Research in Post-Compulsory Education

ISSN: 1359-6748 (Print) 1747-5112 (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rpce20

The Impact of GNVQs on the Communication Styles of Teachers Joe Harkin & Pauline Davis To cite this article: Joe Harkin & Pauline Davis (1996) The Impact of GNVQs on the Communication Styles of Teachers, Research in Post-Compulsory Education, 1:1, 97-107, DOI: 10.1080/1359674960010109 To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/1359674960010109

Published online: 11 Aug 2006.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 138

View related articles

Citing articles: 9 View citing articles

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=rpce20 Download by: [37.44.207.3]

Date: 26 January 2017, At: 15:06

Research in Post-Compulsory Education, Vol. 1, No. 1, 1996

The Impact of GNVQs on the Communication Styles of Teachers JOE HARKIN & PAULINE DAVIS Oxford Brookes University, United Kingdom

ABSTRACT This paper sets out some of the findings of an Oxford Brookes University research project on communication styles in post-16 teaching. It shows how the communication styles of teachers on GNVQ programmes are different to those of teachers on BTEC or 'A' level programmes, being perceived by learners as higher in leadership and warm/understanding behaviours. The paper goes on to argue that, even in GNVQ programmes, there is little learner autonomy and that the challenge of new, more "connective" curriculum models needs to be faced, especially through the development of more communicative classrooms.

In 1991, a British government White Paper, Education and Training for the 21st Century, introduced a new qualification, the General National Vocational Qualification (GNVQ). GNVQs are intended to provide a broad-based vocational education, combining core skills in Communication, Information Technology and Application of Number, with vocational studies. They are aimed primarily at 16-19-year-old students and should lead either to employment or to higher education. GNVQs are outcome-based, that is, what learners need to achieve is stated explicitly so that they can gather evidence of achievement; and are intended to encourage learner autonomy through "pro-active student-centred learning" (The National Council for Vocational Qualifications [NCVQl guidance, Oates, 1994). If GNVQs are implemented as intended, they should give rise to a different experience for learners than traditional academic learning programmes, such as 'A' levels, and existing vocational programmes, such as Business & Technology Education Council (BTEC) certificates and diplomas. More recently, the Dearing review of 16-19 education (Dearing, 1996) has re-named GNVQs, Applied 'A' levels, but the characteristics described will remain. The fundamental questions which the present research addresses are, do the new GNVQ/Applied 'A' level qualifications in fact give rise to greater

97

Joe Harkin & Pauline Daws

learner autonomy? This, in turn, raises the question, do GNVQ/Applied 'A' levels give rise to different teacher communication styles? These questions give rise to a number of subsidiary questions. What are the dominant patterns of communication in post-compulsory education? How is relatively greater learner autonomy exhibited? Both these questions constellate around issues of interpersonal communication. The on-going research, on which this paper is based, began in January 1993 to explore teachers' and students' perceptions of classroom interaction in post-compulsory education, with particular regard to effects upon interpersonal behaviour of outcome-based programmes, such as GNVQs. It is an attempt not to understand teacher's minds, but to illuminate their practices to themselves. The purposes of the research are to clarify the nature of practice, to assist in a process of reflection about action and to promote professional development. Reflection in this context is intended to be critical and practical, as well as technical; concerned with the theoretical and ethical assumptions underlying teaching activity, as well as with the pursuit of the "effective" teacher (Carlgren, 1994; Ecclestone, 1995). The research is based on an illuminative paradigm (Parlett & Hamilton, 1977) and has affinity with the views of researchers (e.g. Carlgren, 1994; Hammersley, 1993) who advocate a shift in research perspectives, from studies of teachers' minds by non-teachers, to studies of teachers' practice by teachers. Some of the founding principles of this paradigm in research into teacher behaviour are that: • language is an expression of social interaction rather than representing "inner" thoughts of individuals; • language not only represents, but also actually forms the world (Carlgren, 1994). The study of interaction in the classroom, for the purpose of this study, is carried out most effectively in naturalistic ways, such as advocated by Barnes (1977, 1984) and Swann (1992). In the early stages of the research, a more detailed method, making use of inventories (Flanders, 1970; Coulthard, 1992) was attempted, using computer-based interval recordings. This yielded plentiful data, but the social meaning of language in a particular classroom situation was not captured in ways that were thought useful to teachers themselves. For this reason, interaction was studied by video observation of one or two whole lessons. The videos were then reviewed for sequences of interaction between teacher and students that seemed worthy of discussion by the participants (e.g. a period of off-task talking; a sequence of questioning and answers; some minutes of teacher exposition). No prior categories of teacher or student behaviour were used to constrain which types of behaviour were worthy of discussion. The purpose of selecting episodes of behaviour was to use them as stimulus for discussion of the social interaction by all participants. In this way shared understandings and areas of difference were uncovered. The feedback discussions, stimulated by the previously selected video sequences, were based on the technique of Interpersonal Process Recall (IPPR) developed by Kagan (1967). The process is potentially damaging to the professional esteem of teachers, because an opportunity is given to students, in 98

GNVQs and Teachers' Communication Styles

the presence of an outside teacher-researcher, to openly discuss aspects of a teacher's behaviour. For this reason, only volunteer teachers took part in the recall process and prospective volunteers were approaches only if they appeared from a prior analysis to be "effective" teachers. Thus, attention was focused on teacher development and not upon criticisms of teacher behaviour. The prior analysis was carried out using the Questionnaire on Teacher Interaction (QJI) developed by Wubbels (1993) at the University of Utrecht. The Q J I has two dimensions - influence and proximity - which measure who controls the teaching situation, and the degree of warmth or affectivity in the teaching situation respectively. These two factors, forming a coordinate system, are well grounded in social and clinical psychological research (e.g. Leary, 1957; Argyle, 1982). Volunteer teachers were asked to identify one or two groups of students, preferably one group studying on an outcome-based programme (e.g. GNVQ,_ National Vocational Qualification [NVQ]) and another on either a traditional programme (e.g. 'A' level) or an 'in-between' programme (e.g. BTEC National). A researcher then administered the Q J I to the teacher and the students. Seventy-five teachers and more than a thousand learners in six further education colleges or 6th forms completed the QJI. The data was analysed using a variety of statistical techniques from the Statistical Package for the Social Sciences (SPSS), including non-parametric difference tests (e.g. the Kruskal-Wallis test), Spearman's Rho correlation and Principal Component factor analysis with varimax rotation. From this analysis, volunteers were identified to be videoed who, in the perceptions of their students, were 'effective' teachers, i.e. high scoring on both the influence and proximity dimensions. The use of volunteer teachers was expected to distort the findings, in that they would probably be more 'effective' than the general population of teachers (as had been the case in studies using Q J I in Holland - see Wubbels, 1993), however, it is considered neither ethical nor practicable to use teachers other than volunteers and, as the research is seeking to illuminate "best" practice, the use of volunteers would not undermine the research goals. Following the feedback sessions with teachers and students, semi-structured interviews were conducted with each teacher to elicit their views on teacher-student interaction, the insights of the feedback session, and current change in post-compulsory education.

The Results Each teacher is different and, therefore, the fine detail of each interaction may only be revealed through case studies. For the purposes of this paper, only salient features of the quantitative Q J I results, the video feedback sessions and the interviews will be discussed, illustrated by reference to individual cases. Particular attention will be given to discussing the influence of outcome-based, GNVQ_programmes on the communication styles of teachers, because teachers may be in special need of insights into appropriate interpersonal styles for the delivery of these new qualifications.

