Interpretive Framework Science Teacher Education Partnerships with Schools

Interpretive Framework May 2015 Deakin University, RMIT, University of Melbourne, University of Tasmania, Australian Catholic University

Supported by the Australian Government Office for Learning and Teaching.

http://www.stepsproject.org.au/

Science Teacher Education Partnerships with Schools


2


Produced by The STEPS Project, May 2015 Research Team: Dr Linda Hobbs (Deakin University) Assoc Prof Coral Campbell (Deakin University) Dr Gail Chittleborough (Deakin University) Dr Sandra Herbert (Deakin University) Dr Mellita Jones (Australian Catholic University) Dr Christine Redman (University of Melbourne) Dr John Kenny (University of Tasmania) Dr Jeff King/Andy Gilbert (RMIT) Reference group: Professor Russell Tytler (Deakin University) Professor David Clarke (University of Melbourne) Professor Annette Gough (RMIT) Evaluator: Mr Paul Chesterton Project website: http://www.stepsproject.org.au Contact: Dr Linda Hobbs (Project leader): [email protected]


3



4


Acknowledgements This project emerges out of years of working with schools and appreciating the roles that schools play in pre-‐service teacher education. Thanks to the principals, teachers, students and wider school communities with whom we are honoured to work: ultimately it is for the growth and enhancement of these places of learning that we undertake the important work of building partnerships. To the pre-‐service teachers’ past, current and future, this work is a testament to the pedagogical contract within which we collaborate with you on your (and our) learning journey. To the participants of the study at the schools and universities, thanks for your insights, honesty and forward thinking in helping us create new ways of thinking about what we do. To those who acted as a ‘reference’ to clear thinking (reference group: Russell Tytler, David Clarke and Annette Gough), or kept our eyes on the outcomes (evaluator: Paul Chesterton), thanks for your mentoring and participation in the generation of some amazing ideas! To those who gave feedback, either as active participants or interested bystanders at conferences or workshops, reviewers of papers, colleagues, friends and family, it is through sharing our thoughts that we become aware the gaps and inconsistencies, but also what is cogent and fundamental. We acknowledge Dr Jeff King, who began this journey but did not pass the post with us, but whose spirit we take with us, and to whom we dedicate everything that emerges. And we give the final acknowledgement to the OLT who enabled us to come together as an amazing group of people, a partnership that has been transformative, built on trust, reciprocity, respect, recognition of our diverse and respective talents, adaptability and responsiveness, and a shared commitment to science education and our students. It’s been a great journey!


5


Table of contents

Chapter 1. The STEPS Project: Vision and Goals .................................................................................... 7

Chapter 2. Underpinning ideas of the Interpretive Framework ........................................................... 10 The state of primary science education ........................................................................................................................................... 10 Partnership theory ................................................................................................................................................................................... 11 Self efficacy and Identity theory ......................................................................................................................................................... 12

Chapter 3. What is an Interpretive Framework? ................................................................................. 14

Chapter 4. Methodology in developing the Interpretive Framework .................................................. 15 Pre-‐thinking: ............................................................................................................................................................................................... 16 Conceptualising the Interpretive Framework .............................................................................................................................. 16 Emergence of the Interpretive Framework ................................................................................................................................... 17 Dissemination and evaluation ............................................................................................................................................................. 17

Chapter 5. The STEPS Interpretive Framework ................................................................................... 19 The GUSP and RPP .................................................................................................................................................................................... 20 Chapter 6. Growing University-‐School Partnerships ........................................................................... 21 GUSP Components .................................................................................................................................................................................... 21 A. Need and Rationale ............................................................................................................................................................................... 21 B. Institutional and Unit Demands ...................................................................................................................................................... 21 C. Relationships ............................................................................................................................................................................................ 22 D. Nature and quality of learning ........................................................................................................................................................ 22 E. Commitment to action ......................................................................................................................................................................... 22

Chapter 7. Representations of Partnership Practices .......................................................................... 24 RPP components ........................................................................................................................................................................................ 24 A. Purposes ................................................................................................................................................................................................. 24 B. Institutional Practices ..................................................................................................................................................................... 24 C. Nature of Partnership ...................................................................................................................................................................... 24 D. Linking theory an practice ............................................................................................................................................................ 24

Typology ........................................................................................................................................................................................................ 24 1. Connective ............................................................................................................................................................................................. 24 2. Generative ............................................................................................................................................................................................. 25 3. Transformative ................................................................................................................................................................................... 25

Chapter 8. Narratives ......................................................................................................................... 27

Chapter 9. Using partnerships for effective science teacher education ............................................... 27 Guiding Pedagogical Principles ........................................................................................................................................................... 28 Enabling growth through educational practices partnership principles .......................................................................... 29 Risk-‐taking and Trust ................................................................................................................................................................................ 29 Reciprocity and Mutuality ....................................................................................................................................................................... 30 Recognition of Respective Goals ........................................................................................................................................................... 30 Respect ............................................................................................................................................................................................................. 30 Adaptable and Responsive to Changing Needs .............................................................................................................................. 30 Diverse Representations ........................................................................................................................................................................... 31

Growth Model for using partnerships in teacher education .................................................................................................. 31


6


Chapter 10. Vignettes ........................................................................................................................ 33 Vignette 1. Partnerships between teacher educators and schools: Reciprocity, Trust, Risk Taking, and Communication and Feedback ............................................................................................................................................................ 33 Vignette 2. Schools perspectives: Strategic relationships with university ...................................................................... 37 Vignette 3. Teacher educator perspectives – Integrating educational research into practice ................................ 39 Vignette 4. The Pre-‐service teacher experience: Shifting, learning, valuing ................................................................... 42

Chapter 11. Sustainability .................................................................................................................. 44 What is success and what does it look like? .................................................................................................................................. 44 How is sustainability measured? ........................................................................................................................................................ 45 What blocks success? ............................................................................................................................................................................... 45 Chapter 12. Conclusion ...................................................................................................................... 47 Flexibility of the STEPS Interpretive Framework ....................................................................................................................... 47

References ......................................................................................................................................... 49

Tables Table 1. Growing University-‐School Partnerships (GUSP) ..................................................................................................... 23 Table 2. Representations of Partnership Practices (RPP) ...................................................................................................... 26 Table 3. Vignette Audiences and Themes ....................................................................................................................................... 33 Figures Figure 1. Themes informing the STEPS Project ........................................................................................................................... 15 Figure 2. The STEPS Interpretive Framework .............................................................................................................................. 19 Figure 3. The STEPS Guiding Pedagogical Principles ................................................................................................................ 29 Figure 4. STEPS Growth Model for Effective Teacher Education ......................................................................................... 32 Appendices Appendix 1. Growing University-‐Schools Partnerships (GUSP) Narratives .................................................................... 52 Appendix 2. Representations of Partnership Practices (RPP) Narratives ........................................................................ 60


7


Chapter 1. The STEPS Project: Vision and Goals

The STEPS project responds to international concern about primary teachers’ lack of science knowledge and confidence to teach science, and recent questioning of the effectiveness of traditional approaches to teacher education. This project reviews and builds on established, innovative and successful practices at five universities, to develop and promote a framework supporting school-‐based approaches to pre-‐service teacher education. The models involve partnerships between universities and primary schools to engage pre-‐service primary teachers in classroom teaching and learning that effectively connects theory with practice. Through critical appraisal of these and similar models, the project aimed to identify key features of the approach and the critical success factors required to establish and maintain strong working relationships with schools and build student capacity. The principles, framework, and resources together with exemplifying case studies, were designed and disseminated to promote uptake of these innovative practices in the sector. A key strength of this project is that it simultaneously addressed two key areas of national concern in education: the promotion of more effective practical teaching experiences that bridge the theory practice gap that be-‐devils many teacher education programs; and the confidence and competency of primary teachers to teach science. Both were pertinent at a time when the introduction of the Australian Curriculum was mandating that science be taught at primary schools, and that the proportion of time spent teaching science should be raised from an average of 3 percent closer to the European average of 9.5 percent (Chief Scientist, 2013). These innovations bridge theory and practice within partnerships between the academy and the profession. In these collaborative programs, PSTs design and implement science

curriculum in primary schools, not as part of the normal practicum arrangements, but as part of their coursework. A central aspect of the programs, and the direction of the proposed investigation, was the guiding of student reflection on their practice. While such reflection on practice that responds to the quality of the experience can be difficult to sustain and assess, it was seen as critically important for informing PSTs’ developing pedagogical content knowledge, professional identity and teaching philosophy (Kenny, 2010). A variety of models of university-‐school links can be found, both nationally and internationally, each having its own partnership arrangements, approaches, theories, and learning and assessment objectives and outcomes. The project team represented five different models of school-‐based delivery of science education involving school partnerships, each with a history of successful implementation and evaluation. These types of programs are generally locally developed, grounded in particular contexts, and reflect the teacher educators’ knowledge and beliefs about science teaching and learning. For example, among the five models represented here, there is diversity in:

• the interaction between the PSTs and school children, ranging from teachers working with small groups or whole class;

• reflective practices, ranging from teaching team reflection to individual teachers, with the reflective focus on individual students, small groups or whole class analysis;

• how theory informs the approach and positions the students;

• assessment focus and purposes; and • the nature of the partnership and the degree to

which teacher professional development is incorporated into the partnership.

