Spring 2024 Posts

ITaP but Why TaP?

Among the raft of changes brought in through the reaccreditation of Initial Teacher Education (ITE), one element has, thus far, caused the most consternation. The DfE now requires that all PGCE trainees complete at least 20 days of ‘Intensive Training and Practice’ (ITaP) during their course.

The initial guidance on what these days would need to accomplish was extremely vague. However, in December 2023, just months away from the launch of the reaccredited courses, and several months after they began recruiting, the DfE released further guidance on the ITaP element. Here I aim to explore what jumps out from this revised ITaP guidance.

The guidance begins by reiterating the purpose of the ITaP days. It cites the Carter Review to suggest that the main role of ITaP is to prevent programmes becoming too heavily focused on either ‘theory’ or ‘practice’ and to ensure their integration. According to the guidance, the ITaP is meant to provide ‘the opportunity for trainees to practise specific techniques for effective teaching outside of the more general classroom experience,’ which would in turn ‘consolidate trainees’ understanding of how research and evidence inform and shape practice, whilst allowing them to receive highly targeted feedback from experts.’ Yet this seems to be at odds with the actual findings of the Carter Review which suggests creating artificial blocks of practice to be counterproductive.

It is also clear that ITaP retains the notion that teaching is a hierarchical set of knowledge – a series of techniques to be learned and practiced, rather than a mixture of hierarchical and cumulative aspects which are intricately linked to specific subjects and contexts. In essence, the document doubles down on a rather problematic view of learning expressed frequently in simplistic models of Direct Instruction. However, the ITaP model seems to ignore the step where we connect to existing knowledge. The ITaP process is very much: input -> practice -> feedback -> change. Yet most models of professional learning suggest that the process is far more nuanced than this. There needs to be a constant interaction between our preexisting knowledge and beliefs, external input, practice and feedback (Antoniou & Kyriakides, 2013; Burn, 2007; Clarke & Hollingsworth, 2002; Hargreaves, 1993; Lave & Wenger, 1991; Orchard & Winch, 2015; Pedder, 2007; Wenger, 2008).

The timing of ITAPs continues to arbitrary: 4 weeks focusing on “granular examples”. There are definite echoes of Teach First Summer Institutes coming through. These Summer Institutes usually involve trainees spending entire sessions learning how to do Cold Calling or No Opt Out. They are of course some use, but very limited in understanding how to teach a subject when divorced from context.

Another thing which jumps out is how generic these suggested focus areas continue to be. The idea you could have an intensive focus on “questioning” which could just be rolled out across all trainees and placements seems weak. Questioning in what context? Yes, there are some basic principles to asking questions but the depth of this will come from what is being taught. Getting mentors to focus excessively on the performance of questioning obscures meaningful progress in curricular thinking. In history we might instead be asking: ‘How do we ask good questions which focus pupils’ thinking on change and continuity, or causation, or historical significance?’ These are things which need addressing in particular contexts and will mean revisiting ideas over a whole course, not 4 weeks. And then beyond this, how do we focus their thinking on changes brought by the Reformation, or the causes of the Haitian Revolution? This means interplay with a school curriculum. Having an ITaP on “questioning” and assuming the work is done seems utterly counterintuitive. Where is the subject, or indeed phase focus?

The uniqueness of ITAP is where it gets interesting. The aim is to get trainees to see links between theory and practice and get feedback on what they are testing in the classroom. Now here I completely agree. But good ITE courses already make provision for this. For example, at LTU we spend at least 6 hours unpicking planning for, delivering and assessing lessons and sequences based on change and continuity, historical evidence, historical significance, and so on. This begins with reflecting on what trainees have seen or experienced in their schools and engaging with subject specific literature. We immerse ourselves in activities within the session – design or adapt our own tasks, think about powerful questions, explore student work. Then trainees then have opportunities to try these things in lessons and get feedback from mentors. In short, there is nothing new about ITaP, but it does try to force good ITE practice into a specific and problematic format.

But by far and away one of the most frustrating aspects of the ITaP document is that it recognises effective partnerships with mentors can achieve everything an ITAP can. Yet, rather than support and fund the building of mentor communities & encouraging collaboration we have a model which prioritises top down delivery. Mentors are meant to play an implementation role and not be part of the shaping process of the ITaP. This again runs counter to the aim for ITE to support and develop colleagues in schools. To make it worse, at the same time as noting that school placement can be too intense for effective feedback, the new ITE framework massively increases the requirements for trainees to be pupil facing (15 hours per week average across the year), reducing still further the time for reflection and feedback.

So we are left none the wiser. ITE providers across the country are still grappling with what the DfE actually want. Meanwhile genuine and valuable ways to improve ITE are being ignored. It's an almighty mess!

References

 Antoniou, P., & Kyriakides, L. (2013). A Dynamic Integrated Approach to teacher professional development: Impact and sustainability of the effects on improving teacher behaviour and student outcomes. Teaching and Teacher Education, 29, 1–12. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2012.08.001

 Burn, K. (2007). Professional knowledge and identity in a contested discipline: challenges for student teachers and teacher educators. Oxford Review of Education, 33(4), 445–467. https://doi.org/10.1080/03054980701450886

Clarke, D., & Hollingsworth, H. (2002). Elaborating a model of teacher professional growth. Teaching and Teacher Education, 18(8), 947–967. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0742-051X(02)00053-7

 Hargreaves, A. (Ed.). (1993). Understanding teacher development (Repr). Cassell.

 Lave, J., & Wenger, E. (1991). Situated learning: legitimate peripheral participation. Cambridge University Press.

 Orchard, J., & Winch, C. (2015). What training do teachers need? Why theory is necessary to good teaching. Impact, 22.

 Pedder, D. (2007). Profiling Teachers’ Professional Learning Practices and Values: Differences between and within Schools. Curriculum Journal, 18(3), 231–252.

 Wenger, E. (2008). Communities of practice: learning, meaning, and identity. Cambridge Univ. Press.