Developmental teacher education: prolepsis in a process of double stimulation: Creating accidental learning experiences on a regular basis

From standing in front to sitting at the round table: the case of teacher Rob.

Rob is an in-service student teacher and former engineer. Between September 2013 and February 2015 I was his teacher 'Professional Development Line' (PDL), a curriculum line in the thematic Human & Technology teacher programme at the university of applied sciences Amsterdam. When I met Rob and his peer students in their second year in September 2013 I experienced the group as eager to teach as well as to learn, with a practical orientation. From my perspective a typical group in technical/engineering domain. That is, somewhat rude, but engaged with a positive attitude that could be characterised by: ”Show me why it’s useful for my teaching and I will engage.” Rob was very open to the group about his problems with classroom management. As with any student that felt comfortable with it, he showed videos of his teaching for the group to reflect on it. In his personal reflection he writes in November 2013:

It remains hard for me to establish a relationship with the pupils. (…) My workplace supervisor pointed me out that I should not make the same mistake     again like the year before: maintain clear rules and punish when not following those. That’s where I went wrong.  I am Rob and nobody else. I believe there are no annoying children, but only environments that creates them.

A year and three months later, in a pre-assessment performance interview, Rob raised the question whether his view on education, based on  Stevens’  relation-competency-autonomy model, matches that of the school.
What has happened in between and what was my role as a teacher and that of the thematic developmental curriculum? If there is a relation between the programme and Rob’s development, how can we (re)create that opportunity for all students, if we can?
What I see in Rob’s case is a development from a intuitive, practical and insecure student teacher to a teacher with a view on education, that is at least partly based on theory. Rob seems almost ready to take a stand against his supervisor and he realizes that the mismatch between his view and the school’s might have consequences.
I’d like to think that the opportunity for Rob to ask me and his peers for feedback on his teaching problems might have influenced this development. Especially, since by the peer students the question was raised whether Rob really agreed with his supervisor (otherwise the intended intervention would not work). Moreover, in another block of the PD-line that year the theme “The pupil in the school” developed under students’ influence from classroom management to pedagogical views based on Kan (2013).


This page has paths: