Supporting student teachers to integrate theory, research, and practice: developing the Adaptive Subject Pedagogy Model

ABSTRACT

Background

Student teachers can find it difficult to inform their classroom practice with knowledge gained from education theory and research. Working with Design and Technology teacher education students, the authors have developed a model to support integration of knowledge-based thinking in lesson design for classroom practice.

Purpose

This study explores the use of the Adaptive Subject Pedagogy Model to scaffold knowledge integration across the elements of an undergraduate technology education programme.

Sample

Twenty-four Design and Technology students from three year-groups took part in the study.

Design and methods

The study used focus groups to explore student perceptions of using the model, and analysis of student assignments to explore evidence of knowledge integration. Focus group transcripts were analysed inductively using thematic network analysis. Assignments were analysed using a deductive coding framework.

Results

Students who understood the model as supporting planning for teaching in a broad sense were more likely to find the model helpful than those who saw the model as a lesson planning tool. Students valued the research element of the model for informing practice. Assignments gave mixed evidence of knowledge integration: some assignments showed convincing evidence of this, while others evidenced more partial integration.

Conclusion

The study indicates that the model can support evidential integration, but that this is a challenging area for student teachers. This may be due to the different forms of knowledge students encounter across the academic and practicum elements of the programme, and/or to programme design if the practicum is not integrated effectively with other programme elements.

KEYWORDS:

• theory-practice gap
• design and technology education
• initial teacher education
• evidence-informed practice
• knowledge integration

Introduction

Preservice teachers can find it difficult to inform their classroom practice with education theory and research (Goodnough, Falkenberg, and MacDonald 2016). This difficulty is known as the ‘theory-practice gap’ (McGarr, O’Grady, and Guilfoyle 2017). As teacher educators on a four-year Design and Technology degree, we encourage our students to take a knowledge-based approach to teaching (Hegarty 2000). This involves developing knowledge of the subject area, curriculum content, teaching approaches, learners, and the self as teacher (Hegarty 2000, 456). To do this effectively, our students must integrate understandings from the disciplinary strands of the degree (design, graphics, engineering, and craft) with the education studies strand. They then need to inform their classroom practice with this integrated knowledge during the school experience practicum. In common with many beginning teachers (Allen 2009), our students can find this challenging.

To help our students inform their practice with understanding from theory and research, [Morrison-Love] created the Adaptive Subject Pedagogy Model (ASPM). The ASPM aims to support knowledge integration as a core aspect of developing students’ subject-specific pedagogical reasoning (Shulman Lee 2006, 1987). This article discusses findings from our small-scale research project to develop and evaluate the ASPM with students. We report on the challenges of integrating knowledges but also on the opportunities for developing pedagogical reasoning that the model provides.

Study background

The theory-practice gap arises during Initial Teacher Education (ITE) for several reasons. Pre-service teachers (PSTs) often value school-based practice more than academic studies partly because theory can seem ‘remote’ in comparison to the immediacy of practicum learning (Allen 2009, 653). In addition, informing practice with theory is a complex undertaking (Guilfoyle, McCormack, and Erduran 2020) made more difficult if faculty-school incoherence leaves PSTs either unable to practise strategies discussed in university (Canrinus et al. 2017) or feeling reluctant to do so because teachers’ practices ‘contradict’ faculty approaches (Mark, Lohwasser, and Tasker 2021, 406). The sense of a theory-practice gap can also be exacerbated by practice shock where students’ ideals and beliefs about teaching are challenged by classroom realities (Ela and Lena Østern 2021; Voss and Kunter 2020). This can lead PSTs to reject theory as ‘too abstract’ to ‘work’ in practice (Nilssen and Solheim 2015, 404).

Approaches to resolve the gap have included redesigning the academic strands of ITE programmes to provide more explicit links between theory and practice (Karen et al. 2020; Ribaeus, Enochsson, and Löfdahl Hultman 2020), and providing more time on placement using ‘clinical’ models (Burn and Mutton 2015; Davies et al. 2015). Clinical approaches have become popular in the United States, England, and Australia (Cochran-Smith et al. 2020; Jackson and Burch 2016; Ledger and Vidovich 2018). They represent part of an international ‘practice turn’ (Reid 2011, 293) fuelled by persistent stakeholder critique of university-based ITE as failing to prepare students for teaching (Gravett 2012; Kostogritz 2018; Ela and Lena Østern 2021). This critique assumes that increased time in schools will result in students being better prepared for teaching (Ramsaroop and Gravett 2017; White, Timmermans, and Dickerson 2020). However, there is a lack of evidence to support a link between increased time on placement and increased quality of professional learning (Johnston 2020). More pertinent factors are the quality of support a student receives during practicum (Reynolds et al. 2016), and whether the practicum is seen as a space to explore evidence-informed practices or viewed as an induction into received ways of teaching (Rowley et al. 2013, 31). Allen comments that students may have little choice but to conform with a class teacher’s preferred practices, particularly where the teacher is ‘unaware of or unconvinced by’ the pedagogic approaches suggested by university staff (Allen 2009, 653).

Immersive ‘block’ placements may also reinforce a sense of separation between theory and practice by creating programme structures where school and faculty experiences sit in tandem (Nilssen and Solheim 2015). Some ITE programmes have redesigned the practicum to shift from block placements and integrate them more fully in faculty learning. For example, Stenberg, Rajala, and Hilppo (2016) discuss the creation of a thematic practicum approach in Finland, and Goodnough, Falkenberg, and MacDonald (2016) explore the introduction of an embedded practicum in Canada. Partnership models have also been developed to reduce the sense of faculty-school separation during practicum (Gutierrez and Nailer 2020; Sølvi and Børte 2016; Smith 2016; White, Timmermans, and Dickerson 2020). In Scotland, where our work is situated, formalised partnership approaches between universities, schools and local authorities are a policy expectation (Beck and Adams 2020). However, there is no agreement among Scottish teacher education institutes or stakeholders as to the characteristics of a quality practicum experience (Johnston 2020). There are also ‘no agreed processes for judging which schools, teachers, or classes are suitable hosts for student-teachers on placement’ (MacDougall et al. 2013, 421).

