5-minute read

Back in the 90s, student-centred learning was very much in vogue – it seemed like it was the topic on every teacher’s mind.  Ideas like ‘how to teach without talking’, how to use peer teaching, and making the most of co-operative learning were all popular and, although not exactly new, there was a certain ‘fresh’ quality to the thinking.  Much of this movement was influenced by Carl Rogers’ person-centred approach to counselling, which, as you may know, was built on the general premise that, given the right conditions, everyone can achieve their full potential.  There is nothing to argue with here; in fact, this is an attractive idea in the world of education.  It is an attractive idea, full stop!  But how does this translate into real life?

To achieve our full potential (described as ‘self-actualisation’), it is believed that we should be provided with a positive environment in which we have the freedom to be self-directed.  This can refer to formal learning, but it also considers the situated learning that comes from experience. When these ideas were originally introduced, the teacher’s role became one of facilitator, rather than an instructor – even if this was still underpinned by the need to achieve certain outcomes (like qualifications).  The expectation was that the approach to achieving these aims would have a different focus. Direct instruction was sidelined in favour of group work and collaboration. In effect, teachers were expected to transfer knowledge without any direct teaching so that learners were able to develop some autonomy. Of course, this was not a perfect model, taking a single approach rarely is but it did have a significant impact in changing the focus from teaching to learning.

Thirty years later, things are quite different, especially in the context of initial teacher training (ITT). Here, professional standards and the Core Content Framework [PDF] have a significant influence, and loyal denizens must abide by these guidelines. One aspect of this is the introduction of intensive training and practice (ITAP), a mechanism for managing trainees’ learning. In theory, this offers trainees the opportunity to practise specific techniques for effective teaching and to consolidate their understanding of how theory might be applied in practice.  However, it could also be argued that it (or whoever drives ‘it’) decides on what is and isn’t important in the classroom.  A very different approach to the days of student-centred facilitation. So… why does this matter to mentors?  Well, if you happen to be a mentor supporting a trainee teacher, you will also be subject to this more instrumental approach to mentoring. 

When in training, having a mentor to support individual progress is certainly beneficial and, in principle, provides a useful structure to enable each trainee to reach their full potential. However, for this activity to be truly individualised, both mentors and mentees need to have agency in constructing the mentoring process and in deciding on key areas for development.  when it comes to mentoring, the new framework seems to have a clear agenda. The focus of mentoring should be on intensive training and practice.  This move has brought with it renewed interest in more instrumental models of mentoring, which are based on ‘instructional coaching’ and ‘deliberate practice’. Bambrick-Santoyo’s (2012) model is one example of this and includes 6 steps:

• Precise praise
• Probe
• Identify problem and concrete action step
• Practice
• Plan ahead
• Review

The steps themselves are straightforward enough and outline a typical model of observation, feedback, and target setting, which has been used in ITT for years.  However, when coupled with instructional coaching, the process of mentoring becomes something very different.

Instructional coaching is influenced by mastery learning and is based on the premise that specific problems and corrective actions can be identified. These are then translated into activities which provide the opportunity for consistent, focused practice. It is not unlike the approach used in sports coaching: ‘Teachers are like tennis players: they develop most quickly when they receive frequent feedback and opportunities to practice.’ (Bamrick-Santoyo: 2012:65).

It is easy to see why this is popular in education circles, especially with the renewed interest in deliberate practice (an idea that draws on Ericsson et al., 1993). The term describes highly structured activities that are employed with the explicit goal of improving performance.  If you would like to know more about this, there is a short video on my resources page.https://themagicmentor.org/resources/

The goal of deliberate practice and instructional coaching is to develop expertise that allows teachers to respond to the demands of the classroom. A laudable aim… but, to meet the complex demands of professional practice, a teacher also needs to be able to adapt, and such adaptation requires the ability to think through a situation within a very short time frame. It requires teachers to enact agency in their roles, and for student-teachers, it probably means they need to explore their practice in detail.  They would usually do this through discussion with their mentors.

My personal experience of working with trainee and early career teachers is that they often fear getting it wrong, and this fear creates a tendency to follow rules rigidly rather than consider options. This means that when something doesn’t go exactly as they expect, it can be overwhelming.  When a skill or strategy has been learnt in isolation, there is a struggle to adapt to another context, and yet… the complexities of teaching mean that any number of events could disrupt the flow of the class, making it necessary to be able to cope with whatever presents itself. 

I wonder if, rather than mastering specific techniques in isolation, time might be better spent developing a thorough understanding of teaching and learning theory alongside the ability to critically evaluate practice. After all, teaching is not a scripted exercise, and expertise does not come from simply practising something over and over. Practice helps, of course, but it needs to be informed; we need to understand why we are doing something in a particular way and how we might adapt to a different context.  By taking the opportunity to make mistakes, reflect on them, and make connections, we enhance our ability to improvise, and more importantly, develop confidence in our ability to adapt to the circumstances.  Reflection will also lead us to a greater understanding of the skills we need to develop further.  That is ipsative assessment and specific goal-setting in action!

Is it time to reconsider the inflexible models imposed on ITT and adopt a more democratic approach, rather than an instrumental one?  In this way, mentors and their proteges learn together, learning is focused on individual needs, and everyone wins.  Of course, to do this, we would need to consider the mentor’s role, not as an instructional coach but more as an enabler. From wise, all-knowing Master to Co-learner, albeit one with a little more experience to share.  Not dissimilar to Rogers’ original ideas about a person-centred approach…. Maybe he had something, or maybe we can find a better way…?

References

Bambrick-Santoyo, P. (2012) Leverage Leadership: A practical Guide to Building Exceptional Schools. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Ericsson, K. A., Krampe, R. T., & Tesch-Römer, C. (1993) The role of deliberate practice in the acquisition of expert performance. Psychological Review, 100(3), 363–406.

Rogers, C. (1961) On Becoming a Person: A therapeutic view of Psychotherapy. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.