It's in the public setting office on future generations and future education research policy and practise.
And I think we're delighted to be introducing speaker for this evening, Brian Mann,
who's whose teacher education in the department and also convenor of the Pedagogy,
Learning and Knowledge Research, building on three research thesis of the conference.
Prior to joining the conference, Diane was the personal education as dean of education and social work in Australia at the University of Sydney,
where she also led several large scale mixed methods no studies of effectiveness and quality in the workforce in teacher education,
funded by the Australian Research Council and the Australian government's inability to attract 5000 graduate teachers and the thousands of principals.
So a lot of evidence on which to base conclusions.
You will probably all know Diane already from her kind of publications and from her work around the world.
So long as you to dwell for too long. But I do want to say that I can't even think of anybody.
I can't believe that it's only been, what,
nine months or so since Diane joined us in in September last year because you already feel so much at the very important point of the department.
And this is why its first inaugural seminar on the slide, as well as this is done in order professorial talk.
So over to you going on with people to talk. Thank you.
Thanks, Alex, and thanks everyone for coming this afternoon.
So as the title indicates, I'm going to try and look at policy, practise and research around teacher education,
and I'll track that basically three countries the US, Australia and in the UK, but specifically England, I guess just at a broad level.
You saw my research to look at what impact or connexions or disconnections is happening between the
research and the policy particularly and then think a little bit more about where we go from the.
So that is the right hand side there.
I just want to do a little brief history really to capture about since the 60s what's happened in research and teacher education,
particularly research on teaching at that time. The current policy moment, which those of you who I've talked with before will know talked about,
you know, the the policy problem of teacher education, which comes from Aaron Copland, Smith's work.
And then, as I said, some of my research very briefly the long, longitudinal,
large scale project that I did in Australia because I know some of you already heard some of that,
but I just want to draw out some of the high level findings and then some of the work that I've been doing more recently with colleagues
at the University of Melbourne and the University of Auckland to try and draw on complexity theory to really understand teacher education.
And this notion of effectiveness and what does it really mean?
So as I said, starting right back, it's important to hang on.
The teacher education research is a relatively new field.
It was in 1964 that night gauge in the US called for more research or teacher education that is research on effective teaching,
but can use be used for an alternative to education and then research on teacher education.
The notion of looking at what the results of different approaches teacher and at the risk of spoiling the ending and I've highlighted here.
Linda Darling-Hammond comment just from a few years back that basically says picking up his points
in this talk about the disrespect to scientific knowledge regarding teaching and teacher education,
she says it's probably not surprising to any of us in this room.
But that seems echoed through the decades.
And even as we've made progress and new knowledge has frequently been put out there, it's either been ignored, misinterpreted,
misused and sometimes by teacher educators,
but mostly by policymakers and with the result that we're in a space eerily resembling those of half a century ago.
So that's kind of where I'm going to end up and hopefully with some more hopeful outcomes.
And so let's have a quick look at where we started on the research or teaching of it.
For teacher education research on teaching about 4G to education, the so-called processed product research,
the notion of looking at teacher behaviours and then trying through some sort of experimental positive experimental correlation or designs and so on,
identifying which behaviours seem to be correlated with student outcomes.
Student learning outcomes.
Hence, the name process product and what happened as a result of that was the policies picked up this research and made lists of behaviours,
lists of competencies. Some of them pretty trivial, but perhaps easy to measure.
And, you know, things like right behaviour objectives.
You know, things that and what was the other one?
And the things like using their voice, well, things that really quite quite trivial,
but had been put on a list of of behaviours that both were then used to inform teacher education,
but also used to judge teachers and evaluate teachers.
And in Australia, this at that particular time, what was called the Sydney Micro Skills.
Tania, how are you with colleagues at the University of Sydney developed packages which
had lots of video snippets of someone doing good questioning the Oh listen,
you know, little snippets of good questioning, good use of praise, good use of feedback, those sorts of things to which.
And I know this will be because that's when I was going through my teacher education.
So we had to learn as we watched them in videos, learn them through some sort of discourse that was intense.
But it was always breaking down the skills so you can see the heaviest reinforcement, basic questioning variability.
So you can't read the other ones explaining, just demonstrating with the other one.
So you learn them. And then in small groups, in the teacher education classroom, you taught just that little snippet, not a lesson.
You just demonstrated that you could actually do those particular things.
Of course, it was justified as a research based, which I guess it was, but it's suffered from breaking down teaching into all its component parts.