99

Joe Harkin & Pauline Davis

The research findings so far indicate that, as can be expected from the nature of teaching and of human interaction generally, approximately 75% of teachers display effective behaviours in the opinion of students; that is, they display relatively high warmth and high control behaviours (high proximity and influence), and this is so across differences of learning programme, sex and age. A Principal Components factor analysis with varimax rotation was performed on the eight scales of communication interaction (leadership, helping and friendly, understanding, student freedom and responsibility, uncertainty, dissatisfied, admonishing and strict). The sampling adequacy was good (Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin measure equals 0.83). The analysis revealed the two factors closely resembled the factors Wubbels and others referred to as 'proximity' and 'influence'. We therefore used the same labels. The measurement scales of the eight communication interaction characteristics were the same and because of this the analysis could be used to indicate the relative importance of the factors 'proximity' and 'influence'. The analysis showed that 'proximity' is just under three times as influential as 'influence', revealing that post-compulsory education is not a value-free environment in which knowledge is simply transmitted, but is a sector of education where human feelings are immensely important in the learning process. Compared to pre-16 (or perhaps pre-14) education, which may give rise to more formal modes of interaction, post-compulsory education requires forms of interaction that are consonant with the world of adulthood and work. . This sits somewhat uneasily with outcome-based models of curriculum, which tend to emphasise input-output, transmission processes, denuded of overt recognition of affectivity. Similarly, proposed models of teacher training for the sector, based on Training and Development Lead Body (TDLB) standards, which, in turn, are based on concepts of supervisory management, almost ignore the affective domain of teaching and learning, choosing instead to see training in terms of organisational structures and functions. The Impact of GNVQs on Teacher Communication Styles Examining the results for GNVQs, as compared with other programmes of learning, there is less influence, but more proximity. In other words, teachers on outcome-based programmes, whilst displaying high leadership or management of learning, were less concerned to control classroom activities and they used warmer, more supportive communication styles. The students on outcome-based programmes indicated that they find that their teachers explain things more clearly, act more confidently and talk more enthusiastically about the subject. In response to some questions, there was a perceptible progression from traditional programmes, such as 'A' levels, through BTEC programmes, to outcome-based programmes. For example, in response to the leadership prompt "Our teacher explains things clearly" a Krurkal-Wallis test showed, with a significance of 0.02%, that the mean ranking was: Traditional programme 247.68 based on 204 student responses. 'In-between' programme 292.46 based on 178 student responses. Outcome-based programme 310.40 based on 181 student responses. 100

GNVQs and Teachers' Communication Styles

On some measures, outcome-based programmes were also significantly different in the perceptions of learners than BTEC programmes, challenging the common assumption that GNVQs are simply a re-working of BTEC qualifications. For example, a Kruskal-Wallis test performed on the student responsibility and freedom prompt "We can decide some things to do in our teacher's class" gave rise to the following results, with a significance of 0.07%, showing that GNVQ_ students may have more choice in what they do: Traditional programme 262.80 based on 203 student responses. 'In-between' programme 263.69 based on 176 student responses. Outcome-based programme 316.70 based on 181 student responses. Analysis of the measures of influence and proximity (Wubbels, 1993) shows that GNVQjeachers show more uniformity in their communication styles compared to 'A' level and BTEC teachers. GNVQ_ teachers tend to have similar communication styles to each other. The majority (54%) tend to organise lessons around small group work. Communication between teacher and students is high. Students volunteer suggestions and are able to shape the direction of the lesson, to some extent. The relationships between the teacher and students are usually warm and trusting. Most 'A' level teachers exhibit similar behaviours to GNVQ_and BTEC teachers, but about a third show very different communication patterns, using more didactic styles in which the lecture method is used more frequently, and the teacher and students tend to interact in more formal ways. The interpretation of these differences needs to be approached with care. Outcome-based programmes may make both the teacher-led management of learning (leadership) and student autonomy (responsibility and freedom) inevitable, because learners share with teachers an understanding of the expected outcomes, and help to monitor their own performance. In the early stages of setting up outcome-based programmes perhaps there is a tendency for teachers who display more warmth and less controlling behaviour to be involved. Yet, the results so far indicate that there are differences between the same teachers on different types of programme - indicating that it is the structure of the learning programme itself that may be the most important factor. On all programmes, especially those for 16-19-year-olds, teachers must walk a tightrope between treating people as responsible adults and displaying strong leadership. These potentially conflicting demands are mediated by helping, friendly and understanding behaviours. So long as teachers show a human face (displayed by, for example, being able to take a joke; showing interest in the students as individual people; using first names for other than admonishing; maintaining suitable eye contact with all learners) students are able to tolerate ambiguity: teachers are able at times to display high control without undermining the students' sense of adult autonomy; and, conversely, students are able at times to display autonomous behaviours without undermining the teacher's sense of being in control. GNVQjrlasses are characterised by high levels of student activity, preferred by most students to more passive learning. Even some adverse aspects of GNVQ^ such as how 'awful' it is to put together a copious portfolio of evidence, may