Although individual programmes can make inroads into bridging the theory-practice gap (Allas, Leijen, and Toom 2020; Ribaeus, Enochsson, and Löfdahl Hultman 2020), it remains an intractable issue in teacher education (Mavhunga and van der Merwe 2020). However, Ord and Nuttall (2016) argue that seeing the issue as a gap does not do justice to the complexity of informing classroom practice with relevant knowledges. Instead, teacher educators should consider theoretical knowledge as needing to be ‘embodied’ in teaching (356). Similarly, Jackson and Burch state that the challenge for teacher educators is to ‘combine theory and practice into a coherent whole so that “enactment” can occur’ (Ord and Nuttall 2016, 516).

Planning for pupil learning can provide an important space to connect theoretical and practical elements of teacher education with a view to encouraging enactment during practicum (Jenset, Klette, and Hammerness 2018). However, the dominant approach to planning in many schools and teacher education institutes is a linear model which begins with aims and learning intentions and ends with lesson evaluation (John 2006). This approach has behaviourist underpinnings and relies on principles of backwards design, beginning from the ‘end goals’ of learning and ‘designing’ learning to meet those ends (Land and Cira Rubin 2020, 280). The linear approach therefore inducts PSTs into ‘objectivist approaches to planning’ (Cajkler and Wood 2016, 509), but remains popular because of its generic nature and ‘elegant simplicity’ (John 2006, 486). However, this simplicity masks the complex subject-specific nature of learning and teaching, and PSTs can find the linear plan challenging because it is not intuitive (Land and Cira Rubin 2020). They may also struggle to define objectives, particularly where these are created before consideration of key content and pedagogies (John 2006, 489). This approach can lead to plans that describe a list of teaching and classroom management procedures (Rusznyak and Walton 2011, 271) rather than communicating a cohesive evidence-informed pedagogic approach.

Materials and methods

The research question that framed our project was: How can we support student teachers to integrate knowledges to inform the creation of subject pedagogies? To explore this, we first created a teaching intervention using the ASPM. Our approach focussed less on how we might bridge any perceived theory-practice gap and more on how we might develop students’ pedagogical reasoning (Shulman Lee 1987). We then produced two sub-questions to evaluate the model:

1. To what extent do students think the ASPM supports the integration of knowledges to create subject pedagogies?

2. To what extent do course assignments evidence the creation of reasoned pedagogies that integrate knowledges using the ASPM?

Designing and using the ASPM

In designing the ASPM we identified planning for teaching as a valuable space for supporting Design & Technology PSTs to integrate theory, research, and pedagogy in preparation for classroom practice. We view planning for teaching as a holistic process (placing both the learner and the curriculum at its heart) and consider knowledge integration as essential to this process if pedagogies are to be informed and reasoned. We also encourage students to explore their personal practical theories (Maaranen and Stenberg 2017) about learning to support the process, drawing from reflections on their own experiences and evaluating these using evidence from theory and research.

To support integrative planning, the ASPM contains four elements (see Figure 1). Students first identify an area for teaching from the Design and Technology curriculum and then consider a range of knowledges (from academic theories, personal practical theories, and research) to support their pedagogic decision-making. Students explore each of the elements, integrating their explorations to create a pedagogic proposal for teaching that synthesises the knowledges they generate. They then consider their pedagogic proposal in the wider classroom context.

Figure 1. The ASPM.

The ASPM is grounded in understandings of the nature and pedagogic identity of Design and Technology as a curriculum subject (Morrison-Love 2017; Bell et al. 2017). It also draws on Shulman Lee’s (2006, 1987) concepts of professional knowledge growth, pedagogical content knowledge, and pedagogical reasoning. Shulman writes that ‘sound’ pedagogical reasoning rests on teachers using ‘their knowledge-base to provide the grounds for choices and actions’ in the classroom (Shulman Lee 1987, 12). The element of reflective practice in the ASPM adapts Korthagen’s ALACT approach (Korthagen, Loughran, and Russell 2006) in asking students to create possible pedagogic actions, trial the actions, reflect on them, and refine and review thinking to alter future action.

We use the ASPM in the subject-specific element of a professional studies course in years 2–4 of the programme. The technology education elements involve weekly one-hour seminars across one semester (11 weeks in total). These aim to prepare students for a partnership model block practicum. Students have one practicum block each year during which they plan lessons using a generic linear proforma (which we could not change). The ASPM is designed to be used for a unit of work rather than to plan individual lessons. In phase 1 of the project (2018–19) we asked Cohort A to use the ASPM to create a single lesson. We explained that, in practice, the model would be used to create a teaching unit, but the focus on one lesson was consistent with what students are asked to prepare at their degree stage. Subsequently, we asked Cohorts B and C to create a unit because the focus group data evidenced confusion among Cohort A over the ASPM’s purpose (as discussed below). Students refined their pedagogic thinking through peer teaching before completing an assignment in which they discussed the process of using the ASPM. (See Appendix 1 for the assignment task.)

We encourage students to use it flexibly and iteratively: how they respond to it and represent their thinking in each of the stages varies depending on individual choice. We use the ASPM to design our own teaching units and model our versions of the ASPM for students to show the overall approach, and to stress the individual differences in how we respond to the ASPM sections. We reassure students that there is no single ‘correct’ way to respond to each element: the ASPM is there to support them to develop their pedagogic reasoning by scaffolding thinking rather than being a prescriptive framework requiring rigid responses.