And somehow, as I say, that just became rather trivial and had nothing to do with subject matter curriculum or student learning in very many cases.
So teacher education related to teacher was training and skills.
Moving on then to the 80s, I mean, these timeframes are very rubbery.
It happens differently in different parts of the world, but just as a bit of a framing.
People started to say, But hang on a moment when you're looking at behaviours, we need to understand what teachers are thinking,
their cognition, what they do, just particularly the decisions that they're making.
And so the whole body of research on free instruction and decision making, I think, was the term that was used at that time.
The decision making that happened during lessons which stimulated recall was the approach that was used a lot there to try and get teachers to
talk about what they were thinking and how they were making those decisions at a particular point in time and then post this decision making.
And people like Chris Clark, US James Cole, the head, Chris Day, whole range of people here.
And then a little offshoot of that was this expert, not research, which has still been built on.
However, all of this has been built on.
But David Meline and Kathy Carter and so on, that really said, but we need to look at what expert teachers can do and what they're thinking.
So we know how to try and if you like, move our pre-service teachers to that space.
Because the problem was even though that research did a lot of good work on identifying things to exclude teachers,
what it didn't do is identify how one moves from novice to expert.
So. So it was a snapshot. And of course, at that time, with this teacher thinking he was on set began.
It was first called the International Study Association on teacher thinking as one of
the fairly first large organisations that was really focussed on teacher thinking.
And the new book that was published of the conference was to be ninety nine.
I think it is their insights into teachers thinking in practise, so she stayed on for impotence.
So then this notion of which we all know about teaching and all that it teaches knowledge and Lee Shulman and his colleagues,
particularly with the notion of pedagogical content, knowledge, that stuff to come out of that,
we've got a few key publications here and takes more, of course.
And lead to that was the work on two has some practical knowledge, just practical knowledge, leaving the main by conditioning.
And Michael called me in in Canada, but it was sort of the.
And at this stage then there was a lot more emphasis in teacher education using this
research to help think about teacher education as learning to teach beyond acquiring skills.
So what knowledge that people need to know?
What does that knowledge look like, how people acquiring it and how they use it?
And then about the same time as I said, lots of crossover here, the whole notion of critical reflection, reflective practise.
So don't shine. And then kids, I know that.
And one of the seminal works on teaching people to reflect them as I've learnt their lesson.
And then the whole notion of action research as another kind of dimension to that.
And then more recently, in this time frame, at least this sort of notional critical refresh reflection,
trying to think about the impact and the consequences of the things that are happening in the classrooms for diverse learners.
And it was really only about this time that study of teaching and study of learning as two
disparate areas of research in two different parts of the academy started to come together.
Prior to that, you had pretty much psychology driving the study of learning and the study of teaching, as I've described to you.
And it wasn't until around this time in the 1990s, early 2000s, but that started to come together.
So where are we now? So when I say now in the last debate?
Much more of a policy emphasis now. And this whole notion of economic competitiveness, country comparisons.
So you had the classic McKinsey report that got people doing comparisons.
You can see the influence of things like pizza on government documents say, you know,
the classic 2010 white paper here, which was very significant terms of some of the changes that started to evolve.
Start off with quoting piece around, you know, we fell and we've got to do something about catching up in Australia.
Even just in 2014, the same sort of things were still happening here.
We're talking about the declining performance and so on.
And suddenly, this notion of teacher quality became very much focussed on as if we'd sort of never thought about before, really.
And a big focus then on the quality of teacher education as a result, spurred on by supply and demand issues in many countries about,
you know, issues of recruitment and retention, which I think are still a big focus in the policy sphere and the focus on outcomes.
So. This sort of if you like this sort of context, these sorts of things of this contest having to deal with the situation,
which Marilyn Conference Smith terms about 10 years ago or so,
this idea of initial teacher education becoming a policy problem and being driven by political ideology,
certainly driven by a distortion and a misuse of the research.
Ken Zeichner and Hillary Clinton wrote a lovely paper a few years ago where they followed one of
his early pieces of research and then followed it over the country called now how many years,
maybe 15 years, where the original intention of that research and the original findings when they followed it
was being used to support something completely different to what it was originally saying.
And so they talked about these echo chambers and so on. So the idea that as happens in policy circles,
where someone quotes the finding of a research and then that's quoted again and it's quoted again and again.
And you know, in the end, no one's going back to the original research.