Despite this diversity, a common core exists that involves a commitment to bridging


8


theory-‐practice through providing for authentic teaching experiences, where PSTs take responsibility for planning and implementing curriculum while supported by academics in partnership with teachers, then reflect on that practice. While these programs must be evolving and responsive to local needs, this core commitment persists. While these innovative practices can often demonstrate a history of success, and have been published (see, for example, Kenny, 2010, 12; Jones, 2010), there is a paucity of research that attempts to identify the distinctive nature of this type of practice to draw out general principles attending to successful outcomes. This project provided a meta-‐analysis of the methodologies, informing theories, and principles associated with establishing and maintaining strong working relationships with schools, achieving strong educational outcomes, and promoting reflection on practice. There was a need to more sharply analyse the nature and benefits of these types of partnerships for PSTs and for schools, and to work in ways that maximise these benefits in order to improve the confidence and competency of primary teachers to teach science. This project collated and analysed the deliberations of teacher educators who had successfully established partnerships with schools for the purpose of school-‐based delivery of teacher education curriculum. These deliberations informed the development of resources, principles, and framework that can guide the establishment and maintenance of such powerful learning experiences. The project outcomes were to:

1. Synthesise the variety of teaching and reflective practices and informing theories used in school-‐based science teacher education programs.

2. Document exemplars of innovative pedagogies that represent the range of contexts, constraints and affordances that lead to quality student outcomes.

3. Create an interpretive framework informed by contemporary practice that can guide

improvement of science teacher education programs.

4. Determine sustainable methods for establishing and maintaining effective school-‐university partnerships generalisable across a range of contexts.

5. Facilitate uptake of innovative school-‐based practices within the sector for the purpose of improving the educational outcomes of science teacher education programs, and teacher education programs generally.

These outcomes were expected to lead to extension and refinement of practices that would have an impact on the confidence and competency of primary teachers in their teaching of science. It was also expected that there would be refinement to our own practice as a result of the collaboration. The outcomes of this project were instantiated through the generation of materials and theories that supported the development of partnership arrangements between schools and universities, and enhanced the reflective practices of PSTs within such programs. Development and dissemination of these outputs occurred throughout the project (see below) and included opportunities for academics, teachers and other interested stakeholders to contribute to the development and evaluation of the materials. The main focus of the project was the development of an Interpretive Framework designed to help support judgments about current practice, and provide a framework for initiating practice. The framework was drafted initially through analysing the existing practices of the research team and situating these practices within the literature, and then further refined through the scoping of practices occurring at other institutions. During this process the framework was scrutinised and refined by discussions at round tables, conference workshops and seminars. The framework articulates the nature of the theory-‐practice relationships, nature of relationships integral to the


9


partnership, and the notions of reflection and identity formation.

Value and Need for the Project This project capitalised on the successful experience of five institutions, each pursuing a model of science teacher education that accords with acknowledged features of good practice, including:

a. a close relationship between educational theory and classroom practice;

b. productive partnerships between universities and schools in teacher education, involving academics, school teachers and leaders, PSTs and school children; and

c. the centrality of reflective practice focusing on the development and implementation of curriculum, the relational and instructional elements of the pedagogical contract, and the development of PST’s professional identity.

The project represents a significant curriculum renewal in science education, pointing the way

forward for theory-‐practice coordination into teacher education. The features listed above indicate a significant and innovative approach to teacher education that addresses concerns about the lack of coordination of theory and practice in teacher education courses, and the need for better models of university-‐school-‐community relationships in teacher education (ACDE, 2004). A key strength of this project is that it simultaneously addresses two key areas of national concern in education: firstly, the promotion of more effective practical teaching experiences that bridge the theory practice gap that be-‐devils many teacher education programs; secondly, the confidence and competency of primary teachers to teach science. This is particularly important given that the introduction of the Australian Curriculum and the mandatory requirement for science to be taught at all year levels.


10


Chapter 2. Underpinning ideas of the Interpretive Framework

This project responds to significant and growing critique of the quality of teacher education, a discussion that shifts teacher education to schools and away from universities (TEMAG, 2014). Teacher education demands that Pre-‐service teacher (PSTs) have varied experiences. The role of the teacher educator and universities is being challenged with clinical and apprentice-‐type programs increasing in popularity. We argue that the teacher educator’s role of directing the shape of PSTs’ experiences and teaching PSTs to reflect on their experiences is essential. Our research provides compelling evidence of the significance of the school-‐based teaching experience for the development of PSTs’ professional identity and practice. It also provides convincing evidence of the expertise provided by the teacher educators to foster PST development. Schools play an essential role in teacher education too. Partnerships that maintain professional integrity and recognise the essential roles of both universities and schools are needed to enhance learning and raise awareness to the joys and value of teaching marginalised subjects such as science in primary schools.

The state of primary science education The focus on science education is grounded in the reported disengagement of students from science, and concerns about the amount and quality of science teaching in primary schools. The quality of science education has been the focus of a number of research projects nationally and internationally (see, for example Dobson, 2003; Tytler, 2007). These studies consistently report that students are ‘turned off’ science across the middle years of schooling, and that, in the primary years, science is approached in a disconnected fashion or not at all (Keys, 2005; Tytler et al.,

2008). In particular, the relevance of science to young people’s lives and the particular pedagogies being adopted by teachers of science has been questioned. There are indications that a large proportion of primary teachers have low levels of confidence and background knowledge in science, which impacts both their willingness and ability to teach science effectively. These are critical areas of concern when considered in combination with other studies which show that the development of children’s understandings is fundamentally tied to the quality of teaching (Darling-‐Hammond, 2000; DEST, 2003), thus highlighting the need for significant improvements in current and future primary teachers’ attitudes, personal efficacy and ability to teach science effectively.

In Australia, there has been a long history of science instruction in primary schools suffering from low teacher confidence, poor knowledge, and a packed curriculum and time restrictions. In addition, the more pressing issues of literacy and numeracy often push science to the periphery in many primary schools (see for example critiques offered by


11


Goodrum, Hackling & Rennie, 2001; Tytler, 2007). As a result, the image of a burgeoning 'crisis of interest' in science education is being promulgated (Chubb, 2013) in response to a picture of school science that often misses the possibilities for engaging science approaches in favor of sanitised, and predictable forms of science that permeate primary science teaching (Tytler, 2007). In Australia, time taught teaching science lags far behind other content areas, which is reflected in achievement levels below other developed nations (Peterson & Treagust, 2014; Chubb, 2001; Marginson et al., 2013). These are important concerns when we extrapolate how both poor teaching practices and limited opportunities directly impact student engagement with school science and teaching: "considerable evidence of student disenchantment with school science in the middle years, and a growing concern with a current and looming shortage of qualified teachers of science" (Tytler, 2007, p. 1).

Partnership theory In the simplest terms, partnerships can be viewed as two or more entities working toward a shared vision. For the purposes of this study we wish to define the notion of partnership as the "concept of a genuine university-‐school 'partnership' connotes a collaboration of professional conversations, collegial learning and aligned processes" (Rossner & Commins, 2012, p. 2). This definition for partnerships rests on the essential work of Kruger (2009) who argued that there are three key factors of successful partnerships: trust, mutuality and reciprocity. Trust is constructed as understanding between stakeholders that there should be benefits to be gained for each stakeholder; mutuality depicts the degree to which each partner understands that working together does lead to gains for each; reciprocity speaks to the value each partner holds for the other (Kruger, 2009). Successful partnerships are ones that convey an affinity for an equal relationship demonstrated through a shared

vision, equitable use of available resources, and a balance power between stakeholders in decision-‐making processes (Argyris & Schon, 1996). School-‐university partnerships provide the basis for these school-‐based experiences. Formal practicum arrangements offer obvious partnership opportunities and have been the subject of a variety of ALTC funded projects. For example, the project lead by Calvin Smith (funded 2011) examining the impact of ‘work integrated learning’ on work-‐readiness is underscored by the need for strong links between universities and the profession (Smith, 2011), as is the project lead by Ryan and Jones (funded 2009) exploring practicum arrangements in rural and regional areas. The ALTC project ‘Practicum Partnerships: Exploring models of practicum organisation in teacher education for a standards based profession’ (Ure, Gough & Newton, 2009) found a range of tensions and ambiguities inherent in traditional practicum partnership arrangements, and made a number of recommendations concerning the need for closer collaboration between universities and schools; clarification of the purpose of the practicum; and conceptualisation of effective teaching and teacher development. Their draft recommendations included a call for research on ‘increasing the links between the placement experience and the academic content of programs to create more informed knowledge about the application of pedagogy’ (p. 56). Research has shown that the incorporation of partnerships into science teacher education provides benefits for PSTs’ confidence to teach science and to develop their science pedagogical content knowledge (PCK) (Kenny, 2010). In designing such authentic learning experiences, the literature suggests that the role of the university lecturer is crucial in supporting PSTs (Howitt, 2007) by, for example, providing science PCK expertise that may not otherwise be readily available from many primary teachers (Kenny, 2012).


