1.7 I Know It Was Magic 10
1.7.2 Understanding Role Modelling From a Social Constructivist Perspective
Korthagen and Lunenberg (2004) suggested that whilst there has been much research undertaken since the 1980s on teacher educators, the research focused more on their research publications and the developments of the prescribed curriculum instead of their pedagogical practices. They attributed this to the fact that not much was known at that time about teacher educators’ practices, although they were deemed to be responsible for the quality of teachers they produced.
Regardless of the content of teacher education programmes, student teachers are likely to be influenced by the ideologies and practices of their teacher educators (Izadinia, 2012). Hence, teacher educators through their role modelling can instil a sense of power and agency in student teachers so that they grow into responsible and caring individuals. Teacher educators’ words, behaviour, teaching styles, and practices shape student teachers’ present and future professional lives and influence who they are and who they become (Izadinia, 2012).
Clarke (1994) highlighted the significance of teacher educators modelling the linking of theory to practice because this would draw attention to teacher educators’ reflection and action on teaching.
In this way, student teachers can see what it is like to reflect on their own teaching activities and realise that they are not only learning from their teacher educators’ teaching but, rather, from their reflection on their own experiences. Hence, student teachers can develop their own professional knowledge (Clark, 1994). Korthagen, Loughran, and Russell (2006) expanded on this view by pointing out that merely telling students about the pedagogical approaches and theory of teaching will not sufficiently prepare them for the rigours of actual classrooms. Instead, Korthagen et al.
recommended that there should a balance between theory and practical implementation of the theory in a classroom situation. In my understanding, this means student teachers should submerge
30
themselves and genuinely engage in actual practical classroom teaching whilst at the same time drawing on the theoretical underpinnings of their teaching training programme.
Korthagen et al. (2006) argued that when teaching student teachers about teaching, it is imperative that teacher educators model the teaching strategies that they teach about in their lessons. Korthagen et al. clearly admonished teacher educators who do not give students explanations on why they are using a specific method or strategy in their teaching. Likewise, Kosnik (2003) argued that if teacher educators themselves do not experience what they are teaching their student teachers, then the student teachers will not be able to deeply comprehend and gain from this lesson. Loughran and Berry (2005) claimed that when teacher educators model the “thoughts and actions” underpinning their practice, this leads to “more powerful teaching and learning about teaching” (p. 197). Loughran and Berry further articulated that because teacher educators are at the pinnacle of gaining in-depth understanding of teaching about teaching, it is imperative for them to model this in-depth understanding for others, namely, their students.
Loughran (as cited in Korthagen et al., 2006) suggested that it is of primary significance for student teachers to be explicitly told by their teacher educators what and how they intend teaching. Loughran believed that teacher educators’ role modelling is not enough to equip student teachers to tackle the challenges that teaching poses as well as teach in an effective manner. Similarly, Lunenberg et al.
(2007) pointed out that student teachers do not learn enough from the examples implicitly role modelled by their teacher educators because they often do not actually see these examples. Clearly enough, Loughran and Berry (2005) showed that this is a very powerful assumption because sometimes what teacher educators intend to teach is vastly different from what they actually teach.
Although Lunenberg et al. (2007) concluded in their study that role modelling by teacher educators may be not effective, they recognised that a thorough in-depth study of the effects of role modelling is needed to make more substantive claims.
Just as teacher educators think back to the people who have had a positive influence on their development and career choices, if teacher educators strive to become people to be emulated by student teachers, we must strive to have a profound effect on others (Kenny, Mann, & MacLeod, 2003). Goodman and Fish (1997) cautioned that inconsistencies between teacher education programmes and social constructivist approaches, and the modelling of these approaches by teacher educators in their practices, undermine student teachers’ beliefs in the importance of the student or learner voice in education. On the other hand, Michalec’s (1999) study revealed that deliberately
31
modelling constructivist teacher education programmes by teacher educators in their own classrooms creates opportunities for student teachers to understand the principles of constructivist teaching and learning that otherwise would not have been available to them.
Howey and Zimpher (1990) denounced teacher educators for not modelling the type of teaching that provides student teachers with the ability to transfer their knowledge into new situations and apply it to different contexts. They maintained that this ability is essential for student teachers because they, in turn, have to model this type of teaching to their learners in the schools. Furthermore, Lunenburg et al. (1997) emphasised that for student teachers to consider their instructional practices meaningful, teacher educators should model behaviours of accomplished teachers so students would get to know what the purpose of teaching is.
Bahmanbijari et al. (2016) made me aware that in every teacher educator practice there can be a combination of productive and adverse role modelling. They showed me that reflecting with student teachers on these experiences would provide me, and the student teachers, with valuable lessons on role modelling. The reason they gave for this was that, without thinking about these events, students may not have learnt from what they observed. They suggested that being a productive role model was an aspiration to be pursued continuously because no one can lay claim to being an effective role model all the time. Hence, my goal became to try to do the best I can at all times.
From my reading, I anticipated that making time to engage in discussions, deep conceptual thinking, and talks with colleagues would help me to develop as a better role model (Cruess, Cruess, &
Steinert, 2008). Cruess et al. (2008) explained further that, despite the challenges of our daily activities as teacher educators coupled with our administrative responsibilities, if we do not make time to engage each other in meaningful dialogue and reflection, then this will be a missed opportunity to learn from each other’s experiences. Cruess et al. maintained that taking time out to reflect on the experience would make lessons learned from our role modelling more apparent to our student teachers. They regarded a negative experience being discussed and reflected on between colleagues to be just as powerful as a positive one. Also, Inui (2004) made me aware that there was also an informal curriculum that consisted of nonscheduled activities that take place during teaching and learning, and which is just as formidable as the formal curriculum. More significant to my study, I read that many of the detrimental effects of adverse role modelling can happen in this informal curriculum.
32