University Partnerships for Pre-Service and Teacher Development by Cozza Barbara;Blessinger Patrick;Blessinger Patrick;

Author:Cozza, Barbara;Blessinger, Patrick;Blessinger, Patrick;
Language: eng
Format: epub
Publisher: Emerald Publishing Limited
Published: 2017-05-26T00:00:00+00:00

Implementation – The First Year

Implementation, making the collaboration plans a reality (Dixon & Ishler, 1992) occurred very quickly, well before the conceptualization/development stages of the Partnership had been fully determined. A launch of the scholarship program occurred in lectures and through UTas Teaching Matters’ Conference (Oerlemans, Phillips, Castleton, & Fraser, 2008), without a formal direction for the program. A loose agenda guided the selection criteria of the 18 students, including identifying PSTs successful in their two initial teaching placements – as rated by their mentor teachers. Other sought for qualities included their self-described abilities to perform under pressure, manage competing priorities, and express their passions as potential teachers working for TasED. Working under pressure and being well organized proved to be key skills, as without a formal direction for the program, the workload and expectations for managing both university learning and school-based practice, proved unrealistic. And, as is not uncommon in Partnerships between higher education ITEs and schools, the assumption prevailed that university ideas and theories would take precedence over those of the school (Benton & Schillo, 2004).

Carlson et al. (2007) suggest eight steps to creating successful Partnerships, beginning with development of the relationship, deciding which university course to use, and determining the format. For the Partnership scholarship program, the relationship during Phase 1 was sketchy – with no clear determination on who should have responsibility for operational matters, particularly at TasED. This was reflected in the unidirectional flow of information, with UTas setting the agenda during the implementation stage in Semester 1. An early decision that reflective practice should be the focus (Oerlemans et al., 2008) resulted in a reflective portfolio as the major assessment, encouraging PSTS to “reflect on, evaluate, and learn from their teaching so that it continually improves” (Darling-Hammond & Bransford, 2006, p. 3). The connection of practice, theory and research was considered central to the success of the school-university collaboration (Kershner, Pedder, & Doddington, 2013). Students were given a list of classroom activities to be observed and reflect on, drawing on available research, in a staged process throughout the semester. Then using Killen’s (2006) understanding of being reflective as learner and as teacher, PSTs were encouraged to engage in reflection as part of the routine of everyday teaching. They also learned practitioner research (Stringer, 2008), and identifying one area of their portfolio, developed small research project. But though this was communicated to the PSTs at the start of Semester, many subsequently commented they did not feel that the Program expectations were “communicated as well as it could’ve been, [the workload] it was a bit of a surprise and people were not very happy about it sometimes” (PST 5, interview comment).

Carlson et al. (2007) further suggest, communication between collaborators should be constant, while Ledoux and McHenry (2008) advice not only is communication essential, but also “pre-emptive communication of expectations, written when possible, need to be communicated regularly” (p. 159) areas that were not strong throughout Phase 1 of the project. In early 2009, as students were

Download

Copyright Disclaimer:
This site does not store any files on its server. We only index and link to content provided by other sites. Please contact the content providers to delete copyright contents if any and email us, we'll remove relevant links or contents immediately.