12


Teacher educators are also essential in facilitating PSTs’ reflection, assisting them in recognising those aspects of their experiences that are important for enhancing teaching and learning (Loughran, 2006). Indeed, Darling-‐Hammond (2000) has noted that more effective teachers emerge from teacher education when extended practicum experiences and university coursework are tightly integrated. While there is evidence to suggest that the in-‐service teachers who participate in partnerships with PSTs view their participation as professional learning, the most productive relationships arise when a good professional relationship is established between the PSTs and their in-‐service colleagues. Establishing direct contact between the participants early, and reducing the supervisory aspect of the relationship between the pre-‐service and in-‐service teachers, contributes to the relationship becoming one of mutual learning (Jones, 2008; Kenny 2012; Murphy et al., 2008). This mutuality also helps to reduce the ‘threat’ of assessment PSTs often associate with the normal practicum, which can impede their willingness to trial different approaches in the classroom (McNamara, Jones & McLean, 2007). While this research points to critical success factors leading to productive relationships in specific programs, the purpose of the proposed project is to establish critical success factors that are inclusive of a variety of partnership arrangements and pedagogies, and to situate these within a coherent Interpretive Framework. The project thus has the capacity to provide significant answers to issues currently occupying the minds of teacher educators and key policy makers, concerning the relationship between university teacher education, schools and PST practicum arrangements. We are not arguing for a replacement of traditional practicum arrangements but rather for discipline-‐based

partnerships – for science but potentially also for other curriculum areas -‐ as an important adjunct to current practice that can open up models for more effective practicum organisation. The exploration of assessment of students in these programs, centred in evidence based reflective practice, will inform current concerns about defensible teaching standards and knowledge of pedagogies.

Self-efficacy and Identity theory In his seminal work, Bandura (1977) purported that mastery experiences, those experiences of personal accomplishment, are one of the most influential sources of efficacy information. Furthermore, an individual’s perceived efficacy is a strong determining factor in: the types of activities and settings individuals elect to participate in (Bandura, 1977); their resilience and perseverance to overcome perceived barriers (Goddard, 2003); and the types of strategies with which they select to teach (Jones & Carter, 2007). This suggests that, if provided with opportunities to successfully teach science to children, PSTs’ reported low levels of self-‐efficacy beliefs about their ability to teach science would improve. Subsequently, PSTs’ willingness to plan and conduct science lessons should increase as should their selection of appropriate science teaching strategies if these are built into the mastery experiences in which they are engaged. Evidence from experience with the five models suggests that the approach is effective in increasing students’ confidence and interest, and capabilities in teaching science. However, providing mastery experiences alone is not sufficient if meaningful understanding of science teaching and learning is to be achieved. Korthagen et al. (2006) argued that learning does not occur through the experience, but rather through reflection on experience and through interaction with others. Furthermore, effective reflective practice using concrete


13


examples has the potential to bridge the theory practice divide (Loughran, 2002), an element that teacher education courses are often criticised as lacking (Darling-‐Hammond, 2006; House of Representatives Standing Committee on Education and Vocational Training, 2007; Parliament of Victoria, Education and Training Committee, 2005). Darling-‐Hammond (2006) also offered the view that the integration of course-‐work and fieldwork help PSTs to better ’understand theory, to apply concepts they are learning in their course work, and to better support student learning‘ (p. 307). This integration of theory and practice through the key role of reflection better prepares PSTs to ’handle the problems of everyday teaching through theory-‐guided action‘(Korthagen et al., 2006, p. 1021). In fact, Darling-‐Hammond (2006) asserted that teacher education programs need to provide opportunities for PSTs to analyse and apply theory; reflect on their subsequent practice; and have further opportunities to retry and improve.

School-‐based partnerships specific to science teacher education are critical in providing these opportunities due to the low levels of quality and time spent on science in primary schools, as discussed earlier. These low levels of quality science and amount of time in which science is taught in classrooms limits PSTs’ ability to observe the teaching of science and to practice it themselves during a standard practicum. A science-‐dedicated school-‐placement helps to overcome this issue where teachers and PSTs are committed to providing time for science teaching and learning, and teacher educators can facilitate the teaching and learning taking place to enhance quality.

The school-‐based experiences in the five participating universities involve science education academics providing opportunities and support for primary science PSTs to plan and reflect on their science teaching experiences in light of theory in order to foster a developed sense of praxis.


14


Chapter 3. What is an Interpretive Framework?

In the context of approaches to pedagogy and teacher education, an Interpretive Framework provides a framework for examining and understanding practice, as well as conceptualizing and implementing practice. It is both generative and evaluative. It describes the ‘who’, ‘what’ and ‘why’ of practice: who is involved, what are we doing, and why are we doing it (this way) and possible outcomes. Like a ‘concept framework’, an Interpretive Framework can include guiding principles to direct action or thought. Like a policy framework, it provides a structure for a framework document. Like a media engagement framework, it is a construct that helps to understand those involved, that is,

who may stand to benefit or be affected by the activity. Like an Enterprise architecture framework, it organizes the structure of the activity and incorporates the views of those likely to be involved. In summary, an Interpretive Framework:

• is a framework for examining and understanding practice;

• is a framework for conceptualizing, structuring and implementing practice;

• consists of guiding principles; • provides the structure for a document; • helps to understand those who may stand to

benefit or be affected by the activity; and • incorporates the views of those likely to be

affected.


15


Chapter 4. Methodology in developing the Interpretive Framework

The development of the Interpretive Framework was iterative in its approach in that data collection occurred in phases and each phase informed the aspects included in the framework and its refinement as the project progressed. The initial phase (Phase 1) involved the sharing and documentation of current practice and subsequent cross-‐case analysis to identify common and unique features of the various cases.

This was followed by an analysis of literature (Phase 2) that situated the cross-‐case analysis within the learning of the broader sector, allowing for a deeper analysis of practice, and assisting the identification of key themes that would inform the Interpretive Framework (see Figure 1).

Figure 1. Themes informing the STEPS Project

Phase 3 involved data generated from key stakeholders within the individual case studies. Data included questionnaires and interviews with pre-‐service teachers and interviews with university tutors and school teachers and principals involved in the 2013 programs. These data ensured that the

development of the Interpretive Framework would be informed by the experiences of the students, tutors, and school stakeholders. Phase 4 enabled other examples of partnerships in science education to be captured through interviews with science


16


teacher educators from around Australia. Data included:

• 106 pre-‐ and 105 post-‐questionnaires from PSTs • 10 PST interviews • 15 interviews with university staff • 80 interviews with teachers and principals • 20 interviews with other teacher educators

Multiple sources of data have assisted in confirming the key elements of the multiple cases, thereby ensuring the credibility and reliability of the framework. Stake (2006) claims that at least three sources of confirmation are needed for data to provide “assurances that key meanings are not overlooked” (p. 33).

