Research Quesiton: Students on methodology courses often comment that they

teaching experience’ mean?

The data suggests that students do understand what constitutes having no teaching experience:

[n]ot teaching anybody anything ever

Similarly, no teaching experience is seen as referring to someone [who] has never taught before, or, put more floridly, has never taught a class in their life. However, there is an awareness that having no teaching experience is not the norm: [t]hey haven’t done the teaching practice yet or they have never had a private student or a group – it rarely happens but still.

The prevailing viewpoint is that it is direct personal experience of classroom teaching which makes up teaching experience and without having acquired it oneself no one can be considered to be experienced: [s]omeone has no teaching experience if he/she has never taught any students/groups or students in class. Trainees therefore seem to have clear conceptions of what teaching is or is not and make reference to teaching as a profession in terms of somebody [who] has never taught in class or in other ways professionally or as who has not taught a group of state school students.

However, these somewhat predictable responses concerning the lack of teaching experience, I haven’t taught English to a class of students yet, include subtle indications of what trainees understand by terms such as 'teaching' and 'experience'. The data include mention of class, students and group. While these are common everyday terms, they are also characteristic of teacher's jargon and so are assumed to be used by trainees within the specific context of teaching. For example, trainees predominantly see teaching experience as classroom teaching:

[i]t means that the student has never stood in front of a group of students and he/she has never tried to teach a group

and so define their lack of teaching experience as being due to [t]oo little time being in a “class”. Furthermore, reference is made to the trainee who has never been to a classroom where he/she instructed students, focussing on the idea that teaching is characterised by students gathering together in a classroom with a teacher for the purposes of instruction. While this is accepted and understood as normal and obvious, it again provides an insight into

what trainees understand by teaching experience, or the lack thereof: I have never faced a group of people who spoke no English with the intention of "teaching " English to them

In addition to the classroom setting there are views that teaching experience has to reflect a regularity of teaching and have a ‘real’ institutional context. A trainee precludes themselves if they haven’t taught a whole group or class yet, or at least not regularly or in a real school with a real group that is, someone who has not taught a group of state school students.

The importance of regular teaching experience can also be linked to the process of learning, as with the example of the trainee who talks about [n]ot having taught anyone regularly, so [not] being part of a learning process of another person.

However, by emphasising classroom teaching to groups of learners, trainees frequently resort to denigrating one-to-one teaching. References to the significance of the number of students in the class show that teaching one-to-one, private lessons or private students tends to be accorded a lower status by trainees:

[i]t means that s[ome]b[ody] has not taught a class or a group. I don’t think my private students count for teaching experience.

While it is unnerving that some trainees are so dogmatic in their view that one-to-one does not constitute teaching, another example being the terse 1:1 ≠ teaching per se, it is equally revealing that trainees frequently make reference during methodology seminars to their lack of teaching experience in terms of their only having taught one-to-one or private students: I have nearly never taught in class before, but I have some private students or [f]or me it literally means that before I started to do my practice at XYZ, I’ve never taught , except for a private student for 4 weeks. The irony of the low value placed on one-to-one teaching

appears to have been lost on many trainees who cite teaching experience in class which they then go on to dismiss when providing data for a survey questionnaire. Other trainees' responses, however, do not do this and prefer to equate the two: [t]hat one has never taught in a school or never had private students. Nevertheless, there are those trainees who do take one-to-one or private lessons seriously, and refer to those who have [n]ever taught anybody in an organised manner, ie private lessons for money at least.

However, while such a dismissal of one-to-one is unsettling, there is obvious recognition that teaching is a complex undertaking which requires considerable skill and understanding: It means that I haven’t taught groups, yet I don’t know how they behave, what should be done differently. One-to-one teaching experience is not comparable to group teaching.

A perceptive respondent points out the potential danger of resting on one's laurels, of how teachers may become too comfortable with their experience after a long time spent in one place: Teaching at one school for many years. If they teach only at one school, they might not face with difficulties that might come up in less than ideal situations.

A lack of experience can be seen to lead to a lack of confidence for those [n]ot experienced enough to form ideas about (their own) teaching because they never tried out the ideas studied. This is clearly of some importance for the trainee as it usually means that they are not sure about their abilities in teaching. They feel they have not taught enough to form ideas about it. Inexperience may also have unexpected consequences in terms of building relationships with one's students:

you are not confident about your own knowledge, you feel very alienated from the students – lack of contact with younger generations

However, despite the glum acknowledgement of many that they lack experience, other trainees offer a broader definition of teaching experience which does not necessarily include classroom teaching and so contend that [e]veryone has had some kind of non-traditional teaching experience or that most of us have some kind of teaching experience even if not gained in a traditional classroom. In terms of comparing formalised classroom experience there is a recognition that other experience is of value, experience that is unconscious:

I have 1 months of teaching experience "officially", but I’m sure I have taught some things even without noticing it

Despite the efforts of the trainer, based on feedback and class discussions, the use of peer teaching did not always meet with a positive reception: [i]t means that we only have one peer teaching session per person. It is way too few and even it is taught not to “real” students but to fellow teacher trainees. It means that the student has never taught before. For this trainee peer teaching as offered by the trainer falls far short of expectations: not only are there too few opportunities, it is not “real” teaching.

Going from having no experience to experienced status is clearly a process, the process of becoming a teacher. Trainees appear cognizant of this and are able to express this clearly, the person never went through a learning-teaching process, aware that it takes time and effort. Yet they are equally aware that without experiencing the process themselves, [n]ot having gone through the process of becoming a teacher, they remain inexperienced:

[a] beginner teacher has to go through the process of experimenting with all kinds of materials and activities to see which work and which don’t. This takes a lot of time (and effort) until one finds the best method for oneself. I have not done it yet, so I have no experience.

MN Dealing with inexperienced and difficult, i.e. uncooperative, class participants

Today is the first peer teaching (PT) session. Going on the lesson plan's use of such positive adjectives in connection with the results of the lesson I wonder how realistic a view they have of teaching. Cynic.

However, despite this, a good performance ensues, and when put on the spot, the peer teacher gives a good account of themself. But then ‘stop’! a fellow student refuses to play ball. Why are some people so uncooperative? Have they no feeling for their colleagues, peers or fellow sufferers? Why do the opposite of what is asked of one in such a situation. They must know full well how difficult it is to peer teach, so why not co-operate? However, having done what they did, they succeeded in helping the peer teacher hone their skills with regard to dealing with such participants. Were they deliberately playing devil’s advocate? I think not!

Feedback was constructive and did provide some clear, honest assessment and comment. However, it is clear under such occurrences that no great reserves of teaching experience as such exist.

This entry considers the lack of empathy on the part of one trainee. I interpreted this lack as a result of the trainee’s own inexperience teaching groups of students. Subsequent

discussion revealed that the trainee did indeed have very limited experience of teaching except for individual tuition .