And he came later and still does makes a nice argument about that's how a lot of policy has been developing over the last number of years,
saying it's informed by research, but not really going to the real research,
not sort of ventriloquism as he talks about and this new fracturing and narrative of science.
Because if you want to make policy change, go say something wrong.
So many people have talked about this and you have to build this narrative of
failure of teacher education so that then you can move in and do provide solutions,
often on a grand scale and large scale reform agendas, which is what has happened.
And as a married couple, Smith highlighted quite a while ago,
and I'm sure you can still see the ways in which that's happening now when we define something as a policy problem.
It put it all apart and see which bits of it you might be able to fix through a policy imperative.
And that's, you know, you think about even things I won't quote them.
But Morrison's policies in this country, you can actually see that that's what's happening.
So if you fix, you know, let's say, the knowledge base of teachers, that's a big problem.
So pull out a part and you build a policy around, you know, in Australia, teacher tested, for example, which has been in the last five years,
the same subject matter requirements,
some people having to have other sorts of qualifications for certainly alternative pathways, which I'll be back in a moment.
Let's have a look at how that's developed in the three examples us here and also in Australia and where we can see this stuff happen,
this kind of building, I think of a narrative of failure in this policy document.
So. 2001 no child left behind was a little bit before that as well, but this is where it really starts to pick up pace.
So this is the annual report from the Secretary of Education fairly influential document, which purports to say how things are going in the US.
And these are direct quotes from.
The response out of this particular report, the colleges and schools of education are simply getting in the way of good people, becoming teachers.
They they borrowed this notion of highly qualified who would argue about that.
But what highly qualified means was having good content, knowledge and verbal ability.
And that's what high. So that was building the case for saying you need a degree in mathematics and you needed
good skills of explaining things and everything else you could beat up on the job.
And it was even in 2009 that kind of rhetoric in these reports, in schools of education,
of doing a mediocre job because you have to believe, as I said, this narrative of failure, you know, better than I do the story here.
And I've just I came down in 2010 paper because from someone who was living in this country at that time,
this 2010 paper seems to me to be the start of a whole range of things that have happened.
So this whole idea of teaching being a craft and apprenticeship, observing the master and more training on the job and then in 2013,
goes goes on to say that really, the whole problem is with the education academics, why so much of the research and evidence is so poor?
And thankfully, we're putting it all back into the hands of schools and teachers and so on.
So you can get a feel for that flavour coming through.
And in Australia, at the same sort of thing happened about it was on 2009 that the federal government
stepped in to really drive what they said was improving teacher quality,
the notion of additional pathways attracting the brightest and best through additional funds, you know,
and I believe that spelling, developing standards, quality and even in 2014, the this was a federal government report.
The Ministerial Advisory Group report action now and their recommendations was looking at evidence of impact of teacher education.
The rhetoric there was there's no evidence of the impact of it's really focussing on entry.
And this whole notion of classroom readiness that teachers, people coming out of teacher education programmes need to be classroom ready.
I should point out that I'm told that this particular time and significantly in the main schools,
the case that people complete their initial teacher education before being employed.
So this notion of classroom reading has that particular connotations that people get a
qualification bachelor of education or graduate flow rate education or a mass of education,
and then they are classroom ready.
So where are we now given these sorts of framings we've got eliminating or reducing the role of universities and higher education institutes?
We've got to turn to practise the notion of what works.
We've got an increasingly complex regulation regulatory system in many countries and the focus on outcomes.
This notion of value, and there's probably others, but these are just some.
I want to just spend a few moments on alternative routes.
Well, we all know about the Teach for All franchise.
So 1990 Teach for America, the very first one teach first year,
2003 and 2010 after the previous policy document that I referred to Teach for Australia.
And it goes on. These are just a few this, I think.
Fifty three teach schools throughout the world and you'll notice the wording that they're using on their website,
and it's it's replicated in many of the country websites. The problem that we are addressing.
So this notion of universities have had control of teacher education for many, many years or higher education institutes not.
Bullets are useless, and they've not done a very good job.
See, you know, we still got all these quality problems.
OK, let's get the brightest and the best, you know, target high achieving undergrads coming into a truncated,
shall we say, preparation programme and other sorts of supports and study and maybe to preparation.
Now, I just want to use this as an example, because and I think it was your mentor is trying to do the memo this in this country as well,
but basically said and Kim's ideas started in the states basically said, Look, these programmes and there's not very many people involved.