Pre-thinking: Initial discussions identified varied elements of the project. These helped to guide the literature search and annotated bibliography, and to conceptualize the data collection associated with evaluation of our projects. These elements related to theory underpinning the approach, the potential impact of the school-‐based practice, and the specifics associated with the different models of practice of the project team (see Figure 1). The theoretical elements refer to areas of the literature that are informing the study. The current state of “Science teaching in primary schools”, as well as the tendency for pre-‐service teachers to have limited positive experiences with science and opportunities to see science taught or teach science on placement. This element is related to the conceptualization of a “theory-‐practice divide” between authentic classroom practice and educational theory. There appear to be changes in the teacher education sector moving towards situated learning experiences that require “Partnerships” with schools as a way of linking theory with practice. “Partnerships” are fundamental to the school-‐based practice. The research is conceptualising value for the schools, also the

distinctiveness of the science context in terms of this approach. “Reflective practice” and “Teacher efficacy and identity” are fundamental to the practices: teacher identity can be a mechanism for developing a teacher efficacy and professional identity and teacher reflection is a mechanism through which identity development occurs. Reflective practice, identity and efficacy focus strongly on the experience of the pre-‐service teacher. This focus on teachers thinking their way into a space is a move away from the previous model of primary science teachers, which was principally focused on competence and confidence (a deficit model). Timing of the school-‐based practice is important so that PSTs are ‘ready’ to begin to develop an identity in relation to science. The potential impact of the project is on “Teacher Education” through providing practical and theoretical models of effective science practice through real science teaching experiences that pre-‐service teachers often do not have during placement or as an in-‐service teacher. The project also has a potential impact on “School practice” through preparing willing and able teachers, but also modeling for the school teachers involved contemporary and effective science teaching pedagogy. The project examined the specifics of the models used by each university involved. They are all different in terms of “site difference and contexts”, that is the schools used; and the “nature of the school-‐based approach” and “specifics of each model” vary depending on the unit aims and goals and nature of the partnerships involved. In addition, the variety of models included has meant that the project has been able to generate “critical success factors and barriers” that may be inherent in different contexts. Conceptualising the Interpretive Framework The first stage to developing the Interpretive Framework was to identify the most


17


fundamental elements underpinning our practice – who is involved, what are we doing, and why are we doing it this way. We decided the framework must:

• Be broad enough to allow for depth of theoretical exploration within the different dimensions

• Have practical application • Have theoretical application • Draw on current practice • Draw on current literature • Lead to new practice • Support the development of new practice • Encompass all elements of establishing and

implementing practice We looked at existing frameworks from the literature and government and organizational documents. Frameworks that we looked at were presented in different ways:

• Diagrams/figures with key elements that were discussed

• Tables with relationships between various elements or components, what might be done, and possibilities or outcomes.

• Full documents that described the background theory, lists of the framework elements that are teased out, and case studies to contextualize and apply the framework.

• Descriptions of various elements.

Emergence of the Interpretive Framework The team identified parameters that we wanted incorporated into the framework, which included who the key stakeholders were, as well as the elements of our practice that we felt needed to be attended to in our framework. That all of these key stakeholders and elements of practice arise as a result of the partnership was a strong underpinning theme. This set of parameters served as an identification of what was important. Framing the Interpretive Framework was ultimately a representational issue: deciding which areas of our practice would be highlighted and afforded through further inquiry; the form of representation that would act as productive constraints on our thinking. Also, there were pedagogical

decisions made based on our desire to inform and instruct others of the partnerships and pedagogies that we want to promote. The framing and development of the Interpretive Framework followed the following lines of inquiries:

• How are partnerships grown over time? • What are different types of partnerships, and

what are their respective their purposes and values?

• What is fundamental to the pedagogies that can arise within partnerships?

• What is needed for partnerships to achieve quality learning outcomes and changed practices?

Dissemination and evaluation

The emerging ideas have been subject to a comprehensive dissemination strategy, which has enabled useful feedback. For example, draft 6 of the Interpretive Framework was presented to academic and professional audiences at four events in 2014:

• Workshop prior to ASERA, Melbourne • ASERA Conference, Melbourne • ATEA Conference, Sydney • EDULEARN Conference, Barcelona

Feedback from these events led to further changes to the two tables Growing University School Partnerships (GUSP, p.23) and Representations of Partnership Practices (RPP, p.26) as well as identifying some key themes that needed to be attended to when constructing the vignettes as outlined in Chapter 5, 6 & 7. The dissemination strategy included the following (based on the D-‐cubed dissemination resources by Hinton et al., 2011): branding, conferences, email lists, discussion forums, social networking tools, funding sub-‐projects at other institutions, participatory dissemination, guides and teaching materials, influencing policy, journal


18


articles, book proposal, media releases, meetings, roundtables, invited presentations,

newsletters, project workshops, webpages, online repository through the project website.


19


Chapter 5. The STEPS Interpretive Framework

This project strives to describe practices that might not be possible without the partnership arrangement. The STEPS Interpretive Framework (see Figure 2) focuses on describing practices in a number of ways:

1. Growing partnerships as a process comprised of different stages involving various key stakeholders working together for educational benefits (Chapter 6). Narratives are used to illustrate practice (Chapter 8);

2. Representing practices in diverse ways depending on the degree of cooperation and

collaboration inherent in the partnership (Chapter 7). Narratives are used to illustrate practice (Chapter 8);

3. Capturing the principles underpinning quality partnerships and the changes that can be enabled through partnerships (Chapter 9). Vignettes are used to illustrate principles in practice and aspects of participation for the various stakeholders(Chapter 10); and

4. Capturing pedagogical principles underpinning the practices that can be enabled by partnerships (Chapter 9).

Figure 2. The STEPS Interpretive Framework

All parts of the Interpretive Framework recognise the needs of the range of key stakeholders and elements of practice (see below) that have been found to be fundamental in these partnerships.

Key stakeholders: • Schools: Those schools involved in the

partnership, usually recruited by the teacher educator through an existing partnership, such as, placement schools, other research or educational activities by the teacher educators,

Connective, Generative or Transformative

• Purpose • Institutional Structures • Nature of Partnership • Linking Theory with practice

See Narratives for Sample Practice

Principles of Partnership Practice • Risk-taking & Trust • Reciprocity and Mutuality • Recognition of Respective Goals • Respect • Adaptable and Responsive • Diverse Representations

Growth Model • Enablers of Growth • Personal and Professional Development:

Identity, Confidence, Praxis, Relationships

See Vignettes for Sample Practice

Initiating, Implementing & Evaluating

• Aims and Rationale • Institutional Requirements • Relationships • Nature and Quality of Learning • Commitment to Action See Narratives for Sample Practice

Guiding Pedagogical Principles 1. Partnerships between university and schools. 2. Commitment to quality science education. 3. Authentic interaction with children to bridge the

theory-practice divide. 4. Science teacher educator plays an active role. 5. Practice informed by pedagogical and learning

theories. 6. Pre-service teachers and children interaction is

integral. 7. Involves planning, implementing and

assessment of a learning sequence in science. 8. Reflection on and articulation of practice that

focuses on pre-service teacher development and identity, and children’s learning.

See Case Studies for Sample Practice

Growing(University/School(

Partnerships((GUSP)(

Representing(Partnership(Practices((RPP)(

Enabling(Innovative(Practices(

Enabling(Growth(

ACTION(PLAN(Negotiating,(Monitoring,(Evaluating(


20


or recruited for more pragmatic reasons such as closeness to the university.

• Teachers: Teachers at the school whose classes are involved in the program, or other teachers in the school that might be influenced in some way by the program.

• Children: Children at the partnership schools involved in the learning and teaching activities conducted by the pre-‐service teachers

• Pre-‐Service Teachers: University pre-‐service teachers enrolled in the units that incorporate the school-‐based programs. They are usually responsible for planning, conducting, reflecting on and reporting on a primary science unit of work involving children

• University: responsible for preparing pre-‐service teachers to be teacher-‐ready.

• Teacher educators, course directors: Those involved in delivering the courses that incorporate the school-‐based programs. The course directors are the directors of an entire teacher education course or program, and generally have an overall understanding of the values, goals and intentions of the course, and may or may not have an appreciation of the role that school-‐based experiences add to the overall pre-‐service teacher experience.

Elements of practice: • Content knowledge, skills, nature of disciplinary

practices (NOS): science content from the science curriculum selected for teaching to pre-‐service teachers and/or taught by the pre-‐service teachers to school children.

• How to teach, pedagogy: Teaching approaches and strategies that are considered fundamental to science education. These may be part of a tutor-‐led curriculum, and maybe part of the planning and implementation of pre-‐service teachers’ units. For example, probing prior understanding, representation theory, inquiry,

promoting curiosity, SIS components of effective teaching.

• General pedagogy: Generic pedagogy that may also be part of the tutor-‐led curriculum, but which also pre-‐service teachers bring with them from the broader education course or program. For example, classroom management, questioning, standards of graduate teachers, dealing with diversity.

The GUSP and RPP

Chapters 6 and 7 use tables (as the GUSP and RPP) to capture the essence of the partnerships for both schools and universities. The cells of the tables contain brief descriptions, which are later demonstrated through a series of narratives in Chapter 8. These narratives draw on research into our own practices, and the experiences of other science teacher educators using university-‐school partnerships. While the GUSP and RPP are drawn from current practices from the 5 institutions involved in the STEPS project, they have been evaluated to establish goodness of fit and usefulness for other such partnerships in the education sector. They are descriptive of current practice and visionary for new practice.


21


Chapter 6. Growing University-‐School Partnerships

Table 1 focuses on Growing University-‐School Partnerships (GUSP). This part of the Interpretive Framework describes the phases of initiating, implementing and evaluating school-‐based teacher education. The descriptions have been derived through analysis of the practices of 5 existing or past examples of this practice. Five Components are used in the GUSP to describe the likely processes and thinking required at each phase of development. While the development from initiation to evaluation appears to be linear for each component, these types of processes are iterative and must remain responsive to the needs of all key stakeholders, which might mean starting again at another school if a previous school is no longer available, for example. Descriptions of the processes involved in developing these types of partnerships help others who might be considering adopting such partnerships to be aware of what thinking and planning is needed over time. It also can help those within existing partnerships by providing a language to talk about often undocumented and amorphous practices. The GUSP is intended for use by school and university stakeholder groups. The cells of the GUSP can, therefore, be interpreted by each group. Elaboration of the five components is described below.