In the identification element, students select the curriculum area they will work on, then define the topic. For our students, topics have included concept ideation, woodworking joints, logic circuits, desktop publishing, 3D modelling and technical drawing. Despite developing their own subject knowledge across a range of degree courses and contexts, many of our students find it difficult to explain and identify the subject matter involved in teaching particular topics. The representation element encourages students to think through and map out what are the concepts, ideas, skills, and processes pupils need if they are to learn the subject matter (the focus is not yet on how it might be taught.) This representation can take any form that helps the student consider and explain the subject matter: mind maps, tables, lists, diagrams, or text. Working with students in seminars the most common approaches used by the participants were lists, tables and extended text. Students are encouraged to engage with textbooks, wider literature, and internet resources to develop their thinking.

In the critical reflection element, students are asked to analyse their own experience as a learner and/or teacher of this topic (if they have seen it being taught on a previous placement). This is done to identify teaching and learning approaches that supported or hindered the learning of subject matter. We ask students to think about what concepts were understood, and what teaching and learning approaches might have supported understanding? We also ask them to consider whether teaching approaches caused confusion, or were there learner misconceptions and if so, why might they have occurred? We then ask them to think about and explain what the implications of all this might be for their own teaching of the topic? In the seminars, students tended to use extended prose for their reflections, although it may be that the exemplars of written reflections we provided influenced them in this.

In the evidential element, students find and analyse published research for evidence to inform how they might teach their chosen topic effectively. We try to help students develop strong pedagogical reasoning by avoiding tendencies for confirmation bias. To do this we support understanding of search term creation and search engine use and ask them to source and read articles based on the search terms and not based on what they think confirms their reflections or prior thinking about ways of teaching and learning. Students are also encouraged to avoid genericism in their searches and to create search terms that relate to the learning and teaching of the topic/subject matter they have chosen for their ASPM. Where there is little or no research or theory published on the subject matter directly, students can select readings from a related area: for example, using articles from Art and Design for teaching perspective or colour theory in Design & Technology.

The synthesis element is where students explicitly integrate different forms of knowledge from their exploration of the different stages of the ASPM. They are encouraged to think about what this exploration has created in terms of new understandings and integrate these into an evidence-based pedagogical approach for teaching their unit/topic. Students should include their reasoning to explain why they have selected the pedagogic approaches they have, and how the unique pedagogical approaches they develop might support learning. These pedagogical approaches can then be further developed while on school placement. A fictionalised example of an ASPM submission is given in Appendix 2.

Data collection and analysis

Over two years, 24 students (of a possible 52) participated in our research (see Table 1).

Table 1. Cohort participation.

Cohort identifier/ year of ASPM teaching	Degree year	Focus group data set	Assignment data set	Participants as percentage of cohort
Cohort A (18-19/19-20)	2/3	n=7	n=6	41%/35%
Cohort B (20-21)	2	-	n=5	22%
Cohort C (20-21)	3	-	n=3	25%

We contextualised our study by conducting a non-systematic literature review (Guy and Kitsiou 2017). Research sub-question 1 was explored through data collected in two 40-minute focus groups with students from Cohort A during their third year of study.

Seven students (split into groups of four and three) discussed the questions as a focus group activity. Morrison-Love facilitated the session, deliberately taking a more peripheral role (as discussed by Nyumba et al. 2017). The overall number participating was low, but this was not the main reason for the small size of the focus groups. We had decided that an ideal size of group would be no less than three and no more than four early in the research design and had hoped to attract enough participants to enable small group work. We did this to mirror the pedagogic approach we would use during seminar activity discussions to encourage the active exchange of ideas and prevent the focus group becoming a ‘serial’ interview (Morgan 2019, 28). Morgan (2019) also notes that smaller groups give more scope for each participant to contribute and so can enhance the quality of the data produced. The discussions were digitally recorded and transcribed, then analysed inductively using Attride-Stirling’s (2001) thematic networks approach. Sub-question 2 was explored through analysis of fourteen student assignments from Cohorts A (from their second year of studies), B and C. All students in the teaching cohorts were invited to participate as part of an inclusive approach to purposeful sampling (Palinkas et al. 2015). We then independently analysed the assignments, using a deductive coding framework (Braun, Clarke, and Weate 2016) derived from the ASPM’s aims, content and purposes.

Validity, ethics, and limitations

Theoretical rigour was supported in the research process by attending to goodness of fit across the research questions, aims, and methods (Kitto Simon, Chesters, and Grbich 2008, 244). We have taken an interpretivist stance to this study, viewing data as existing only as far as they are created or considered as such by the researcher. Interpretative rigour is supported by underpinning our interpretations with textual data from focus group transcripts and student assignments as well as by reflexive conversations during the analysis process (Kitto Simon, Chesters, and Grbich 2008, 244). To ensure procedural rigour we have detailed how the research was conducted (including participant selection, focus group details, and analytic processes) (Kitto Simon, Chesters, and Grbich 2008, 244).

Ethical approval for the study was given by the relevant ethics committee in our university. To protect participant identities, we use neutral identifiers. We informed participants that anonymity would be difficult to guarantee given the nature of the degree programme and the small scale of the study. We were also in a dependent relationship with students, as was explained to them in the participant information sheet. This was a particularly important element to consider because we were asking students for permission to use their assignments as research data when we also carried out the assessment. To minimise the risk of creating anxiety that non-participation might affect the assessment process (Hosein and Rao 2017) we did not ask students to participate in this study until all grading and feedback had been completed and returned to students. We assured students that participation or non-participation would not affect the professional working relationship we had with them during teaching and would not affect future assessments, although we acknowledged that perceived power differences in research between students and staff are difficult to avoid entirely. Principles and processes of voluntary informed consent were strictly followed (British Educational Research Association (BERA) 2018, 9–16). We also report here that there are no competing interests to declare.