You know, when you look at the whole, it's not, but they've had such impact in so many other ways.
Now, in this country, in a few years, a few years ago, it was about where places were being allocated and so on.
But here's an example of, you know, teach for Australia starting in 2010.
This is the size of the cardboard for the first few years.
In 2016, the government and I should add, it's notoriously difficult to get accurate figures around about this.
You know, not surprising these reports,
but then you've got to work out who's written the report and why the federal government committed a further 20 million over the next four years.
So they nine 10 year Financial Review has just recently claimed that, you know,
they're doing a wonderful job because they've believe they've trained 800 graduates in 10 years.
Just by point of comparison, well, first of all, you look at the maths of all of that.
I can't read the total.
In 2016, the total number of people who completing a teacher education programme were about 79000.
So, you know, small but having a huge impact and a huge stabilising impact as well.
And of course, it goes on a, you know, better than I do about this.
Since the school directed the academies and in England in the US, a classic one was the American Board for Certification of Teacher Excellence,
where you would agree with disagree with the name of that when it started out.
So basically, you went online, you paid your money, you did a little test.
And if you pass that test, you've got your teacher qualification.
And a number of states in the U.S. acknowledge that as a teacher qualification, it's moved a little bit in the last decade.
To now, it's you do a bit of online coursework before we take notice, but you've got to have a spare five minutes.
It's interesting to have a look at their website, particularly around Christmas Thanksgiving.
They have sales so you can actually go on and you get a special rate.
So, you know, I couldn't take this race and that the trend towards practise the whole notion of what works as well below says,
you know, the seductive pursuit of what we now call best practises.
This idea that the single best solutions to these complex problems and the whole what works notion.
So in the US, the What Works clearinghouse, which is, you know, features,
as does Education Endowment Fund Foundation here and Social Ventures Australia, in which comment exactly the Education Endowment Fund.
Way of looking at research, which you know has these entrepreneurs and policy specialists isn't a way.
At a glance you can see all the good research is. And the Echo will let me just say one more thing.
So is it related to research? Yes, of course it's connected to research.
But the issue is it's what research is being acknowledged.
What sorts of approaches? And then an increasingly complex apparatus of regulation of the profession.
So, you know, standards, criteria for programmes, programmes, standards.
So keep in the US Council for the Accreditation of the Corporation,
which is now a national group that's compulsory in Kate, was a national group prior to that, but it wasn't compulsory,
which I don't think people realised that it was a very much a voluntary body and usually institutions that weren't
so well regarded with the UK accreditation because they could use that in their marketing and in Australia,
the same sort of things. Are they connected to research?
Well, my experience in Australia was developing.
Those standards was getting groups of people in rooms and saying, What do you think?
And making sure that each of the states when the national standards were developed, that each of the states could see their own standards in them?
And so there was a lot of, you know, I'd go to a meeting in Victoria and I'd say, Look,
we can live with these national standards that just like ours and you go to Queensland and Queensland would say,
Look, we can live with this national standards that just like ours.
So the whole process was about appeasing everyone and making sure that if they didn't upset people.
Nothing to do with research employment. And the notion of value and which thankfully the sort of pulled back a little
bit in the states in terms of being used to judge initial teacher education.
So the idea that you look at the schools of the individuals and the progress that they made,
they look at the teachers and what programme they came out of and being able to make supposedly some sort of causal connexion between.
Yeah, that's right. So what is all this done in a policy context?
It's really developed this kind of a whole range of policy entanglements, I suppose,
and competing discourse because on the one hand, so he's just quickly, I'm not going to go through examples of each of these.
Just to give you a picture you've got, on the one hand, tighter regulation,
you know what should be in programmes, how long they should be, etcetera, etcetera.
But on the other hand, he's got alternative, usually touted as innovative pathways that have that have to have those same sorts of standards.
You've got this notion of highly qualified, for example,
is a master's level and then you've got other ways of being qualified under and differently qualified, usually targeting so-called best and brightest.
You've got notions of teacher professionalism involving teacher judgement,
and then you've got notions of what it is if we call new professionalism being used as a lever of control.
You know you're a real professional if you're implementing this latest policy.
So this sort of whole lever of control, this notion of effectiveness of teacher conflated with measures of student play.
And as I said, assuming that there's some sort of causal link between teacher education and student learning outcomes,
it's very problematic and teaching as an extended and complex profession and this notion that I've already referred to as classroom reading.