GUSP Components

A. Need and Rationale Whether initiating, implementing or evaluating a university-‐school partnership, the needs of each partner and their respective rationale for being involved in the partnership need to be considered. Identifying needs and rationale ensures that each partner’s core requirements are accounted for in the establishment of a partnership arrangement. In effective partnerships, partners regularly check with one another in the implementation phase to ensure that each other’s’ needs are being met, and where possible, are flexible in arrangements to meet emergent needs that may not have been apparent in the initiation phase. In the evaluation phase each partner should review ways in which arrangements did and did not meet their respective needs and adjust the partnership arrangement accordingly for future iterations.

B. Institutional and Unit Demands Both universities and schools have a range of constraints that may shape the way in which a partnership can be organised. Aspects such as timetabling, curriculum and resources, to name a few, may limit the extent of the partnership arrangement. Each organization should try to identify as many constraints and affordances as possible to ensure the success of a partnership. Partners should also be prepared to respond, if possible, to changing constraints if and when they become apparent during the partnership implementation periods. The evaluation phase also allows for changing or emergent constraints to be better planned for in further partnership iterations.


22


C. Relationships An essential aspect of initiating a partnership arrangement is to define the type of partnership that is desired/possible. Defining the nature of the partnership means considering the role each person is wanting and able to commit. Partnerships can be connective, generative or transformative. Each of these types of partnership is valuable in its own right, but provides different opportunities for the level of partners’ involvement before, during and after the partnership period. Table 2 (Representations of Partnership Practices) explores the nature and extent of partner roles in more detail. In evaluating the nature of the partnership, each partner can reconsider their level of involvement and maintain similar or negotiate different levels of involvement for future iterations.

D. Nature and quality of learning The nature and the quality of the learning arising from pre-‐service teachers’ (PSTs’) interaction with children is the core purpose of the partnership. Here, the learning experiences of the children are of fundamental concern. Thus careful planning of the types of learning experiences -‐ ways in which subject and general content and pedagogy is implemented – is essential. The other stakeholders also stand to learn from their involvement in the partnership; the degree to which this is planned for will depend on the type of partnership. Learning is informed by educational research, particularly related to science education and effective teacher practice. Involvement of the different stakeholders in planning and implementation of the learning experience can depend on the nature of the partnership that has been negotiated. In evaluating these interactions, both partners consider the experience of the children, the PSTs, classroom teachers, and teacher educators, and how educational research can inform the most effective experience possible.

E. Commitment to action Commitment to action emphasises that the various partners generate common understanding of what they are committing to. When a lead partner initiates contact there is careful consideration to how contact is made and the process of entering into a partnership. Negotiation requires discussion about the aims and rationale for involvement, requirements, constraints, enablers, type of relationship desired, and learning outcomes to be achieved. During implementation, all partners monitor and reflect on current levels of commitment and involvement. This ensures that aims and rationale, institutional requirements, and learning needs are consistent with the practices occurring within the partnership. There is scope to shift practice as the partnership progresses. Evaluation occurs at a time when it is possible to respond with change as necessary, such as at the end of a year or after completion of an iteration of the partnership practice. Evaluation is informed by data. Sustainability of the practice depends on continued common understanding of what each partner is committing to. A set of Tools have been developed to support the three stages of partnership growth:

• Partnership Negotiation Tool (PNT), includes a template for recording the negotiation as it progresses;

• Partnership Monitoring Tool (PMT); and • Partnership Evaluation Tool (PET)

The Tools consist of sets of questions to guide thinking. They can be used in association with the other parts of the Interpretive Framework included within Figure 2.


23


Table 1. Growing University-‐School Partnerships (GUSP)

A. Aims

and Rationale

B. Institutional

Requirements

C. Relationships

D. Nature and Quality of Learning

E. Commitment to Action

1. In

itiat

ion

Phas

e

Identify mutual

and differing needs and

provide rationale

Identify requirements,

constraints and enablers governing the approach to partnership

development

Negotiate roles and

responsibilities and define value and

parameters defining the nature of the partnership

Conceptualise an approach to

PST interactions with children

Initiate contact Negotiate actions (See Partnership Negotiation Tool)

2. Im

plem

enta

tion

Phas

e

Be mindful of the needs

and rationale and be

responsive to emerging

needs

Manage, compromise,

justify and respond to

requirements (limitations and

possibilities)

Maintain and work with

partners to meet individual

and differing needs of partners

Enable interactions with children that reflect

subject-related and general content and pedagogy

Monitor and reflect on current levels of commitment and

involvement (See Partnership Monitoring Tool)

3. E

valu

atio

n Ph

ase

Evaluate the needs and rationales for their

continued relevance and future

possibilities.

Evaluate against

institutional requirements, and consider

different possibilities & approaches.

Evaluate the nature of the partnership to

respond to current and future needs

and possibilities.

Evaluate the nature of

interactions drawing on a

range of evidence,

including key stakeholders’

reflections and educational research.

Evaluate commitment and respond with

change as necessary (See Partnership Evaluation Tool)


24


Chapter 7. Representations of Partnership Practices

This part of the Interpretive Framework (Table 2) depicts a typology of practices. These types—described as Connective, Generative and Transformative—are based on the nature of the purposes, embeddedness within the partner institutional structures, nature of the partnership as collaborative or cooperative, and extent to which links between theory and practice results in reflection on practice and professional identity development for the various partnership stakeholders. The table is not meant to imply increasing value but to describe differing types of practices, each with its own value and arising out of the desired purposes and educational outcomes. It is not meant to suggest a trajectory that a partnership must move through in order to reach maturity. Again, the descriptions in each cell have been derived through analysis of the practices of 5 existing or past examples of this practice. Descriptions of the types of partnerships assist those who might be considering entering into partnerships to consider the desired outcomes, structures, and level of responsibility taken by each partner. It also can help those within existing partnerships by providing a language to talk about often undocumented and amorphous practices.

The Table is intended for use by school and university stakeholder groups. All cells have the same content, therefore, they should be interpreted by each group.

RPP components

A. Purposes Describes the rationale for partners, and in particular, schools, for participating in the school-‐based partnership.

B. Institutional Practices Describes the structures that exist within each institution and how they are managed and/or adapted to facilitate the school-‐university partnership.

C. Nature of Partnership Describes the level of co-‐operation or collaboration between partners to service a need or engage in joint effort and commitment to partnership outcomes.

D. Linking theory and practice Describes the degree to which each partner is involved in: reflection on theory and practice; and opportunities for professional identity development.

Typology

1. Connective Connective partnerships are co-‐operative in nature. They are typified by a “win-‐win” outcome where each partner recognizes a key benefit/value from working together. They arise when one or other of the partners may have a particular need and the other is able to provide a space or service to accommodate that need. These partnerships sit within existing structures and tend to be “one-‐off” or short-‐term in nature. They are provided because both partners recognize schools as important sites for PSTs to link theory and


25


practice. These partnerships meet important short-‐term needs and provide seeding opportunities for other partnerships and/or more long-‐term generative or transformative partnerships.

2. Generative Generative partnerships, whilst still mainly co-‐operative in nature, see a greater level of commitment and participation from both partners. These partnerships generate new or different practices and outlooks in the school and university programs by committing to longer-‐term involvement in the partnership arrangement due to the recognised mutual benefits. Partners respond to one another’s needs to develop programs that may involve small modifications to existing structures in order to accommodate one another’s needs. PSTs are engaged in reflection on their practice where they make links to underpinning theoretical ideas. Teachers are cognisant of what PSTs are doing in the classroom and this provides opportunities for them to also reflect on

practice that may be linked to theory. These partnerships meet important long-‐term needs and are well-‐established in both the school and university planning.

3. Transformative

Transformative partnerships are collaborative and focused on active involvement in planning and delivery of curriculum for the purpose of professional learning. They are on-‐going and embedded in the programs of the collaborating institutions. Partners have an invested interest in working collaboratively to develop key practices and outcomes that are aligned with and fundamental to their teaching and professional learning. Partners engage in critical reflective practice that is guided by theory-‐practice nexus and over time develops a sense of professional identity forged through their collaborative experience.


26


Table 2. Representations of Partnership Practices (RPP)

A. Purposes

B. Institutional

structures C. Nature of partnership

D. Linking theory with practice

1. C

onne

ctiv

e

Engagement

based on provision of

curriculum or other service

need.

Partnership activities are

short-term and opportunistic and sit within existing

structure.

Both partners provide short-term

services with a focus on one

partner’s needs but with mutual

benefits and value for all.

Both partners

recognise schools as important sites for PSTs to link

theory and practice.

2. G

ener

ativ

e

Partners recognise

opportunities for mutual

professional learning


considered long-term and are planned and

catered for in the teacher education

and school programs.

Partners jointly plan the structure

of the school-based practices to the benefit of both.

Opportunities exist for both partners to reflect on practice that may be linked

to theory.

3. T

rans

form

ativ

e

Partner involvement

based on active


Partnerships are embedded in the

ongoing structures and practices of the

institutions.

Partners take joint responsibility for mutually agreed

practices and outcomes that are embedded in their

respective core outcomes.

Both partners engage explicitly in

reflective inquiry guided by theories

of professional identity

development.


27


Chapter 8. Narratives

The Narratives have been developed to demonstrate what the GUSP and RPP look like in practice. These narratives provide context for the cells of the GUSP and RPP. Each Narrative aligns with one or more cells of the GUSP or RPP. They are short descriptions of some elements of our partnership practice. The narratives are derived from interview data with the various stakeholders; the data were coded against the cells of the GUSP and RPP tables (e.g. Row 2, Column D). Some of the data have been included to provide authenticity for the narratives. All cells have narratives, which illustrates the diversity of partnerships and pedagogical approaches across the five models in the STEPS Project. The narratives are located in Appendix 1 (GUSP) and Appendix 2 (RPP).


28


Chapter 9. Using partnerships for effective science teacher education

Using partnerships to foster growth requires attention to both the educational practices that are enabled because of the partnership, as well as the partnership practices, which position the stakeholders as participants, contributors and beneficiaries of the partnership.

Guiding Pedagogical Principles

The GPPs formed the basis of a video (see Figure 3 for the representation used in the video), which was written and acted by members of the STEPS Project team, filmed at a partner school, and produced with assistance from Deakin University digital learning staff (Deakin Learning Futures). The video is intended as a resource for students, and as a tool to facilitate uptake of school-‐based approaches in the sector. The video is informative of the learning

experiences that PSTs will face within a school-‐based science education unit. The video is structured around the GPPs, and The Guiding Pedagogical Principles (GPPs) capture the educational practices that can be afforded because of a partnership. Partnerships enable authentic interaction between pre-‐service teacher and the school children. Quality and effective science teacher education can be achieved when the following guiding principles are exhibited. includes interviews with a school principal, STEPS Project leader, and PSTs, and footage of the practice in action. It is located on the STEPS Project website: http://www.stepsproject.org.au/interpretive-‐framework

Guiding Pedagogical Principles 1. Embedded within a partnership between university and schools. 2. A commitment to quality science education. 3. Authentic interaction with children in schools for the purpose of bridging the

theory-practice divide

4. Science teacher educator plays an active role in supporting the pre-service teacher in school settings.

5. Science teacher educator and pre-service teacher practice is informed by

pedagogical and learning theories.

6. Interaction between pre-service teachers and children is integral to a science-related unit.

7. Involve planning, implementing and assessment of a learning sequence in science.

8. Reflection on and articulation of practice that focuses on pre-service teacher development and identity, and children’s learning.


29


Figure 3. The STEPS Guiding Pedagogical Principles

Enabling growth through educational practices partnership principles There are a diversity of approaches and types of partnerships, some more co-‐operative, others more collaborative. Each serves a purpose, and may be short term or long term. The practice of initiating, maintaining and evaluating any type of partnership can be underpinned by a set of principles to guide the partnership practice. Effective partnerships require:

Partnership Principles Effective partnerships require:

• Risk-taking & Trust • Reciprocity & Mutuality • Respect • Recognition of respective goals • Adaptability & Responsiveness

to changing needs • Diverse representations

Risk-‐taking and Trust Entering a partnership for the first time requires each member of the partnership to take a risk. Schools enter the partnership risking that the pre-‐service teachers will be capable and reliable as this affects both classroom organization and children’s learning. The teacher educator risks the quality of the teaching and learning experience of the pre-‐service teachers, as a poor school experience can have long term detrimental effects on pre-‐service teachers’ confidence. Both schools and teacher educators risk that the other will be organized and effective in contributing to the management of the partnership – being timely, open and honest with communication and providing the necessary structures to support the partnership. These risk factors tend to influence the nature of most partnerships; beginning with “low-‐


30


risk” level partnerships that may evolve to more sophisticated and transformative types of partnerships over time as trust is built through experience. There will always be risk, but experience in the partnership and commitment to its success from all members ensures that this risk is minimized.

Reciprocity and Mutuality As identified in other partnership studies (e.g. Kruger et al., 2009), reciprocity and mutuality are important factors in partnership arrangements. There needs to be mutual benefit for each partner otherwise motivations to be involved can be adversely affected. In school-‐university partnerships, the mutual benefits emerge almost naturally, but they must be nurtured to ensure they are not forgotten in the administrivia that can overtake time and energies in managing the partnership. Some of the reciprocal benefits of school-‐university partnerships include the dedicated science learning experiences that pre-‐service teachers bring to the classroom. These learning experiences are seen as beneficial for children’s learning as well as for teachers who value the gaining of new ideas for science teaching. Principals and teachers also value the contribution they are making to the profession by supporting pre-‐service teacher learning. Pre-‐service teachers gain valuable, authentic experiences that help to build their teacher identity, self-‐efficacy and knowledge to teach science and knowledge of children and their responsiveness to science learning experiences. Teacher educators also gain valuable experience in the classroom, observing changes in school and classroom structures, trends in children’s interests, capabilities and engagement; and technologies that are entering classrooms that can be embedded in their own programs. Having these mutual

benefits motivates each partner to commit to and work towards the success of the partnership.

Recognition of Respective Goals Linked to reciprocity and mutuality is the principle that recognises the goals of respective members of the partnership. The primary motivations of each partner must be realised if the partnership is to have any longevity. This means it is important to identify and cater for the main goals of each partner. For schools this is often tied to the learning experience of the children. If children are not provided with a quality learning experience the partnership will be at risk. This makes it of vital importance that teacher educators work closely with pre-‐service teachers to build their capacity to plan and deliver a quality program. For teacher educators, the key goal is usually to gain access to children to ensure there is an authentic learning experience for pre-‐service teachers, which enables them to embed theory into their practice in a supported way as they learn to become an effective teacher. Recognition of these primary goals lays the foundation on which the partnership is structured and maintained over time.

Respect Respect is observed in many ways in a partnership arrangement and is key to its success. It is one of the most pervasive principles in that it is linked to each of the other principles identified. There is respect in the risk-‐taking and building of trust over time; respect for the needs and the goals of each of the partner members; respect for one another’s goals; and respect for the types of partnerships that can be established at different stages of the relationship. Respect is fundamental to initiating, maintaining and enhancing partnership arrangements.

Adaptable and Responsive to Changing Needs When partnership arrangements are first established, it can be difficult to foresee all


31


the factors that might influence the success of the partnership. This makes it essential that all members of the partnership adopt a willingness to respond to emerging needs. This can occur at different stages of the partnership. In initiating a partnership, some flexibility is needed in negotiating the structures and processes to ensure that each member’s primary goals are met and that the limiting factors around time and resources are accounted for. When partnership arrangements are being implemented, some needs may emerge and need to be responded to quite suddenly, whilst others may come from reflection and be built into an evaluation. In the evaluation stage, adapting and responding to changing needs and/or new ideas can help the partnership evolve and this builds sustainability and potentially, sophistication in the nature of the partnership.

Diverse Representations A key factor emerging from this project is the need to value a diverse range of partnership types. Partnership studies often purport the value in those partnerships that are operating at a high level of collaboration. Certainly, these sorts of partnerships, termed transformative in this project, are of significant benefit to all involved. However, in the establishment of new partnerships, the risk involved in entering such a high-‐level arrangement can be a deterrent. This is when partnerships that are of a lower risk are of importance, and should not be less valued because they are operating at a more connective than transformative level. It is from these beginnings that more generative or transformative partnerships can grow. There are also situations in which a connective partnership better meets the needs and goals of its members. For example, short-‐term projects linked to community or global events can be capatilised on by a connective partnership. Hence there is a need to identify the nature, and guide the formation and implementation of a diverse range of partnerships, and to

value each type of partnership for the value it brings its members at a given point in time.