101

Joe Harkin & Pauline Davis

serve to bind students and teachers together, over and against the vaguely perceived outside agencies that have imposed the demanding requirement. Many GNVQ_students require constantly to be energised, a process that can be exhausting for teachers, especially as resource constraints mean shorter course hours, larger class sizes and longer teaching hours. The retention of students who are poorly motivated, in order to achieve national education targets, may place further demands on the energy of teachers. At least two surveys (NFER, 1994; NATFHE, 1995) showed that the introduction of GNVQs at a time of resource constraint and the attempted introduction of new contracts of employment is a cause of widespread stress, and this is confirmed by the opinion of teachers in this research. Negotiation with students is more prevalent in GNVQs than in other programmes, especially when dealing with the demanding evidence requirements. Here is an example of an episode between a GNVQ_Health and Social Care teacher and her class: Teacher: Those of you who haven't put that assignment in, when are they coming in? [Hand to chin. Smile] Is there any chanceyou can get them to me by Wednesday? [Hand tofirehead in gesture of weariness; eyes closed] Even Wednesday afternoon, last thing. It would give me a chance to have a go marking them and I'll do my best to mark them for moderation on Friday. If you can get them to be by Wednesday. [Smile] Yes? There'syourfriend.[Smile. Pause. Looks serious and makes eye contact with Peter] What do you think, Peter? S tudent: Yeah, I'll try but [silence]. Teacher: Well, do your best [Nose twitched in expression ofencourdgement]. This episode is typical of successful interaction in a GNVQ_programme. Here we see an effective teacher (measured by Q J I and observation) treating the (mainly 16-19-year-old) students as responsible adults, making requests and exercising authority while, at the same time, showing warmth and understanding. It is quite unlike the stereotype of the teacher hidden like a palimpsest in the proposed TDLB standards for post-compulsory teacher training, which foreground the management of curriculum knowledge. Here, we see that much of a teacher's time, especially in the newer programmes such as GNVQ,. is spent in the management of learner behaviour. It is a model which combines aspects of supervisory management (see Argyle, 1982) with aspects of the didactic transmitter of knowledge. It is clear from interviews with teachers that, when teachers who are more used to 'A' level programmes become members of GNVQjeams, they often have difficulty in adjusting to this more affective mode of professional behaviour. 'A' level teachers may concentrate more on subject delivery, while learners on GNVQ_programmes require (through their interpersonal behaviour) that teachers relate to them more as individual people. This may be particularly demanding of teachers in school settings where parent-child forms of interaction may be strongly established. School teachers who are preparing for the introduction of

102

GNVQs and Teachers' Communication Styles

GNVQs expressed doubts about their ability to switch interpersonal communication style. Students on GNVQs were critical of the lack of liaison between different teachers, while in their turn some teachers interviewed were critical of a lack of development time and training to adjust to new programmes. When comparing teacher and student views of GNVQJmplementation with NCVQ_guidance on good practice, it is clear that in many respects (e.g. team teaching, sufficient time devoted to initial implementation and staff development) the guidance is not being implemented successfully by all curriculum managers. This may be exacerbated by the use of more part-time staff. The NCVQ_guidance includes willingness of teachers to introduce and encourage more pro-active student-centred learning. One interesting feature of the research findings is that both teachers and learners, even on GNVQ_programmes, are reluctant to increase learner autonomy. Learners on GNVQ_programmes would like a little more personal responsibility than they are given by teachers, while most teachers wish to exercise greater personal control. Longitudinal studies in Holland by Brekelmans, using the Q J I (Brekelmans, 1993, 1994) showed that teachers become less able to display warmth and are more inclined to display control behaviours as they become more experienced. This is unsurprising, given that teachers grow further apart from learners in age and become increasingly familiar with their subject, making it more difficult to understand the conceptual difficulties of learners. The understandable, but almost certainly erroneous belief that learners are not as bright now as in the past is widespread; as usual, two-thirds of perception is behind the eyes, however, this does point to a need for continued professional development. Eraut (1994) has shown how Berliner's five-stage model of professional development, invoking a need for less emphasis on initial training and more emphasis on continued professional development, is a more useful model than the five levels of competence on which the TDLB standards for the training of teachers are based. Brekelman's work (1994) and the present study show that it should not be assumed that experience automatically brings progression to higher levels of the Berliner hierarchy. Teachers can become habituated to ineffective practices, and teachers and learners can get caught up in ineffective complementary behaviours.