So, you know, all of these are part of a really conflicting or conflicted policy landscape informed by research selectively
with overarching claims all the time about there isn't any research that we have to do these things.
What is the role of research? OK.
I think it's fair to say that teacher education research doesn't get a very good rap.
There have been reviews in many countries over quite a period of time that says, you know,
it's underdeveloped, it's under theorised, it's fragmentary, it's somewhat parochial.
We kind of know why that is in some at some levels, because there's not a lot of money around for teacher education research.
People do tend to investigate their own programmes, so sometimes it is discriminatory in that way.
But not all whites who still do work on your own programmes and can they got to make the greatest story?
And people like Christine Slater and Pam Grossman and so on.
I've been saying for a while that because of this, our research doesn't tell a strong story to policymakers,
so they can easily ignore us or simply say, well, no evidence, we're going to just do ideological policy.
And even worse, as Linda Darling-Hammond points out, and as I said earlier that I referred to Kinsey,
it was that research has often become a weapon that's used to kind of advance or even push back on it and policy moves,
rather than a tool to inform the process. So as a teacher in the researcher, in that kind of context, what do you do apart from gone to?
So here's what I've tried to do, and I just want to draw on a couple of things,
as I said right at the beginning and then finish thinking about what some of the opportunities in the future might be.
So some of the work I've done, I think at one stage took up the notion of outcomes.
But okay, they're on about outcomes. Let's do some work in that.
And this part of the common assessment for California teachers.
Way back before it became a TPA and Pearson took it over.
So that's one part, but I'm not going to talk about that. I've done.
I have attempted to say, well, if they're saying there is no research to inform the effectiveness of teacher education,
let's do a systematic review and see if that's the case. Yeah, that's a bit of a sad story.
So there isn't a lot unless you problem because you have to do it properly and it because effectiveness, quality, all of those sorts of things.
So it becomes quite challenging.
One thing I'm also saying I like people are talking about large scale longitudinal studies to inform this sort of debate.
Let's do that. So I'm going to talk a little bit about that very quickly.
But then I want to finish by saying there are a whole heap of things we need to problematic if we're
going to look at this effectiveness of teacher education that might have any impact in a policy sense.
So let's start with studying the effectiveness of teacher education seats, and I've got a few slides,
but they've only just got a few things on them, so I'll go through them quite quickly.
And as I said earlier, some of you already seen some of the City Council.
I don't want to draw a line to repeat, and this was a study where we had three main research questions.
There will be lots of ones on the weekend. We want to look at how well prepared people felt for the programmes remembering these are all
people who have gone through teacher education programme before they get registered reading
from which we want to look at which if there were any characteristics of those programmes that
seem to be linked to and correlated with the way in which those teachers photo compare or not.
And then thirdly, looking at the links to employment pathways retention in the profession over time.
Our goal, as I've said there, was to inform policy and practise.
I guess only time will tell. And I want to acknowledge it was a very large team was funded by the Australian Research
Council and significantly funded by the Departments of Education in Queensland and Victoria,
which was a challenge in its own right. Because when you're a partner and I now see in Australia, it's not consultancy research,
so the notion of providing a positive contribution but not controlling the outcome was quite challenging.
And then the federal government also funded to take some of it beyond Queensland Victoria.
There are a number of publications, reports, all sorts of things out there.
So let me just pull out a few things. We used this notion of space to theorising the notion of constrained space, which is a policy space.
Which quality teaching and quality teacher education is named in a policy context to perceived some space,
meaning what's happening in the teacher education programme and the religious space of the pre-service teachers and then graduates?
Again, there are publications there. I won't follow on that too much.
The target population was 15000, and of course, we can get that many responses.
We also analysed databases of schools in both of those states.
We did a mapping of programmes across Australia so we could draw connexions between dimensions
of teacher education and whether people were talking about feeling prepared or not.
This was about 500 plus programmes across Australia, and we didn't we weren't looking at his programme.
We were looking at the dimensions, you know, so how how were they structured?
What beliefs were they? How did they address the issue of content knowledge?
How did they address the issue of developing a system in the Legislature session and surveys of graduate teachers and their principals
just as they graduated and following them failed for another four years and almost 200 graduate teachers in almost 30 schools.
The surveys collected, in essence, this was the crux of it.
46 items which we were asked on a large scale whether they felt compared and with unselfish data,
and there were other things there that you can just look through.