As with any research there are limitations. Our positionality inevitably influences how the research findings are presented (Knight and Sweeney 2007). The understandings we have developed from the research are situated not just in the context of the degree programme but in the context of our roles as teachers and researchers. In using assignments as data, we are also mindful that students may attempt to produce what they think we are looking for rather than producing an authentic response. The format of, and context for, assignments will always tend to shape how students approach the writing and content. This limitation is acknowledged, but the scripts gave valuable insight into how effectively or otherwise students were able to use the ASPM to generate reasoned pedagogic approaches. In addition to the assignments, students were free to produce their own notes and coursework that were not included in our analysis. We focussed on the assignment itself because it is the only source of evidence in which students explicitly integrate different forms of knowledge but recognise that wider coursework could provide a rich source of understanding in future phases of this research. The degree programme is also small-scale, and a limited number of students participated. We cannot assume that the views expressed in the focus groups, or the findings from the participant assignments, represent the whole cohort. While our findings may inform other teacher educators in terms of approaches to supporting students with evidence integration, we make no claims for direct generalisability and transferability.

Results

Evidence from the assignments and focus groups indicate that the first cohort to use the model (A) found it challenging in terms of knowledge integration, but the second cohorts (B and C) integrated evidence more effectively. This may be due to cohort differences and/or to us reviewing our teaching using feedback from the first cohort to improve our approach. We explore these issues more fully by first presenting the focus group findings before moving to the assignment analysis.

Focus group findings

The analysis of the focus group data (with Cohort A) allows us to respond to sub-question 1: To what extent do students think the ASPM supports the integration of knowledges to create subject pedagogies? All but one student found the model helpful for informing subject pedagogies, but students also found it challenging to integrate knowledges across all elements of the ASPM. As one student said, once they had done one cycle of the ASPM, they ‘could see it’ but the first time it was hard to grasp how to integrate. Another said, ‘it’s good, but it’s like trying to play football when you’ve never played football’. Participants found the research element particularly helpful in informing their practice, but how helpful they found the model overall related to their understanding of its purpose. We explore these aspects in more detail below through discussion of the two global themes derived from the data.

Appreciating the value of research

Students appreciated the ASPM research element more than other elements because it encouraged them to inform their approaches to pedagogy with evidence. They did note that it could be difficult to find time for the reading and to find articles in technology journals that related directly to their teaching topic. They were able to source articles from other areas, however (for example, finding articles on colour theory or perspective from art and design journals). Some students also related the research element to exploring their reflections in terms of thinking through the ways in which pupils might be challenged by aspects of topics like orthographic drawing and understanding how to best introduce the topic to support learning.

One student outlined how helpful research was to inform more complex elements of Design and Technology teaching and to understand aspects of support for learning. Another student explored research on group learning for an electronics topic and said that the findings were ‘exceptionally helpful’ in supporting their classroom practice. A third student thought the ASPM helped with using research in practice, rather than just ‘learning something in university and then forgetting about it’. The only participant who was entirely negative about the model noted that they struggled to find appropriate reading, saying: ‘a lot of the stuff I read wasn’t up to date with how things are in schools’. Another responded: ‘I didn’t find that – maybe it was just the articles you read? I found lots’. This raises the issue of whether perceptions of the utility of the model depends to some extent on having the research skills to source articles that are both relevant and current. (See also the assignment analysis below.)

Both focus groups discussed (unprompted) the idea that teachers should inform their practice with research evidence. One group agreed that it helps teachers understand the subject and how to teach it, avoiding content and concept errors that could potentially misdirect pupils. They wondered why some teachers on practicum seemed uninterested in research. One student said that teachers in their school ‘kept pushing Bloom’s taxonomy’ rather than looking for other perspectives. Another commented: ‘If you were a science teacher you wouldn’t be doing your job if you weren’t looking at current research’. Students agreed, however, that the ASPM evidence element should be broadened so that they could consider practitioner texts as well as peer-reviewed papers. This is something we took forward in subsequent teaching.

How you view the model makes a difference

How Cohort A students viewed the model made a difference to their perceptions of its utility. Those who found the ASPM helpful saw it as a holistic resource to inform high-level thinking about teaching, learning and pedagogies in creating units of work to teach topics. Those who were more doubtful thought it was for planning single lessons and found it too much work for ‘lesson planning’. Only one student ‘did not use the model at all’ saying it was ‘utterly pointless … it needs to be something we can implement’.

One student who found the model helpful explained how they used the ASPM to create a unit to teach a topic during placement. This came as a surprise to two other participants (‘is that what it is?’; ‘it was given to us as another form of lesson planning’). The students who understood the holistic intention explained their perceptions:

• ‘You use the ASPM as a basis and then draw the lesson plans from it.’

• ‘It makes you think of the subject as a whole, rather than [small] chunks.’

• ‘It makes lessons less isolated.’

One student noted that they regularly had professional development activities in their placement school, where the department discussed research or other papers for evidence to inform practice, planning and development. The school process had been like ‘aspects of the ASPM’. The group then had a lengthy discussion about lesson planning in which it became evident that tying the ASPM to a single lesson for the course assessment had generated confusion over the model’s purpose.

Students in both groups who used the ASPM on placement also discussed negative reactions from some teachers. Two commented that their class teachers thought it was ‘nonsense’. Another said: ‘When I showed it to teachers, they thought it seemed an awful lot of work … I did say it’s not for every lesson, it’s for a whole unit … They were still, like, I don’t really see why you would do that’. There was a sense from the discussions that classroom teachers perceived lesson planning as needing to be done rapidly: one student said they were told each lesson ‘couldn’t take hours’. There was discussion in the group of how the ASPM saved time because effort went into the thinking behind the unit creation: drawing individual lessons from the high-level synthesis was then relatively quick. As one student said: ‘If you make time for it, it saves time eventually’. The importance of understanding the purpose of the model for creating units of work therefore underscored perceptions of its utility in terms of time spent on planning as well as its effectiveness for supporting pedagogic decision-making.

