses. In attacking such courses he is supporting government policy which aims to close down courses and move teacher training into schools to an even greater extent.

One of Donald's seven reasons was:


"Irrelevance
The drift towards ‘University-led’ courses had loaded these courses up with irrelevant theory that has no real bearing on the practice of teaching. A good example is Abraham Maslow, a staple in teacher training, yet of no use to anyone in terms of what they’re actually asked to do in schools."

I can only talk (with relatively little knowledge, I confess, though I have supervised trainees and picked up anecdotal evidence) about PGCE courses in modern languages, but I suspect what I say could apply to other subject areas. I am slightly concerned that trainee MFL teachers do not get enough theory. Apart from learning something about the general psychology of learning and the history of education, I consider it important that young MFL trainees get a solid grounding in theories of second language learning. Anecdotal evidence from forums and personal acquaintances suggests to me that this is not always the case.

Do all MFL trainees learn about the history of language teaching movements? Do they learn about behaviourist and cognitive theories of learning? Do they understand arguments for and against grammar-translation or audio-lingualism? Do they consider the limits of natural or direct methods? Do they look at learning versus acquisition? Do they study communicative theory, the comprehensible input hypothesis, the monitor model, suggestopedia, whole body approaches or the oral approach? Do they learn about phonetics and phonology? Do they study syllabus design?

If they do not, then they are missing out on some basic theoretical underpinnings of their practice and may not fully understand why they are teaching in such and such a way. I would go as far as to say they are full professionals in the best sense. Whilst I would accept that, in the end, teaching a language is often a pragmatic exercise where you use what works, and that many of the generic techniques of teaching, including effective assessment for learning, also apply to language teaching, it is also crucial to have a grasp of the pros and cons of different approaches and methods.

If we move teacher training out of universities and into schools, then we risk losing a great deal. The current balance of school placements and time in university to reflect and learn seems broadly appropriate to me. We just need to make sure that that the content of university PGCE courses includes enough theory of the right type, that courses are large enough to be economically viable and well taught by a range of well qualified people with a solid academic base of educational and second language learning knowledge.

Comments

  1. Hi Steve. Thanks for the response. Moving teacher training into 'teaching schools' does not eliminate the teaching of theory. What it does is force teachers to apply their theory to actual practice. This is what happens in, for example, 'teaching hospitals'. I have no problem with theory but slabbing it out in lectures is absurd. This is, pedagogically, at odds with the very basics of learning psychology. In any case, I think the theory is often abtruse and irrelevant. I used Maslow as an example, since it has no real academic basis, yet is almost universally included in teacher training courses. Why? Fossilised and out of date course content. The balance between theory and practice is an interesting debate - we may disagree about the exact fuel mixture, but this move about where the teaching takes place not what is taught.

    ReplyDelete
  2. I wonder who would teach it in schools though. Hard pressed teachers who may not be expert in theoretical basis of their practice may not be best placed to help trainees.

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

What is the natural order hypothesis?

The natural order hypothesis states that all learners acquire the grammatical structures of a language in roughly the same order. This applies to both first and second language acquisition. This order is not dependent on the ease with which a particular language feature can be taught; in English, some features, such as third-person "-s" ("he runs") are easy to teach in a classroom setting, but are not typically fully acquired until the later stages of language acquisition. The hypothesis was based on morpheme studies by Heidi Dulay and Marina Burt, which found that certain morphemes were predictably learned before others during the course of second language acquisition. The hypothesis was picked up by Stephen Krashen who incorporated it in his very well known input model of second language learning. Furthermore, according to the natural order hypothesis, the order of acquisition remains the same regardless of the teacher's explicit instruction; in other words,

What is skill acquisition theory?

For this post, I am drawing on a section from the excellent book by Rod Ellis and Natsuko Shintani called Exploring Language Pedagogy through Second Language Acquisition Research (Routledge, 2014). Skill acquisition is one of several competing theories of how we learn new languages. It’s a theory based on the idea that skilled behaviour in any area can become routinised and even automatic under certain conditions through repeated pairing of stimuli and responses. When put like that, it looks a bit like the behaviourist view of stimulus-response learning which went out of fashion from the late 1950s. Skill acquisition draws on John Anderson’s ACT theory, which he called a cognitivist stimulus-response theory. ACT stands for Adaptive Control of Thought.  ACT theory distinguishes declarative knowledge (knowledge of facts and concepts, such as the fact that adjectives agree) from procedural knowledge (knowing how to do things in certain situations, such as understand and speak a language).

La retraite à 60 ans

Suite à mon post récent sur les acquis sociaux..... L'âge légal de la retraite est une chose. Je voudrais bien savoir à quel âge les gens prennent leur retraite en pratique - l'âge réel de la retraite, si vous voulez. J'ai entendu prétendre qu'il y a peu de différence à cet égard entre la France et le Royaume-Uni. Manifestation à Marseille en 2008 pour le maintien de la retraite à 60 ans © AFP/Michel Gangne Six Français sur dix sont d’accord avec le PS qui défend la retraite à 60 ans (BVA) Cécile Quéguiner Plus de la moitié des Français jugent que le gouvernement a " tort de vouloir aller vite dans la réforme " et estiment que le PS a " raison de défendre l’âge légal de départ en retraite à 60 ans ". Résultat d’un sondage BVA/Absoluce pour Les Échos et France Info , paru ce matin. Une majorité de Français (58%) estiment que la position du Parti socialiste , qui défend le maintien de l’âge légal de départ à la retraite à 60 ans,