The Forum is a partnership of the Higher Education Institutions offering initial teacher training (ITT) programmes (further and higher) in the West Midlands area. They are the Universities of
Wolverhampton, Warwick, Staffordshire, Worcester and Birmingham City.
The Forum has set up Professional Dialogue seminars as a series of events to share good practice across the West Midlands. Teacher Educators from each of the ITT teams within the partnership are invited to exchange ideas on topics of educational interest.
The first Professional Dialogue seminar was held at the University of Wolverhampton on 2 November
2009 and covered two themes: ‘The implications of Initial Assessment and the Minimum Core in curriculum design and the wider college context’ and ‘Developing the skills of Critical Thinking and
Reflective Evaluation’.
The seminar was well received with 10 colleges attending and representatives from Jisc and Wolverhampton, Warwick, and
Staffordshire universities. General comments on the day were that delegates had an interesting and enjoyable day and appreciated both the opportunity to get together with colleagues and that ‘ sharing the practice of others enabled me to reflect on my own practice’
and ‘ There were lots of ideas to take away and think about and I felt the discussion in the afternoon was particularly interesting’
.
This report is a collation of the ideas from the day and is by no means a complete picture of all the interesting and stimulating discussion which took place. It is written to share the key points across the
Forum partnership.
Theme 1: The Implications of Initial Assessment and Minimum Core in curriculum design and the wider college context
The main purpose for initial assessment cited by colleges was to assess the trainees’ level of key skills, especially literacy. It was also used to confirm subject specific knowledge and skills, suitability for the course and to assess current strengths and weakness to provide the basis of their Individual Learning Plan
(ILP).
A main area of tension was the literacy level needed for the course, how this was assessed, what additional support was available to trainees and the resources to provide this. Specific concerns mentioned were:
Whether the National literacy tests at level 2 indicated that trainees could write in the academic depth required for the course. If not, what methods would be suitable to assess their skill level?
1

How to provide support for trainees where issues have been identified, within time, resource and staffing constraints. Examples given were: pre-course skills programmes either external or internal; on-course workshops, support from Academic mentors and use of online resources.
Whether it is essential for good teaching in a subject specific context to write at this level.
Criminal Record Bureau checks for those doing informal teaching or shadowing and trainees from external companies were also mentioned as an area of concern.
The larger issue of whether a teaching qualification and a subject specific qualification were both required was discussed.
Two interesting observations were the increase in the number of men on an access to ITT programme and an increase in weaker trainees which may be caused by people retraining due to redundancies in other professions.
Double loop learning was also discussed and how techniques used on ITT Initial Assessment could be adapted by their trainees to enhance their learners’ key skills.
To what extent does the minimum core develop trainees’ skills and how is this evaluated
In most colleges the minimum core was incorporated into the curriculum with opportunities to extend skills highlighted in the scheme of work. It was thought that by encouraging trainees to reflect on their skills this led to them actively developing them.
The impact on trainees’ ability to develop their skills was evaluated via teaching practice, self reflective writing on own skills development and in some summative tasks.
The question of whether all elements have to be done was raised as was how to provide evidence in an implicit and integrated way.
Ensuring the appropriate use of minimum core and integrating it into practice meant a good knowledge of modules and where the skills could be embedded. Teaching observations and tutorials were also used to assess whether trainees’ were embedding the skills in practice. Subject mentors were integrated into the process by 3-way tutorials and blogs. This raised the issue of quality assurance with those trainees not in colleges and how to give a consistent experience to everyone on programme.
There was concern that the move to Functional skills might create a move back to more discrete teaching of these skills by specialist staff rather than the skills being integrated by vocational tutors
Key points from Plenary
The In-service ITE profile has changed with the new regulations which require everyone to have a teaching qualification. The implications of this put pressure on ITT to ensure the needs of trainees are addressed and they qualify as this has implications for their teaching contract ie if trainee doesn’t have subject qualification then ITT have to manage this on behalf of the organisation.
The word initial assessment does not necessarily mean the same across the Forum partnership and it might be useful to establish some consistency. Qualifications on the QCF for entry into ITT do not cover
2

the whole syllabus and trainees who Accredit Prior Learning (APL) against this might not cover areas such as an Introduction to the Sector.
Pre-programme support varies across the partnership as programmes need to lead to a qualification, rather than integrating support into a current programme, to be funded. Two Universities have developed the following courses: Wolverhampton offers a level 0 pre-course programme on academic writing.
Staffordshire offers its own staff a level 0 ‘Introduction to HE’ alongside PTLLS.
Discussion also centred on the wider issues of whether the current DTLLS programme is the right qualification for trainees with the Government emphasis on vocational training and the role of theory within practice.
Programmes were being evaluated and discussion was around how systematic this was and whether evaluation and impact analysis should be shared with everyone.
Key points from delegate feedback
The main strategies that delegates were taking issues back to their teams were:
The use of written comprehension tests for DTLLS initial assessment
Building in a ‘0’ level pre-entry course which might include
PTLLS, academic writing, study skills, reflective thinking skills
Structuring the ILP over the 5 year QTLS framework to include essential skills, academic writing, study skills, reflective thinking skills working on a systematic approach to evaluating initial assessment
It was felt useful that the minimum core development should occur throughout the 2 years for both knowledge and skills understanding and that both their subject specialism and assignments could be mapped to minimum core
Theme 2: Developing the skills of Critical Thinking and Reflective Evaluation
Critical thinking was not formally assessed during the initial assessment process in most of the colleges although some activities did informally assess trainees’ ability to reflect. One strategy for future reference was that trainees write a piece which would show their critical thinking ability, this could then also be used for assessment of other skills such as literacy.
Colleges had developed a number of different on-course strategies to develop and assess critical thinking including: Developing a 2-year framework around critical thinking as a Threshold Concept and feeding back to trainees post-observation with probing questions and objective observation rather than tutor-led feedback. This was followed by tutorials to raise trainee levels of critical thinking. Another college had developed critical thinking skills in trainees by individual feedback from both tutor and peers in blogs and forums.
3

Questions raised were around whether assessment should always include a reflective journal as this varied in different colleges and how extra support could be built into the programme to develop critical thinking skills.
Key points from Plenary
There were more questions than answers and ideas to explore included:
What is meant by critical thinking and what are the links between critical thinking and reflective practice?
Are we brave enough to encourage and change?
Should Teacher Educators have a qualification in critical thinking?
How do we measure the journey travelled by trainees?
Key points from delegate feedback sheets
The questions which were being taken back to TE teams revolved around how to define reflective practice and critical thinking and whether the skills are the same or different for each. There was an acceptance that these skills are essential not only to pass the course but as a tool to enable continued CPD.
The idea of integrating critical thinking and reflective evaluation skills into practice brought reflections on how to:
Increase the critical thinking element into initial assessment as individual baseline
Develop initial sessions relating to defining critical thinking and its application in practice
Integrate a critical thinking element into the interview process.
It was also felt that there were issues around ‘measurement’ of CT skills and a general feeling that we don’t want to measure it separately.
Some of the strategies that delegates were taking back were:
Developing guidelines for use by students to build their confidence.
Teams to outline ideas on how to embed and develop CT
Sharing good practice by visiting another centre to observe how they use observation feedback to develop critical thinking skills
Creating opportunities for using blended learning to blog reflective journals
Reviewing courses to include more critical thinking
Using ‘audacity’ to record observation tutorials where critical reflection and evaluation occur
More opportunities to be given to trainees for critical self reflection within the observation process
– posing questions for trainees about own practice.
‘An interesting day and I enjoyed the opportunity to get together with colleagues. I’m looking forward to the next one.’
4