Assignment evidence

Evidence from the assignment analysis allows us to respond to sub-question 2: To what extent do course assignments evidence the creation of reasoned pedagogies that integrate knowledges using the ASPM? There were varying levels of knowledge integration across the assignments: cohorts B and C showed more convincing evidence of this than cohort A. For Cohort A, one assignment showed very little integrative thinking, 4 four showed partial integration of knowledges, and one showed effective integration and reasoned pedagogies. All Cohort B and C assignments showed either partial (3B, 1C) or developed (2B, 2C) integration of knowledges to produce pedagogies based on their reasoning. The model thus has potential to support knowledge integration and pedagogic reasoning, but these processes are far from straightforward. We explore the nature of the challenges more fully below by discussing the analytic themes. These related to reflection and memory, academic skills, and the influence of generic lesson plan proformas.

The challenges of reflection

Of the ASPM elements, reflection was most challenging for students. Six assignments (1A, 2B, 3C) evidenced considered reflection on personal experiences of learning and teaching their chosen topic, linking from their reflections to evidence from published sources. The remaining eight assignments (5A, 3B) evidenced narrative reflections which needed critical unpacking and explicit evaluation against evidence. These assignments tended to relate brief memories about what ‘worked’ for the student in their own learning. One Cohort A student equated this with having enjoyed a lesson at school, while another wrote: ‘I would come up with a similar version of how I was taught as I believe it was effective’.

ASPM responses revealed student memories to us (as course tutors) that would otherwise have remained hidden. One aspect that surprised us was the power of the reflective memories to dominate other sources of evidence in the assignments which showed the weakest narrative reflections. Four Cohort A students overlooked effective pedagogic approaches discussed in their selected research in favour of being guided by how they had been taught. Our findings have helped us to recognise the need for teaching about, and modelling, reflective thinking and writing from year 1 of the programme. We did provide short inputs on reflective practice during the seminars, but these were curtailed due to the limited hours available for course teaching. We have altered the teaching on the course to include fuller discussion of reflective practice by sharing online resources where we explore our own beliefs about teaching and learning, evaluated using evidence from theory and research.

Finding what you look for: the importance of effective academic skills

Ten assignments (all cohort B and C assignments, but only 2 cohort A) showed evidence that students were able to find, read and analyse research articles that supported critical reflection on experience and reasoned pedagogies. Although there were varying levels of analytic skill evidenced in these assignments, all were able to identify and summarise key findings from the research they sourced and use these to inform their pedagogies. These assignments sourced research to explore aspects drawn from student reflections: to better understand potential challenges pupils might have, or to evaluate teaching approaches they thought had been successful either when they were learning or when used by them during practicum. The remaining four assignments from Cohort A indicated a tendency to select articles that explicitly supported pre-existing beliefs about ‘good teaching’ derived from reflections. They took note of only what upheld their personal theories and did not take account of potentially important aspects of their reading which did not relate to, or agree with, their prior beliefs. This was interesting given the focus group evidence from Cohort A in which students stated that they found the research element the most useful aspect. It raises questions about how far some students were understanding the research they used inform their practice. If research evidence is only partially understood, or used uncritically to uphold personal practical theories, it may do more harm than good in terms of classroom practice.

Our findings suggest that we need to consider more fully what the ASPM demands in terms of academic skills if we are to support students whose skills are less secure. We discussed literature searches during the course and provided online resources to help with this but did not provide support for textual analysis. Those who could integrate knowledges across the ASPM elements and base their pedagogic choice on the synthesis could also analyse reading effectively by identifying and summarising key points, evidenced research skills in selecting relevant quality material, and communicated their resulting pedagogic decisions fluently. Those who were less secure in the integration were also less secure in analysis (as noted above, often missing key findings to focus on tangential or contextual information), written communication, and research skills (selecting materials that were not relevant to their topic, or dated, or internet sources that lacked academic grounding). In developing the ASPM, we may have viewed integration as a discrete set of skills: our analysis suggests that it is interlinked with levels of communicative, analytic and research skills. We now model textual analysis for students during seminars based on shared reading of, and dialogue about, selected research articles.

Lesson plans as prescriptions for practice

If the first challenge for students was in integrating knowledges, the second challenge came in translating the pedagogic intentions explored in the assignment into the lesson plan format. For those assignments which evidenced effective levels of integration and synthesis, using the standardised generic/linear plan tended to atomise prior thinking even among the assignments that showed the most sophisticated examples of unit planning. As students populated the plan, evidence-based elements of their original thinking were set aside. Lesson plans became a basic description of things to be done in the ‘opening’, ‘main’ and ‘closing’ phases. For example, one student’s pedagogic proposal included the evidence-informed suggestion that they should ‘take time in the early stages of teaching [the topic] to get a sense of pupils’ previous knowledge’ and build teaching from this understanding. The assignment suggested using group discussions to do this where pupils would explore examples of the topic in everyday life. This became translated in the lesson plan to a 15-minute opening phase as follows:

Settle the class down before allowing entry into the class. Let students know what they will be learning today. Instruct pupils to take off jackets, place bags under desk and have jotters out, copying the ILOs from the board into their jotter. Ask pupils questions of their existing knowledge of the subject.

Each lesson in the unit began this way, to be followed by teacher presentations and whole class questions set out as the type of procedural descriptions discussed by Rusznyak and Walton (2011) rather than relating to deeper considerations of teaching and learning. This may be, as Cajkler and Wood suggest, a case of students ‘simply following pre-set formulae, such as the uncritical use of a three-stage lesson plan’ (Cajkler and Wood 2016, 509). However, our students know that the three-stage plan is what they are expected to use during practicum, so they have no option but to translate planning into this format.