Growth Model for using partnerships in

teacher education People enter into partnerships because they recognise the value that they can play in enabling growth. Using partnerships to foster and enable growth within teacher education requires being aware of: the potential for partnerships to enable innovation in pedagogy (Guiding Pedaoggical Principls); the principles required for making partnerships sustainable and effective (Parternship Principles); and the fact that partnerships develop, strenghten and evolve over time. The focus of growth is tied to the nature and quality of the learning experience that occurs within the specific partnership. See Figure 4 for a representation of how partnerships enable growth. For the university-‐school partnerships represented in the STEPS project, the overarching aim is growth in the quality and effectiveness of teaching (through the relationship developed through the partnership) and teacher education (through praxis, and confidence and identity changes, both of which are possible because of the partnership). Identity, Confidence, Praxis, and Relationship are four meta-‐themes that have been found to be recurrent in the data, and are illustrated through the vignettes in Chapter 10. In Figure 4, the Partnership is the enabler of growth through: collaboration within and across partner groups; two-‐way communication which is needed for developing and maintaining trust, acknowledging of the risks, and in achieving reciprocity where each partner is willing to contribute to meeting the needs of the other partner/s; and coordination of arrangements by key people who can act as


32


administrators, boundary spanners and gatekeepers. The intended outcome is achieved as Personal and Professional Development, the effective of which is evidenced through

changes in behavior, expertise (including knowledge and practice), and attitudes and values.

Figure 4. STEPS Growth Model for Effective Teacher Education

University-School Partnerships

Growth As more effective teaching and

teacher education

Identity Confidence Praxis Relationship

Collab

orat

ion

Coo

rdin

atio

n

Com

mun

icatio

n

Behav

iour

Exp

ertis

e

Attit

udes

and

Va

lues

Enablers of growth

Personal and Professional Development

Growth Model for Effective Teacher Education


33


Chapter 10. Vignettes

The vignettes are compilations of the data generated throughout the project, including the case studies, interviews relating to the five partnerships models, and interviews completed with other teacher educators within the science education sector in Australia. The vignettes are written around themes that relate to questions and issues that emerged during dissemination and evaluation of the project outcomes (workshops, presentations, as well as the teacher educator interviews). These themes are important in supporting

uptake of school-‐based practices by other teacher educators. The themes are written for different audiences. Each vignette contains different themes. The nature of the vignette depends on the audience. The vignette is informed by data but does not necessarily include the data verbatim, although the contributing data is footnoted. The themes prepared for different audiences are listed in Table 5.

Table 3. Vignette Audiences and Themes

Vignette Audience Theme/s

1

Teacher educators and schools

Trust and Reciprocity, Risk taking, Communication and Feedback

2 Schools and/or teachers The valuing of science, Strategic relationship with schools

3 Teacher educators

Integrating educational research into practice

4 Students

Shifting, learning, valuing


34


Vignette 1. Partnerships between teacher educators and schools: Reciprocity, Trust,

Risk Taking, and Communication and Feedback

Reciprocity: Reciprocity is important to the partnership model. It is only experienced when the needs of each partner provides the motivation for both partners to commit to an ongoing relationship. Partners need to see the benefits that the partnership arrangement brings to their core business. The more each partner tries to view the arrangement from the needs of their partners’ as well as their own needs, the stronger and more sustainable the partnership arrangement can be. It is this mutual benefit that defines the reciprocity that partnership arrangements need for success.

Benefits for Universities For teacher educators and pre-‐service teachers one of the primary motivations for involvement in a partnership is the opportunity for the pre-‐service teachers to gain authentic experience of teaching a unit of science to children. Pre-‐service teachers need a successful and authentic experience of teaching science to children to not only enhance their knowledge and capability in teaching science5 but also to build their confidence. Having a school-‐university partnership in teacher education provides pre-‐service teachers with an opportunity to apply and practice the theory they are learning in the university setting in a timely and often concurrent manner. This concurrent theory-‐practice learning is not always possible when the formal teaching experience sits before or after curriculum units, or even once they have entered the profession. To gain a good understanding of teaching scientific concepts in a way that develops children’s knowledge, pre-‐service teachers need to teach a whole unit of science so they can conduct the necessarily assessment and learning activities that build knowledge over time within a focus area. This is something that does not necessarily occur on rounds. Pre-‐service teachers also need to see the way in which children respond to science learning in order to develop a sense of whether their teaching activities and approaches are successful or not. This direct involvement with children

learning science also gives them the much needed opportunity to witness the engagement and enjoyment children have in learning science, which is often unexpected due to their own poor experiences and/or attitudes towards science. The partnership also serves an important function of helping those teacher educators who visit or are involved in the schools during the teaching periods that are connected to their units. Teacher educators need to see what is happening in the school to not only assess the success of their own science education programs, but also to see the ways in which classrooms and schools are evolving over time.

Benefits for Schools School-‐university partnerships also provide a number of benefits for schools. Schools need strong science programs, but they often struggle to address science adequately for a range of reasons. Teachers need to cover a lot of content from a range of curriculum areas and they often feel the pressure of a crowded curriculum. Teachers also need to have confidence in their background knowledge of science and in their ability to teach it effectively. The lack of this confidence and/or knowledge can limit their ability and incentive to each science. A partnership with a university science teacher education program can help to address these needs by providing access to expert science educators to ensure there is adequate support in the development and


35


delivery of science units. Schools also need to have appropriate resources – both staffing and material– to provide a rich science curriculum. Access to such resources can be difficult for schools and a partnership approach helps to address this through the use of equipment borrowed from the university involved. Schools also value the engagement and excitement that the science program brings out in the children. The nature of the school-‐university partnership allows children to see that science is accessible to them and not something that is only for the “smart kids” or “nerds.”

Many principals and teachers view the partnership as an opportunity for science professional learning where they learn a range of new activities and ideas and keep up-‐to-‐date with contemporary pedagogical approaches. Many schools also highlight the benefit of the partnership for future recruitment as they get to know the pre-‐service teachers and their capabilities through the program. The partnerships with universities are viewed as an attractive selling point for some schools and they advertise it through their newsletters and school council meetings as a way of demonstrating the school’s success.

Risk taking and Trust: Trust between partners is always an important component of successful partnerships. Trust is, however, something that takes time and experience to establish. This means that at the beginning of any partnership arrangement, both partners need to examine and commit to taking the risk of working with one another. This risk taking can be quite difficult for school-‐university partnerships as it is often the teachers and teacher educators organising the partnership arrangement that places the learning of their respective students at risk. Ensuring that a partnership runs smoothly and is successful can be quite demanding on the people involved. There is a significant amount of work involved including that of recruiting willing partners, determining the needs and desires of each partner, and establishing a program that addresses these needs and desires. Beginning a program like this can also be risky in ensuring that there are enough pre-‐service teachers and enough children to meet everyone’s needs. These types of considerations require commitment and flexibility from everyone involved and partners may need to alter those aspects of their programs they can if they want a partnership to proceed. Partners need to negotiate some challenging aspects such as timetabling and consider how other

programs each partner needs to deliver will fit in/around the partnership arrangement. The reward for taking this initial risk is the relationship and trust that is able to be established over time. Ideally, schools and universities will have the same people involved in the program in an on-‐going basis to allow the relationships to develop and trust to build. However, even then, there is no guarantee that a successful partnership will eventuate. Partnerships can be maintained or grown once that initial trust is established and consistency of success is experienced.

Communication as a tool for developing and sustaining relationships


36


Feedback and communication is needed between all key stakeholders: university students, teachers, principals, children and university tutors. Communication is needed for establishing the relationship so that the needs and demands of the school and university can be built into the developing relationship. Also important is ongoing communication and opportunities for feedback in order to maximise the learning taking place for students and to ensure that the relationship continues to be beneficial for the children, the teachers, and in meeting the unit objectives. Communication is needed for developing and maintaining trust in the program delivery positive outcomes, and in achieving reciprocity where each partner is willing to contribute to meeting the needs of the other partner/s. Feedback is an important mechanism for checking that all is well, that changing needs are recognised, and that there is room for movement and change.

Communication Communication is needed when negotiating partnership arrangements, both negotiating the current arrangements and helping shape future arrangements. Good communication between the University representative, principals and the teachers involved, are central to the relationship. Good communication when establishing a relationship can help to dispel apprehensions from principals and teachers that might have developed from past experiences of working with partner organisations, such as other universities. Discussions with the classroom teachers prior to teaching about the topics, the approach, and expectations are central to getting teachers feeling at ease and knowing it is all going to be ok. This first communication establishes the nature of and expectations for future interactions. Schools need to know that they can influence the nature of the relationships and the type of experiences that their students are involved in. By listening to schools, there is greater opportunity for the work of the students to be valued because the content might tie into the curriculum, and there is greater potential for the classroom teachers to extent and support the work of the students.

