From 'trade teacher' to 'critically reflective practitioner': the relationship between theory and occupational identity formation in TAFE teachers (original) (raw)

Our paper engages with Seddon's (2008) concept of occupational identity as it is lived through the work and learning of vocational education training (VET) practitioners, in technical and further education (TAFE). It is based on a horizontal, qualitative case study of 'trade teachers', who are linked through their participation in a VET 'teacher-education' program, the Diploma of VET Practice. This qualification focuses on developing understandings, knowledge and skills in adult learning and pedagogical theory, and contemporary VET practice. It seeks ultimately to prepare and develop practitioners for their pedagogical work in TAFE. Our research sought to track and trace theory as it developed and is transformed into practice at the same time as the practitioners are in the process of 'becoming'. Our paper discusses the tensions inherent in their dual occupational identities associated with the practitioners' previous industry fields of practice and that of teacher. It seeks to identify the impact of the teacher education program and engagement with educational theory, in enabling the supposed convergence of these dual identities into the somewhat Janus-faced occupational identity of 'TAFE teacher'. Background and approach As part of our pedagogical work, we are required to observe practitioners while they are involved in their pedagogical work, within a technical and further education (TAFE) institute. This observation is carried out in various contexts and comprises a component of a teaching 'practicum' that is attached to the Victorian accredited vocational education and training (VET) 'teacher-education' qualification the Diploma of VET Practice, by the Victorian TAFE Multiple Employer Certified Agreement (MECA), under which the practitioners are employed. Often when commencing these observations we have been confronted by teachers from trade areas, almost apologising for their pedagogical work. There seems a commonly held notion that because their work is not classroom-based, it is not what we (the observers) might recognise as real teaching. Indeed, whilst the practitioners recognise and are able to name the quite experiential work they do with their learners in simulated or 'real' work contexts such as building sites, training kitchens, or workshop spaces simulating work environments, they do not think the assessors consider this 'real teaching' and not suitable for assessment. Our pedagogical work also gives us the pleasure of working with the same practitioners to develop knowledge, understandings and constructions of adult learning and pedagogical theory. In a similar, relevant incident during one of our theory sessions one student (later a participant in this study), took exception to the word pedagogy: "why do we use that word when we can just say teaching? Can't we just call it teaching?" Indeed, another student who also participated in this study later told us that at the beginning of the program he had said: "if she [the facilitator] says that word [pedagogy] or talks about reflection one more time, I swear I'm going to get up and walk out!" Critical pedagogical encounters such as these raise questions for us about how VET practitioners understand and identify themselves in relation to their work and learning. We argue that such encounters also raise critical questions in relation to how practitioners