The translated activities were not only atomised but altered in ways that seemed driven by meeting learning intentions rather than holding to the knowledge-based pedagogies discussed in the assignment. For example, one assignment stressed the need for active and discursive learning about the topic of sustainability with upper school pupils. Pedagogic intentions in the assignment noted ideas such as asking pupils to consider and discuss how often in a week they use single-use plastics, following a product life cycle, and watching videos to stimulate discussion about social issues and sustainability. These ideas were then lost when populating the linear plan: lessons were content-heavy and expository (albeit with the exposition coming from videos chosen to ‘explain’ elements of content relating to the learning outcomes) with little space for active pupil exploration or discussion.

We wonder, therefore, if the difficulties in translating theory into practice might begin partly at the point of lesson planning. Even when students explored interesting and creative pedagogic approaches in their assignments, they struggled to capture their prior knowledge-based thinking in a generic linear plan. Reasoned pedagogic approaches became translated into the sort of practice ‘orthodoxies’ and ‘prescriptions’ that Shulman (Shulman Lee 1987) warns against.

Discussion

Our research question was: How can we support student teachers to integrate knowledges to inform the creation of subject pedagogies? Our evidence suggests that the ASPM can support the development of pedagogical reasoning based on integrating a range of subject-specific knowledges, but that the processes involved in this are challenging. Literature evidences the complexity of learning to teach and suggests various approaches which attempt to close the theory-practice gap. Our study adds to this knowledge in attesting to the complexities involved in supporting students to create integrative understandings of subject knowledge, theory, research, and practice. It also suggests that, rather than framing theory and practice as a gap to be bridged, planning for teaching can form a valuable generative space to discuss and explore the development of knowledge-based pedagogic decision-making using approaches such as the ASPM.

Working with the ASPM has created space for us to develop our thinking as teacher educators, in part because it has made students’ thinking about pedagogies more visible and explicit. Through creating and using the ASPM we have developed our thinking of the role of knowledge in teacher education. We now think of the issue as being about cognitive and professional development and potential (through opportunities for engagement with various knowledges) rather than one of deficit (a theory-practice gap). However, it is a complex undertaking to engage with and integrate knowledges across the elements of a Design and Technology teaching degree because of the different forms of knowledge involved. The technological elements of the programme engage students in declarative, conceptual, and procedural forms of knowledge strongly related to the philosophical concept of techne (Buckley et al. 2019). These are epistemologically distinctive to those in the education studies elements which tend to focus on forms of propositional knowledge which students are then expected to ‘translate’ (Reeves and Robinson 2016) into classroom practice via phronesis. Phronesis relates to those professional practical judgements that are the enactment and expression of teacher knowledges (Bardone and Bauters 2017; Korthagen and Kessels 1999). This is a significant conceptual undertaking which requires extensive exploration and modelling during teaching and learning in faculty and during practicum. This is a challenge given the limited teaching time we have with students, although the model has provided a basis for encouraging students to more fully ground phronesis within an academic and reflective knowledge base.

This challenge notwithstanding, our study gives us indications that planning for teaching holds potential as a space where forms of knowledge can be integrated to create pedagogic intentions (as evidenced in the student assignments). However, the surprising aspect for us came in the challenge of translating effective pedagogic reasoning into lesson plans. We suspect this may be due, in part, to the format of the generic lesson plan which foregrounds learning intentions, success criteria, timed segments, and named phases. It may also be due to practice orthodoxies that students feel they must include (starters and plenaries for example). We therefore intend to encourage students to produce lesson designs using different formats of their choosing to explore whether this more fully supports the translation of ideas from their ASPM exploration into a generic planning proforma.

Following our study, we realise that we did not sufficiently foreground the ontological aspects of learning to teach in our development of the ASPM. Our teacher education course is not just about learning practical skills and knowledges, it is about becoming a teacher (Gravett 2012). The ASPM still tends to present theory and research as something to be connected to practice despite our best intentions. One issue here is, again, the fact that our element of the professional studies course is taught in only 11 hours. We tend to sacrifice depth for breadth as we try to cover the range of knowledge and skills that students need if they are to meet the competencies outlined in gatekeeping standards. Thinking through the ontological dimensions is vital for the next phase of our study if we are to consider theory as embodied and enacted in classroom practice (Jackson and Burch 2016; Ord and Nuttall 2016). Part of the challenge of integration and synthesis may also lie in how we position propositional knowledge in teacher education and in the ASPM. Are we teaching about theory and research (Reeves and Robinson 2016) or are we encouraging students to engage with, and make professional meaning from, a range of evidence that includes theory and research?

There can also be tensions around the role of evidence in ITE programmes, particularly where practicum experiences ‘favour a particular repertoire for teaching in classrooms’ through which ‘codifications of practice’ are either positioned as theory (Reeves and Robinson 2016, 239) or seen as what works given classroom ‘realities’ (Ketter and Stoffel 2008). As the focus group comments indicate, discourses in schools can reinforce perceptions that faculty ideas (like the ASPM) are impractical, time consuming, and inappropriate for the real world of the classroom (Ela and Lena Østern 2021). There is sometimes a sense in these discourses of ‘them’ (‘ivory tower’ academics out of touch with schools) and ‘us’ (‘real’ teachers) (Ketter and Stoffel 2008, 129). This positioning may entrench the sense of a theory-practice gap where two worlds collide but never meet. However, as Anderson and Freebody (2012, 359) state, the theory-practice divide ‘is made and therefore can be un-made if there is the institutional will to do so’.

Where block placements sit alongside faculty learning, however, it can be difficult to create and maintain knowledge synergies across these two locations, even within a partnership model. Our ITE programme remains a theory-first model because of the separation of academic and practicum elements in the programme design. As Zeichner (2010) notes, even with partnership arrangements ‘the disconnect between what students are taught in campus courses and their opportunities for learning to enact these practices in their school placements is often very great’ (483). The importance of the overall design of the programme cannot be underestimated: a balanced approach is needed which ensures conceptual and structural coherence across integrated faculty and practicum elements (Canrinus et al. 2017).