Curriculum Practices for the 21st Century Forces more deep-seated than GNVQ_ implementation compel changes to professional development and practice. A flavour of this was captured in the 1995 Frederick Constable lecture at the Royal Society of Arts where there was criticism of: [a] finding methodology that drives providers towards qualifications rather than towards something which values what students and teachers between them construct as a valuable, marketable learning programme (Ruth Silver—

103

Joe Harkin & Pauline Davis

member of the joint NCVQJ)earing committee on 14-16 Education; my emphasis); and It goes back to trying to get our heads round the 21st century curriculum. I hope we... begin to look at a connective curriculum (Jenny Shackleton, the lecturer). By "connective" curriculum is meant the engagement of the learning process with the students' past experience, present needs and future intentions (Young, 1995); an education that requires the commitment, as distinct from the involvement, of learners. Such a vision of the future of post-14 education chimes with the concern to foster broad-based qualifications that allow all people to develop personal talents that will benefit themselves and be useful in a post-Fordist society. It is essential that learners are capable of talking to a purpose, of negotiating, of taking responsibility for their own learning. In contradistinction to this, the present research shows that, even in the "best" learner-teacher interaction, there is not much student talk to a purpose (as distinct from off-task chatting), negotiating of learning goals or personal responsibility for learning. GNVQ_ programmes are better in these respects than other programmes but there is still a long way to go to change the dominant patterns of teacher-learner interaction in British post-compulsory education from pedagogy to andragogy, i.e. to a practice in which language is used in more adult-to-adult ways. The development of communication skills, as an integral part of learning programmes, in a process that increases learners' on-task use of language, may help. The Solomon Report (1995) into the implementation of GNVQ_Science stated that, "When effectively delivered, communication enhanced learning" (p. 2), but core skills sit uneasily with aspects of current practice, which emphasise the subject expertise of teachers (Oates & Harkin, 1994). The development of communication skills is a means of developing a "connective" curriculum that encourages more commitment by students to the process of learning. A more communicative classroom, based on the use of a broader, more open repertoire of language, may make possible more equitable relations between people and provide a surer foundation for a healthy, democratic society. As Kingman (1988) declared: People need expertise in language to be able to participate effectively in a democracy... A democratic society needs people who have the linguistic abilities which will enable them to discuss, evaluate and make sense of what they are told, as well as to take effective action on the basis of their understanding... Otherwise there can be no genuine participation, but only the imposition of the ideas of those who are linguistically capable. Recent reports underline a need to improve the communicative competence of young people, as a foundation for many aspects of life. Walker (1995) showed that communication failure in Britain is very costly in terms of human misery and lost productivity. The ability to speak does not automatically mean an ability to communicate effectively — as anyone knows who reflects on such things as the 104

GNVQ? and Teachers' Communication Styles difficulties some students have in grasping particular subjects or concepts because of misunderstandings of language, rather than lack of ability; the conflicts and emotional tangles caused in personal relationships by failure to speak assertively or to really listen; and the perennial complaints of employers and universities that people cannot read and write competently. An Adult Learning and Basic Skills Agency (ALBSU) Report (1995), based on the 1958 British cohort, showed a very strong correlation between low basic skills of parents and low attainment of children. The Report stated that the link is particularly strong for literacy skills and shows that failure to develop communication skills in one generation will certainly harm the next. Rodenburg (1992) compared the use of language in a London comprehensive to that in a private school; whereas pupils in the latter talked and discussed freely in class, in the comprehensive a silence prevailed that amounted almost to verbal deprivation. In the present study, there was little evidence of on-task discussion in teaching situations. One index of the lack of interpersonal communication is in the limited use of personal names. Most teachers stated that they preferred to use and to be addressed by first names; in practice, it was rare to hear names used, even by volunteer teachers who were perceived by the students to be 'effective', and even on GNVQ_programmes. The present research shows that the introduction of GNVQs provides a curriculum model that, in combining coursework with exams; in emphasising the importance of core skills, especially in communication; and in encouraging the fostering of learner autonomy, has the potential to increase the engagement of students with the learning process, in ways that will benefit their use of language and consequently their self-confidence. However, this requires many teachers to exercise less control of interaction than they are used to or desire, which presents a profound challenge to the practice of many, especially more experienced, teachers. Teachers in post-14 education need to be helped to move towards a practice based on more open forms of interpersonal communication, in which high levels of warmth or affectivitity are displayed, as well as high leadership or management of learning. The research project is currently validating a new questionnaire instrument to measure the interaction between learners and teachers in British post-compulsory education; and continues to use video feedback sessions to illuminate best practice, as stimulus for reflection by colleagues who wish to implement a more open and interactive curriculum practice, that is suited to the 21st century. Correspondence Dr Joe Harkin, School of Education, Oxford Brookes University, Wheatley, Oxford OX33 1HX, United Kingdom. Email: [email protected] References