Oh, just one things. By gathering this, we were able to make those connexions with the dimensions of the programme,
not the programme itself, but the dimensions of the programme.
This is just to show you how the documents from these surveys and the response rate, it's not very high.
And this is one of the big challenges in this kind of research and I don't know about in this country,
but certainly in Australia, this survey fatigue is beginning to is everyone wants to survey them.
And so it was quite challenging to get these responses, and we thought we did have a cohort,
but we were able to look at longitudinally that were the same in each of the case.
Studies was selected, according to these schools, according to these criteria.
And we did analysis within and across cases, and there's still more work to be done on that.
But.
Is a bit of a picture of the group graduate survey, the teacher survey respondents said, pretty much replicated the teaching workforce in Australia.
Now, one thing to note here, because as we see some of the findings, this is mass disqualifications.
This was a one year graduate diploma, which is no longer in place in Australia that was posted at the time now,
where all graduate teacher education has to be two years. So this was a little before that.
You can see reflects the kind of, you know, population distribution, mostly metropolitan, which surprises, OK.
Were they employed? Yes, those that went in by the time we got to round four, they won't even look.
It's not because the principals and teachers in the terminology weren't willing to employ them.
They said you. The issue was really Typekit employment.
So if you look at the yellow, that's a full time contract, each dollar point and the part time contracts that will be signed.
So you can see that started off when they started off.
Many more of the more contracts is blue.
Here's the full time permanent. So it was under I think it's 28 27 percent are in full time permanent contracts.
And when you add the part time contracts you get, about a third of them commence their career in those sort of secure employment.
Now that's quite significant for the findings because as I'll talk to you in the moment,
those who had secured employment had totally different views on their teacher education programme than those that didn't.
Not surprising. If you haven't got a job and you can't get a permanent job, you're going to look for something.
And I look to the teacher, teacher males who are more likely to be in full time permanent positions.
They did feel very positive about their progress.
I think it's all up about 75 per cent agree or strongly the Greens across all of the data points of the rounds of the survey.
But this is the important one that goes for the teaching position certainly felt more positive.
And especially those with full time permanent positions.
There were the 46 items when you put them all together.
They did feel prepared and they did feel effectiveness beginning teachers,
but oddly enough in these times and and these here, you can see that they've got more effective than prepared.
So this whole notion of a linear idea of teacher education is immediately challenged.
I don't know about here, but certainly in Australia at this time, we started this study.
A lot of rhetoric around principals think that new graduates aren't employable.
They're not doing a good job. They don't know this so well in this study was five years.
The 46 items were put into these nine scales, and certainly even though overall they felt defective and I felt prepared.
There were things that they felt more prepared and there were things that they felt less competitive.
And that the probably not surprising the the the challenging thing is that tough one,
because it also is the one that shows off in feeling really effective.
And indeed, you go back to Madonna, those that the feeling of pain and effective in teaching diverse learners was significantly different from.
So that's a. I'm comparing just going to pull out one thing here, this one,
this was comparing what the teachers thought were the biggest challenges for them and
what the principals thought were the biggest challenges for their early career teachers.
And one big difference was pedagogy, which included subject pedagogy and general pedagogy and so on.
The principals identified that as a much more significant challenge than the individual teachers and some students,
the ones that they both seem to agree on. Unsurprisingly, behaviour, classroom management and catering for the discipline.
But they did think they were successful at influencing student learning.
They were all thinking about leaving. OK, I'm just going to pull out a couple of things and just move to the last because I was so offended.
President, lengths to make a difference. So those people were sort of programmed to feel as well, and of course, not surprisingly,
what we call practical or professional experience in schools, which is usually every year on teacher education programme, was highly valued.
There was a whole range of and a lot of research has said the same sort of thing.
There's conflict and challenge, who in their own view of themselves as a teacher, doesn't align with that of the programme and all the schools.
How imams from all the statistical work that we did, which I haven't got here today.
And there is a 340 people. When you look at those sorts of things,
the characteristics or the dimensions of teacher education accounted for very little of the variance in their perceptions of preparedness.
The important thing that came out of all of this is that if the two factors that seem to have the greatest player and only perceptions,
employment and the workplace context.
I've already mentioned this first one, but there's the full time permanent work, but more prepared and effective should have its own way back.
The survey was on perceptions, and so I acknowledge all the limitations associated with that.