Conclusion

We can offer a tentative response to our initial research question: How can we support student teachers to integrate knowledges to inform the creation of subject pedagogies? Our study indicates that doing this is not just a case of modelling or scaffolding integrative processes (although these are important), but about creating time and space in the curriculum to engage in extended dialogue with PSTs to explore individual and collective understandings of knowledge-based practice. Our evidence suggests that planning for learning can be a valuable space for these explorations.

However, our evidence also suggests that the linear design construct of lesson ‘planning’ was more deeply embedded in student understandings than we realised. The ASPM has led us to question how to move from a behaviourist approach to lesson planning to think more holistically about creating learning opportunities for school students. Our study has also led us to think that knowledge synthesis is helped or hindered by programme design. Following our literature review findings, we believe that practicum and faculty elements need to be in a dialogic, intertwined, relationship. To understand this more fully, we need to engage in further research with our students to focus on observations of classroom practice. (This has not been possible yet due to pandemic restrictions.) As part of this, we think understanding what it means to integrate knowledges must be seen as deeply connected to what it means to become a teacher. Returning to the quotation from Jackson and Burch, we see this as a journey for us as teacher educators to work with our students to ‘combine theory and practice into a coherent whole so that “enactment” can occur’ (Jackson and Burch 2016, 516).

Acknowledgments

We would like to thank the student participants in this study for their time and insights in helping us refine the ASPM.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).

Data availability statement

Due to the nature of this research, participants of this study did not agree for their data to be shared publicly, so supporting data is not available.

Correction Statement

This article has been corrected with minor changes. These changes do not impact the academic content of the article.

Appendix 1: Assignment Wording

Using the adaptive subject pedagogy model (ASPM), design, teach and feedback on a lesson that focuses on a particular area of the Technology Education curriculum. In order to do this, you will adopt a peer teaching approach whereby you develop your lesson individually but are paired up with a fellow student in order to teach it.

There are three parts to this assessment process shown below:

Table

Assessment Element & Type	Description	Method of Assessment
1. Lesson Design (Summative)	This is a written element based upon the ASPB and submitted via the link on Moodle	This will be holistically assessed against the stated criteria by the Lecturer.
2. Teaching of Lesson (Formative)	Student pairs will take it in turns to teach a 20-minute lesson to their partner.	This is formatively assessed for the student teaching by the student being taught (Assessment Element 3)
3. Feedback to Partner Student (Summative)	This feedback is produced following the peer teaching session and is included in the submission you make to the link on Moodle (along with your lesson design). In addition, you should email this to the student you are feeding back to on the same day as the submission.	You will receive feedback from your partner on your lesson in order to support your own development. The feedback that you produce for your partners lesson will be holistically assessed against the stated criteria by the Lecturer alongside your Lesson Design.

The assignment was assessed in terms of how effectively the student demonstrated that they could:

1. Understand and apply the adaptive subject pedagogy model for developing approaches to teaching and learning within technology subjects.

2. Engage with and utilise research that is relevant to the specific subjects within the technologies area of the CfE Curriculum.

3. Understand and effectively apply knowledge from school experience, University subjects, pedagogy/assessment and published research to lesson design.

4. Demonstrate deep analysis and reflection in relation to pedagogy, feedback and learning.

Appendix 2: Fictionalised Example of the ASPM

Disclaimer

Because it is not ethically compliant for us to include student submissions as part of this publication, the following fictionalised example has been created to give a sense of what might be produced for the ASPM. This would be considered ‘one cycle’ of the ASPM that could be iteratively developed over time. It draws, in part, upon what was produced in some of the assignments analysed in this study. The intention is to paint a picture of the types of thinking in each stage recognising, however, that students represent their thinking is each stage in quite different ways and, as shown by our analysis, reflect this thinking to different extents. We offer no evaluative judgment, assessment or grade for this fictionalised example.

Step 1: Topic Area & Pupils

• Chosen Topic Area: Idea Generation/Ideation

• Pupils: S2 Broad General Education (13–14 years old)

• Curriculum Organiser: Design and construct models/prototypes

• Experience/Outcome: I can extend and enhance my design skills to solve problems and can construct models (Curriculum for Excellence).

Step 2: Representation of Subject Matter

Learning about and being able to undertake idea generation involves the following:

• Knowing that: idea generation involves moving from an understanding of the problem and customer needs to concepts that offer ‘an approximate description of the technology, working principles, and form of the technology’ (Ulrich & Eppinger, 2008). It explores alternatives and involves searching internally and externally.

• Importance/awareness of:

  • Incubation period – does not always happen straight away, coming back to ideas at a later time), (Lecture Notes, Session 5)

  • Creative/critical thinking – options/novelty/perspectives/perseverance/questioning/comparison/evaluation.

  • Risk taking (no right or wrong – everything is part of thinking through an idea),

  • Empathy with product/end user (putting yourself in their shoes, asking questions, reflecting). (Lecture Notes, Session 2)

• Research/investigation/stimulus: different forms of evidence and investigation are used to develop and shape design concepts (they are not simply made up).

• Knowing the methods: Involves a wide range of methods including things such as S.C.A.M.P.E.R., brainstorming, morphological analysis, mood boards, visualisation, trial and error, mind mapping and research about existing products.

