Metaphors, mentors and transformations in teacher education

JET has previously published research into the metaphors that students use on teaching practice (see for example, Shaw & Mahlios 2011, Gao and Ma 2017) and conversely those used by teachers trying to explain their practice with children and within the student teacher/mentor relationship (see for example, McGrath 2006 and Kim and Danforth 2012). Mahsa Izadinia presents a different approach, in that she has identified the metaphors used by both parties in explaining their relationship and responsibilities within this duality. Clearly if mentor teachers and student teachers used radically different metaphors to describe their practice then there is the potential for considerable confusion. It follows that metaphors, as Milan Kundera writes in his The Unbearable Lightness of Being, ‘are dangerous. Metaphors are not to be trifled with’ (1984, 10).

The mentor/mentee dualism crops up again in Catherine Flores’ research into the role that school principals in Chile play, qua mentors, in the induction of beginning teachers. One would presume that the principals had themselves once been neophytes themselves, so it is surprising to discover that they expect newly minted teachers to be as effective as experienced teachers. Consequently, they provide them with little or no pedagogical support as they see their role as encouraging new teachers to take on the socially legitimated identity of a teacher. One would hope that this state of affairs is unique to Chile, but such hopes might well be dashed, although Flores does point to the fact that more structured mentoring systems are about to be introduced.

Lauri Heikonen, Auli Toom, Kirsi Pyhältö, Janne Pietarinen and Tiina Soini point to the fact that the ways in which student teachers interact with pupils whilst on teaching practice seems to be underresearched. This is, as they say, surprising as the practicum is a central element of most teaching programmes and is certainly that part of a programme that students are most concerned about, even more so on school-based teacher education programmes. Their research report sets out to fill this gap, with the distinction that is drawn between reactive and proactive strategies being an important one which could certainly be used to inform pre-service programmes.

Sylvia Tang, Angel Wong, Dora Li and May Cheng argue that another relatively underresearched area in the field of teacher education is how, if at all, the non-formal learning student teachers experience in higher education contributes to their professional abilities as teachers. Their research indicates that a very great deal of student teachers’ pedagogical knowledge can be traced back to the students’ higher education experiences and may even predict to a certain extent their professional competence.

The previous paper examined non-formal learning experiences in higher education, but it can also be argued that student teachers’ experiences as school pupils are also a powerful element of their non-formal learning about teaching. In fact some years ago your editor argued that one of the many reasons for rejecting the application of Schön’s concept of reflective practice to teacher education was that his case studies were of settings where neophytes had no prior learning of the skill set, whereas in the case of teacher education all students had such experience (see Gilroy 1993, 135–139). Carla Bohndick, Susanne Kohlmeyer and Heike Buhl develop this argument with a very large data-set of nearly 1000 high school students so as to identify what characterises those pupils who express an interest in becoming a teacher. It would be interesting to replicate this study with a group of pupils who were not from a Western social context.

Guopeng Fu and Anthony Clarke focus on another shibboleth in teacher education, namely that of teachers as agents of change. The context they draw on is that of Canada, but as any reader of JET would know the concept of the teacher as change agent is common to many cultures. However, it is not so much ‘change’ as ‘agency’ that their paper examines from a number of perspectives so as to identify how to make use of agency and what ‘agency’ involves. In this way they make clear quite what is actually involved when trying to operationalise the catchphrase of ‘preparing teachers to be change agents’.

It is unusual for your editor to accept a paper that is as lengthy as that by Natallia Yakavets, David Bridges, and Duishon Shamatov. However, there has been very little published about the teacher education system in Kazakhstan and so it was thought useful for this material to be presented in this form. Moreover, some 26 years ago the journal provided a platform for a soviet author to describe their feelings of confusion, if not distress, as they moved from a rigid, prescriptive and centrally directed teacher education system to one, post-perestroika, where they had the freedom to teach as they thought professionally appropriate (see Matyash 1991). Ironically it seemed as if even then the system in England was moving towards precisely that which the Soviets were abandoning (Gilroy 1991). As with any comparative research it adds to the understanding of our own context to be presented with how didactic and non-didactic pedagogies play out in the shifting Kazakhstan context.

JET recently marked its 40th anniversary with a virtual Special Issue which drew on a selection from the many papers published in the journal since 1975. It is this material which Lori Beckett and Amanda Nuttall draw on initially to produce what they term ‘an historical map for teacher education’. The history of teacher education would seem to match the dictum that ‘Whoever wishes to foresee the future must consult the past; for human events ever resemble those of preceding times’ (Machiavelli 1513, Book 3, Chapter XLIII). However, as their paper shows, this dictum would also apply to understanding the present.

Wei Liao and Sihua Hu close this issue of the journal with another examination of didactics via a small case study of six Chinese teachers of mathematics. They argue that in what they identify as ‘Confucian societies’ teacher education is fundamentally academically orientated, and it is the advantages (in terms of a rich subject knowledge) and disadvantages (in terms of limiting their ability to use a pedagogy that could reach all pupils) of such an approach that their case study illuminates.

Peter Gilroy
[email protected]