ALBSU (1995) Parents and their Children: the intergenerational effect of poor basic skills. London: ALBSU. 105

Joe Harkin & Pauline Davis Argyle, M. (1982) The Psychology of Interpersonal Behaviour. Harmondsworth: Penguin. Barnes, D. (1977) Monitoring communication for learning, in M. Marland (Ed.) Language Across the Curriculum. London: Heinemann. Barnes, D. (1984) Versions of English. London: Heinemann. Brekelmans, M. (1993) Interpersonal teacher behavior throughout the career, in T. Wubbels (Ed.) Do You Know What You Look Like? Interpersonal relationships in education. London: Falmer. Brekelmans, M. (1994) Interpersonal Behaviour of Teachers in the First Decade oftheir Professional Careers, Paper to the Twentieth Annual Conference of the British Educational Research Association. Carlgren, I., Handal, G. & Vaage, S. (Eds) (1994) Teachers' Minds and Actions. London: Falmer. Coulthard, M. (Ed.) (1992) Advances in Spoken Discourse Analysis. London: Routledge. DES (1991) Education and Training for the 21st Century. London: HMSO. Dearing, R. (1996) Review of Qualificationsfor 16 to 19-year-olds. London: SCAA. Ecclestone, K. (1995) Evolving a New Research Agendafor Post-compulsory Professional Development, Paper to the British Educational Research Association Annual Conference 1995. Eraut, M. (1994) Evaluating Professional Knowledge and Competence. London: Falmer. Flanders, N. (197) Analysing Teacher Behaviour. Reading: Addison-Wesley. Hammersley, M. (1993) On the teacher as researcher, in M. Hammersley (Ed.) Educational Research: current issues. London: Open University/Paul Chapman. Kagan, N. & Krathwohl, D.R. (1967) Studies in human interaction: interpersonal process recall stimulated by videotape. ERIC Document Reproduction Service, ED 017946, 1967. Kingman, J. (1988) Report of the Committee of Enquiry into the Teaching of English Language. London: HMSO. Leary, T. (1957) An Interpersonal Diagnosis of Personality. New York: Ronald Press. NATFHE (1995) GNVQ workload is Weighing Down Lecturers, The Lecturer, Summer 1995, p. 3. NFER (1994) Survey into Stress in Post-compulsory Education, carried out on behalf of NATFHE, NATFHE Journal, Autumn 1994, pp. 4-5. Oates, T. & Harkin, J. (1994) From design to delivery: the implementation of the NCVQ core skills units, in J. Burke (Ed.) Outcomes, Learning and the Curriculum: implicationsfor NVQs, GNVQs and other qualifications. London: Falmer. Oates, T. (1994) GNVQ - Good Practice. London: NCVQ. Parlett, M. & Hamilton, D. (1977) Evaluation as illumination: a new approach to the study of innovatory programmes, in D. Hamilton, B. MacDonald, C. King, D. Jenkins, M. Partlett (Eds) Beyond the Numbers Game. London: Macmillan. Rodenburg, P. (1992) The Right to Speak. London: Methuen. Shackleton, J. (1995) Learning From 14, Lecture to the Royal Society of Arts, 15 March 1995, RSAJournal, July, pp. 70-79. Solomon, J. (1995) Student Case-studies in the Pilot Year of GNVQ. Oxford: Department of Educational Studies. Swann, J. (1992) Girls, Boys and Language. Oxford: Blackwell. Walker, J. (1995) The Cost of Communication Breakdown. London: Burston-Marsteller.

106

GNVQs and Teachers' Communication Styles Wubbels, T. (1993) Do You Know What You Look Like? Interpersonal Relationships in Education. London: Falmer. Young, M., Lucas, N., Sharp, G.I. & Cunningham, B. (1995) Teacher Education for the Further Education Sector: training the lecturer of the future. London: AFC/Institute of Education.

107