These can be more open or more structured with three of these represented in Table 1:

Table

Approach	When to use	How to use
S.C.A.M.P.E.R. A form of guided brain storming using the following manipulators: Substitute. Combine. Adapt. Modify. Put to another use. Eliminate. Reverse. https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-981-10-0983-9_33	Problem solving; developing, refining or revitalising initial or exiting ideas.	Take the problem statement or initial idea and use each of the possible changes to ask questions (e.g. which parts could I combine to reduce the amount of material I am using?). The answer to each of these questions should then by used to modify the concept in some way. Modifications should be critically evaluated.
Morphological Analysis A process of brainstorming or developing a range of options for different requirements/sub-systems that are hen combined in different orders to give a range of possible solutions. https://core.ac.uk/download/pdf/212848162.pdf Lecture Notes, Session 3	If/when requirement and options are sufficiently understood, product re-design.	Process: From research and investigation, identify the different requirements/sub-systems and list these along the top of a matrix. Brainstorm possible options that can be listed for each of these. Combine different options for requirements/sub-systems and draw out/describe the resultant solution. Different solutions can then be compared and evaluated.
Brain Storming A non-judgemental process used to create as many ideas as possible regardless of whether they are good/bad/indifferent will work or not work. https://www.interaction-design.org/literature/topics/brainstorming#:~:text=Brainstorming%20is%20a%20method%20design,them%20to%20find%20potential%20solutions.	Typically, near the beginning of idea generation.	Rules: Do not judge what you/people come up with (analyse afterwards). One conversation at a time. Encourage far-fetched ideas. Focus on quantity over quality. Build on ideas of others. Set a time limit and/or target number of ideas.

Step 3(a): Reflections about Learning and Teaching Concept Generation

My first experience of ideation was as a learner when I started secondary school where the teacher demonstrated the process of developing ideas by talking aloud. The initial idea generation was quite open using a sort of trial-and-error approach and a range of different visual stimuli from investigation. I found it helpful to get an idea of what the teacher was thinking in real-time as she played around with ideas – it did make me think more about the process rather than just the outcome. We then had a chance to work on our own using the research and investigation in our own folios, but I found it quite challenging to come up with a range of ideas. The teacher also introduced more structured approaches including SCAMPER. When we tried S.C.A.M.P.E.R., we did it as a group where we rotated through the manipulations with the one concept and evolved it collectively until we felt it was ‘finished’. Here, working in a group let you see how other people were using each of the manipulations and it was quite dynamic. I think this helped when I came to apply it to my own design ideas – but I still had to come up with something I could apply it to. I can still find difficult but one approach from our Design lectures at university was to go back to your research and stimulus when you felt stuck.

I also had the chance to teach ideation whilst on placement, but this was to an older S3 class and using a combination of brainstorming and morphological analysis. Although the class seemed to engage well and enjoyed combining ideas using the morphological grid, some of them really struggled with sketching the ideas this gave rise to. I spent some time with one pupil looking at different ways he might represent his ideas. This did help to some extent, but he and others still struggled. Doing this with similar but different objects might have been better (not sure?? Do pupils need always to sketch ideas?).

Step 3(b): Evidence about Learning and Teaching Concept Generation

Two of the papers I found presented interesting possibilities related to the ‘inner self critical’ and ‘fixation effects’ during idea generation.

McGlashan (2018) presents a pedagogical strategy that takes inspiration from nature to enhance observational skills, imagination, sketching, new ideas and remove pupil’s internal critic. Pupils select item from nature (searching externally), calmly focus attention on the detail of the item and quickly record observations of outline, texture, shape, form while rotating the object. They do this without critical judgment before using the shape and form they have recorded to directly influence different concepts. Verbal prompts and annotation can further enhance and explain this.

McLellan & Nicholl (2011) see fixation effects as a normative mode of thinking where thinking is constrained by existing knowledge and people attend to a limited set of ideas in the design process. They also state that this happens with pupils of all ages, but that the teacher can overcome many of these fixation effects. They argue that, rather than employing step-by-step guidance, teaching approaches should involve risk and ambiguity to prevent pupils simply recalling something they had already seen. To help this, they advise teachers to demonstrate with a different product to that being developed as a starting point for design work.

Step 4: Pedagogical Synthesis

When teaching idea generation, the evidence from my cycle of the ASPM suggests that:

• The different processes of idea generation should be emphasised over the outputs from idea generation, and demonstrations should incorporate ‘think aloud’ commentary from the teacher using a different object or product to the pupils. This provides insight into the thinking process whilst helping to avoid fixation effects and gives pupils a process to apply to a range of design challenges.

• Where possible, idea generation methods (S.C.A.M.P.E.R., Morphological analysis, brain storming) should be structured so that they can be done collaboratively when pupils first try them, and pupils should be encouraged not to rub or scribble anything out (inner self-critic). Seeing and responding to the idea of others in collaboration can help to build insight and confidence for individual design thinking.

• Where appropriate, pupils should be encouraged to take risks and be adventurous in their thinking, practice deferring judgment and be encouraged to go back to their visual stimulus/investigation or revisit particular ideas at a later stage if they feel like they are getting stuck.

• Opportunities to develop sketching abilities should be included beforehand and/or throughout, as well as making available alternative ways of representing different ideas (e.g. 3D modelling software, physical materials such as plasticene, card or paper). Sketching should emphasise shape and form, be supported by annotation and be set within a non-judgemental environment. This may help to stop ideas being curtailed by pupils’ abilities to sketch and communicate what they have in their head.

References

McGlashan, A. (2018) ‘A pedagogic approach to enhance creative Ideation in classroom practice’, International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 28(2), pp. 377–393. doi:10.1007/s10798-017-9404-5.

McLellan, R. and Nicholl, B. (2011) ‘“If I was going to design a chair, the last thing I would look at is a chair”: product analysis and the causes of fixation in students’ design work 11–16 years’, International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 21(1), pp. 71–92. doi:10.1007/s10798-009-9107-7.

Ulrich, K.T. and Eppinger, S.D. (2008) Product design and development. 4th edn. London, New York, N.Y; McGraw-Hill Higher Education.