Tilefni þessarar greinar er umræða um mögulegan kennaraskort í grunnskólum en
einkum þó staða og fækkun kennslukarla í grunnskólum. Fræðilegur bakgrunnur
hennar er annars vegar rannsóknir á leiðsögn við nýliða í starfi og hins vegar er
sjónum beint að kennslukörlum í starfi. Sagt er frá rannsókn þar sem rætt var við
fjóra nýbrautskráða karla og þeim fylgt eftir fyrstu sex mánuðina í starfi með þremur
viðtölum við hvern þeirra skólaárið 2017–2018. Þeir voru spurðir hvernig hefði
gengið í starfinu að loknu námi og hvort þeir hefðu upplifað einhverja þætti sem
líklegt væri að tengdust því að þeir væru karlar. Meginrannsóknarspurningin var
tvíþætt: Hvernig gengur nýbrautskráðum körlum á vettvangi starfsins og þurfa þeir
sérhæfðan stuðning í starfinu á grundvelli kyns síns? Í greininni er gerð grein fyrir
þremur þemum: Upplifun karlanna af nýjum starfsvettvangi og starfsumhverfinu þar;
reynslu þeirra af leiðsögn við þá sem nýliða; og loks hvort og hvernig kyn og kyngervi
birtast í frásögnum þeirra. Viðmælendur okkar töldu að sér hefði gengið vel að fóta sig
í starfi og þeir voru ánægðir með leiðsögnina, þótt hún hefði ekki verið jafn formleg
og mælt er með í fræðum og rannsóknum um leiðsögn. Svarið við spurningunni
hvort það þurfi sérhæfðan stuðning eftir kyni er ekki einhlítt. Í svörum viðmælenda
kom fram að í þremur skólanna sem þeir störfuðu hefðu verið karlaklúbbar sem
þeir töldu að hefðu verið sér gagnlegir við að aðlagast skólabragnum. Höfundar telja
rétt að kanna hvort kynskiptir klúbbar gagnist í því viðfangsefni að nýliðar haldist í
starfinu. Mikilvægi markvissrar leiðsagnar fyrir nýliða í starfi er þó ekki kynbundið
atriði heldur verður að leggja áherslu á að allir nýir kennarar, óháð kyni, fái góða
leiðsögn þegar þeir stíga sín fyrstu skref í starfi. Kynjaskipt leiðsögn væri þá einungis
hluti af heildstæðu og vönduðu kerfi nýliðaþjálfunar.
The possible shortage of teachers at compulsory school level in Iceland, and the
decreasing proportion of male teachers at the same school level has been discussed in
recent years. These discussions, especially on the status of male teachers, have sparked
our interest in performing this study. This is also an international debate concerning
the notion that male teachers might become “extinct” at primary level (e.g., McGrath
and Van Bergen, 2017).
The background of the study constitutes two often separate bodies of research. On
the one hand research on novices in teaching and, on the other, studies focusing on
male teachers. The article reports a study where we interviewed four newly-graduated
male teachers three times during their first six months: First in August 2017 before
teaching commenced, then in late October or November the same year, and, lastly, at
the end of January or in early February 2018. They taught in four schools in different
parts of the country. We asked them how they felt they were doing in their practice
and whether they had experienced anything that could be related to their gender.
Our main research question was twofold: How do newly-graduated male teachers
adjust to their new field of practice, and do they need specific support measures
because of their gender?
In the article, we report three prominent themes in the interview data: Firstly,
the experience of the new field of practice and the working environment. The
interviewees emphasized that they had not encountered any serious obstacles and
were pleased with the work, although they did at times have long working hours
under some amount of stress. They said it had been rather easy to get to know the
students; however, parent cooperation was the area they were most insecure about,
especially in the beginning.
The second theme is the novice male teachers’ experience of the mentoring and
supervision they received. None of them had a specially assigned mentor, apart from
school administration members, but all had been told that they could ask if they
needed something. They said they would have preferred a formal structure around
the mentoring as recommended in the theoretical and research literature.
And thirdly, whether and how gender appeared in their discussion. One of the themes
concerns separation between the professional and social in such a way they reported
good professional relationships with both women and men teachers – but said they
had in general stronger social relationships with the other men teachers, for instance
in the male-only “clubs” that functioned in three of the four schools where our
interviewees taught, clubs that had lunches together one day in the week or had other
social agenda.
To sum up and return to the research questions, the newly-graduated male teachers
said they had adjusted well to their new field of practice. The answer to the second
part of the question – whether they need specific support measures because of their
gender – is not a consistent because they felt sought-after, but they also felt, at times,
that they were a minority. The male-only groups are of special interest; they argued
that these had been important in adjusting to the school culture. This may merit
further research as to whether such arrangements are feasible to keep novice male
teachers on the job.
We suggest further exploring whether gender-divided groups can assist in the task
of supporting novices so they keep teaching rather than leaving the job. However,
the importance of well-organized supervision and mentoring of novices must not be
underestimated, and all new teachers, irrespective of gender, need quality supervision
in their first steps of teaching. Gendered supervision and, in particular, genderdivided support and study groups would, then, only be one aspect of a holistic and
state-of-the-art system of novice training.
