“Something to do
with Finland……”?
Manchester Metropolitan
“University School” model
Helen Scott, Head of Department
for ITE & CPD Partnerships @
MMU
Rationale and background
• Various maths projects with schools (eg:
induction)
• Visit to Finland
• Foregrounding student teachers’ beliefs and
developing identities (eg: Britzman (1991, 2007)
Beauchamp (2007), Collanus, Kairavouri and Rusanen (2012) ).
• Development for teachers and MMU tutors
• Need for Maths PGCE placements
Secondary PGCE Maths 2011-12
•
•
•
•
•
2 schools with 9 student teachers
2 schools with 15 student teachers
All students in trios
MMU tutor attached to each school
Trainees swopped schools (Block A to
B) and tutor
A focus on…
•
•
•
•
•
•
Scripted lessons
Misconceptions in maths
Team teaching
C/D border pupils
Disengaged pupils
Peer support/mentoring and challenge
How it worked………
• Student teachers had same
entitlement as others
• Mixture of team teaching and
individual teaching
• Tutors worked with trainees in
school for 1.5 or 2 days per week
Feedback from students:
Quality of Lessons & Collaborative Planning
• “Working as a group has allowed me to be
more creative and open to trying ideas”
• “We’ve been given the opportunity to hone
our skills and focus on delivering quality
lessons’
• “I feel I am more confident to make my own
mind up rather than follow someone else’s
procedures”
Feedback on feedback
• “Constant feedback from peers, teachers,
subject mentors and university tutor”
• “Feedback sandwich forcing us to think
critically about every lesson”
• “HONEST feedback every lesson”
• “I think the quality of my lessons would be much worse
without this amount of quality feedback”
Feedback: Support
• “I only have to speak to the students in
the normal model who have clashed
with their mentor or have felt
unsupported to realise how lucky I am
to have the luxury of a wealth of
diverse support”
• “The link between academic work and our
teaching practice is stronger due to the tutor”
Feedback: Mentors
• “Working in threes the subject mentor only
observes the person taking their lesson, so not all
observed taking their own class by SM”
• “Some teachers took a more proactive/reflective approach and
others were more
negative/disinterested”
• “I would like to talk to the teachers
informally about general education issues,
but most of the communication is feedback
or lesson planning”
Benefits for University Tutor
• Balance between observations, feedback, and
planning
• Bridging the gap between MMU and school
• Ensuring trainees get a balanced opportunity
within their trios
• Flexibility in the model for individual needs
• University in touch with school issues
• Less travel
Benefits for students
• Collaborative planning-sharing resources and
ideas
• Support when things go wrong
• Appreciate the ‘gradualism’
• Listening to the feedback of others
• Support from the University tutor
• A clear sense of ‘developing better’ than
under traditional model
Benefits for schools
• Staff CPD.
• Most convinced of benefits to trainees.
• Higher quality lessons and conversations
about learning
• Benefits to pupils, particularly Year 11
• Value support and input from MMU Tutor
Positive feedback from mentors:
“The lessons I have observed have certainly been
of a higher quality than the majority of lessons on
the previous PGCE model. The trainees are taking
risks, being innovative and working on developing
strengths that would usually not be considered
until Block B. The lessons are focusing on
understanding rather than procedural algorithms,
and their ability to discuss pedagogy and critically
reflect on their own (and each other’s) lessons is
excellent.”
Negative feedback/issues from
mentors
• “Too many student teachers!”
• Do “miles on the clock” matter ?
• Weak students feel very exposed
• Change of tutor between each
school
2012-13
• Six schools, taking 9 student teachers each
• MMU tutor works with two schools and
moves between the two
• Schools working more closely together
• Model extended to MFL
• Likely move to Science for Block B
• Surplus of Maths placements!