The issue of people moving around was related to job security and about whether
they felt effectively prepared as a teacher who was looking for more security,
employment and. Satisfaction and retention was linked to how effective they felt.
Not surprisingly, school support was linked to those today and those whole range of intrinsic factors linked
to staying and solving this issue of mobility and retention and attrition and job security.
A whole lot of interviews came out in lot of cases, a lot of behaviours that these new teachers were engaged in that had everything
to do with trying to secure more permanent employment or more secure employment,
and very little to do with student learning, which is quite challenging.
OK. Couple of things I want to raise. OK. Here's some of the things that the policy rhetoric high cycle right back to what I was saying earlier.
Initial teacher education is not working well. We've got a few things here that would speak to that.
Things that have already. The saying that the initial teacher education is too theoretical, teachers learn better on the job.
Certainly, they did say that their preparation could have been enhanced by more time in schools, more times spent in the money.
They talked about needing that theoretical base to do that.
And this notion and these are my words, not theirs.
You know, the notion that what works only works when we know what works.
And so there was that kind of sense of understanding, and a lot of this was coming.
They commented that they felt obligated to reproduce teaching practises around them,
even if they thought of problematic masters as part of, you know, feeling in being part of the school sexual content knowledge, you know?
And this has come out a lot.
The notion of, well, all you need is your degree in mathematics or your degree in literature or whatever it is in science and attack on.
So are the sorts of things that came out here would challenge that in terms of
what they felt compared to or not and what the principals thought they were not.
And those short programmes are clustered really well.
Everyone talked about this ongoing idea.
It's not a destination.
And then the whole question of what is the classroom and that this notion of effectiveness, similar paradigms changes over time.
It's not a fixed outcome of teacher education. And what we're seeing a lot now is lots of government activity on recruitment.
Well, actually, we would argue that the whole issue of retention and what people's standards, perhaps.
Partnerships and shared responsibility,
a lot of the information from this study would say that principals and schools still think that the providers are totally accountable for the teacher,
and these things without the dissolution of that learning to teach is developmental.
See the initial teacher education. Then there's mentoring. Induction comes next.
Well, a lot of what we found probably is that.
Time to go into overdrive, and hopefully it's some of the ideas,
so some of the things we think this work challenges the notion of thinking about
teacher education as a complicated system where you can take all the bits apart,
examine them and do something with them, reform agendas.
And we would argue that you need to think about teacher education. So complex systems and rejecting universally best practises and just to finish just
will just highlight some more recent work building on this notion of complexity.
And this was in relation to the Australian and New Zealand context,
where the mantra is now evidence of impact of teacher education in relation to student learning.
And so what? We did some work to try and think about where student learning might fit and what are the impacts of teacher education that in fact,
there are much broader impacts on teacher education than just student learning, drawing on complex theories.
So we've developed in this paper that it's just referred to.
There is a diagram where we're starting to think about student learning and
seeing embedded in these overlapping and perhaps the circles to each child.
We couldn't think of a different diagram that you come up with in this diagram at this time.
It's not a linear pretty process is what we're trying to argue that initial teacher education can impact and crosses over all of these areas.
And there's a reciprocal relationship.
And this was the point we were trying to get at was that if you think about the impact of teacher education, it has impact educational research,
the candidates themselves, the teachers, educators and the programmes in various sorts of ways of thinking about impact than just student learning.
So research. The the capital is the effect that some of the new teachers might have in these situations
and relationships between teacher educators in universities and teacher educators in schools,
and some of the impact impacted outcomes there and so on.
And so we think there are this might open up some different ways of arguing impact of teacher education or effectiveness
of teacher education beyond this sort of and notion of teacher education prepares someone who then does this,
who then does that, then this induction, then is mentoring and so on, rather a more holistic view.
We think it might have opportunities to actually provide a way to aggregate abuse findings from the smaller studies,
because if you think back a lot of studies,
we might be able to position in various parts here, giving a more holistic evaluation of teacher education and teacher educators work.
And I think one of the other opportunities provided here is this notion of new areas and increased emphasis.
So, for example, a consignment of stuff to do a lot of work in Oregon about initiative through education involving communities and families.
And I think we can conclude this. Someone is doing it too, and new policy levers benefit learning.
And the system is so sorry, that was quite clear.
That last bit. But hopefully you can see hopefully where I'm trying to go is how can we bring together policy
practise and research in ways mostly that I hope policymakers might listen and be involved?
So thank you.