Feedback Feedback for the school about the value of the partnership, leading to ongoing involvement

is important. Feedback between students and the teacher, and between tutor and students are central. Good feedback means satisfaction, which hopefully translates as sustainability of the program. Teachers and principals are attuned to whether issues arise. Getting the principals and teachers on-‐side is central so positive feedback about what the children are doing with science gives principals and teachers assurance that it is working. An open line of communication between PST and teacher works best if the flow of information goes both ways. The teachers appreciate the teaching ideas that students offered through their lessons, as well as being briefed on the concepts and standards that their children were covering. Teachers also feel comfortable when their knowledge of the different learners in the classroom are sought, respected and built into the relationships developed between their children and the students. Students appreciated the feedback, guidance and support of the classroom teachers. Such feedback has the effect of assisting in the immediate teaching of the unit, promoting reflection on that teaching, and providing a positive memory of the school and the experience. This opportunity for feedback arises out of attentiveness to what the students are doing (instead of using that hour as time release) which the teacher might then extend later. Finding that balance between giving the students space and


37


having input to proceedings is needed to make it work. Feedback from the tutor was also valued by students in relation to the

teaching that was going on, the lesson plans that were being constructed and generally how the students were going.


38


Vignette 2. Schools perspectives: Strategic relationships with university

School involvement in the program was initiated through contact with the principal by the university and the information passed onto teachers. These groups generally had similar ideas about involvement in the program, but slightly different perspectives. Both principals and teachers saw the value in working with the university to support pre-‐service teachers, where collaboration emerged as a powerful experience for both pre and in-‐service teachers.

Principal perspective (Before) Principals tended to focus on how the program fit with their strategic priorities and the perception that teachers needed additional support in science. The principals articulated that a university supported program of pre-‐service teachers working in their school was a great idea and were keen to be involved. The principals surveyed said they saw the value of what science has to offer in the curriculum but they recognised that often their teachers lacked confidence with science. Being involved in this program offered a good opportunity to engage with science and in many cases, science was also a strategic curriculum priority for their school. They also felt the program offered their teachers an opportunity for professional development in science by working collaboratively with the PSTs as colleagues. Lastly, principals also perceived that schools were partly responsible for improving links with the university and contributing to the professional growth of PSTs by providing experiential opportunities for future teachers.

Principal perspective (After)

Principals often mentioned that the program helped to strengthen links between primary schools and their university partners, they expressed a willingness to be involved in future offerings of the program as the closer relationship ultimately improved both teacher and student engagement with science.

The feedback was positive and many principals reported increased enthusiasm for science across the school. Many remarked that the partnership met their expectations with regard to the benefits they had anticipated for their teachers before the program started, in terms of increased confidence with science and their professional development. Principals added that they would like to develop closer links between the school and the University in order to explore more sustainable outcomes by finding ways for this experience to have a wider impact in the school. Some suggestions to improve the effectiveness of the program included providing opportunities to provide feedback; extending the partnership approach to other curriculum areas; recognising the program as mutually beneficial; and coordinating the partnership program with the practicum to take advantage of the relationships built up between the PST and the class.

Teachers’ perspective (Before): Teachers saw the value that science had to offer but tended to focus more on the barriers to teaching science including their lack of confidence with the subject. They clearly saw the program offered a good professional development opportunity that would also benefit their students. While some teachers admitted they tended to avoid science due to a range of barriers, they were aware of the unique opportunity it could offer their students to learn through inquiry based learning experiences and observation; to draw on their life


39


experiences; to use science processes; to explore and better understand how things work in the world around them and to provide ideas for integrating other areas of the curriculum with science. The teachers hoped that through their involvement in the program, their students would be engaged and their natural curiosity would be stimulated. Teachers also were looking to get some fresh ideas and build their own confidence with science. The teachers tended to view the PSTs as peers and saw the program as a chance to really focus on science. They felt the program would help to overcome the problems due to the over-‐crowded curriculum and ensure they dedicated a period of time to science so it isn't swallowed up with competing curriculum demands.

Teachers’ perspective (After): Many teachers were surprised how effective science was within their own classrooms. When they witnessed the engagement of their own students with science it had a very positive effect on their own attitudes towards science. They also expressed a willingness to be involved in the program in future and made suggestions for further improvement. The teachers were very supportive of the program and willing to participate in future, seeing the cooperation with the university as a positive for all. Teachers noticed that the science activities really engaged their students; how their students looked forward to the weekly science lesson and responded

so well to the hands on nature of the activities. This reminded them of the importance of including science in the teaching program and caused them to reflect on whether they were doing do enough science with their class. In some cases, where teachers lacked confidence, watching the pre-‐service teacher helped them to realise that teaching science need not involve complicated preparation, it can be more easy to implement than they had thought. Where teachers were more confident with science, they reported that they learned some new science content and/or it provided fresh ideas and allowed them to reflect upon their own teaching by observing and assisting rather than supervising the PST. The teachers were very supportive of the program and saw the benefits for their students, teaching colleagues and PSTs alike. Some suggested ways in which the program could be improved such as: including visits to the classroom before the lessons started so that the PSTs could get a better idea of the needs of the class; a chance to build a relationship prior to teaching the class; and more time to de-‐brief after lessons. Teachers new to the program suggested better communication about the program so they were more aware of their role and who they might contact if they needed to clarify something. Where programs were more established, the teachers appreciated the open lines of communication and building relationships with the university staff.


40


Vignette 3. Teacher educator perspectives – Integrating educational research into

practice

This vignette reflects the reported reflections of university tutors working in school-‐based science education for pre-‐service primary teachers. It discusses the tutors’ perceptions of the affordances and constraints of these programs with respect to changes in pre-‐service teachers’ confidence and identity and their ability to teach science aligned with school-‐university based science education experienced in the partnership.

Need for improved primary science education

The quality of science education has been the focus of a number of research projects nationally and internationally, including concerns about primary teachers’ lack of science knowledge and confidence to teach science. The practice of integrating multiple learning domains such as science into units of work has led to science’s lack of prominence in the curriculum, so pre-‐service teachers may have little opportunity to observe or engage in science teaching whilst on practicum. School-‐based science education for pre-‐service primary teachers has the potential to build their science knowledge and confidence to teach science. The Science Teacher Partnerships with Schools (STEPS) project investigated the effectiveness of school-‐based approaches to pre-‐service primary science teacher education.

Affordances of school-based model The school-‐based experience was found to provide pre-‐service teachers with an authentic engagement with the teaching of science while being supported by their university tutors. The PSTs are actually doing this every week and then have the ability to reflect on it before they go and do the next week. They can interact with the university tutor and the classroom teacher

before and after their teaching. Then, in the reflection afterwards, important connections can be made. The school-‐based model applied to pre-‐service teacher education, therefore, provides the opportunity to employ intense, explicit work for primary children drawing upon their real life experiences to make sense of the world around them. It gives the pre-‐service teachers a more realistic view of what the science is and how to teach science. It makes the connection between the theory and the practice so much more real and effective. There are high levels of positive feedback for the school-‐based science education model and an appreciation by school teachers of the planning, preparation and flexibility demonstrated by pre-‐service teachers. School-‐based experience has advantages, which cannot be gained in the University environment and is particularly so as an intense focus on a teaching domain and small teaching groups of primary school children ensure relationships and rapport are built over time. Additionally, it allows the construction of their science understandings through hands-‐on activities and targeted individual attention. This is supported by teachers and teacher educators who observe and support the pre-‐service teachers delivering the unit of science. The model provides a way for PSTs


41


to have a focus on the observation and implementation of theory. This leads to the practice and implementation of theory. Allowing the pre-‐service teachers to witness the benefit of what they have done in classes at university. It is practicing teaching, not just learning the theory and learning about it in a classroom at university with no context. The PST can go out and do what they have been told about or advised to do and practice it. It provides an opportunity for the entwining of theory and practices so bridging that theory/practice gap. It is not just the PST learning about teaching in isolation and then expecting teaching to be put it into place when they go out on their practicum or when they eventually graduate. Their school-‐based experience is accompanied by an on-‐site tutorial where theoretical frameworks such as the 5Es are

discussed. Theoretical frameworks such as the 5Es can be incorporated into an on-‐site tutorial and this can then be supplemented by the school-‐based experience derived from the PSTs participation in the model. So it is a big part of the tutorials, not just talking about the theory but also discussing how it can be applied and then practising the theory straight away. The model encourages and supports them to be more professional about what they are doing as well as supporting them. It is important to note that obstacles may impede the success of the model, in particular issues relating to timetabling both in a school and in the University environment. Despite this, the placement provides pre-‐service teachers with excellent preparation to move into teaching.


42


Vignette 4. The Pre-service teacher experience: Shifting, learning, valuing

This vignette reflects the reported outcomes of growth that pre-‐service teachers experience as a result of a science teaching focus that arises from the school-‐university partnership. It relates to changes in confidence and identity aligned with school-‐university based science education experienced in the partnership.

Working in school based teams for planning

A significant and notable growth reported in the data is in the changes to students’ identity and their teaching practices. This arose from the experiences of working with a range of others, peers, mentor teachers and university staff. The students experience team planning and team teaching. This can be experienced when working with each other, or with school based teachers, or with university academics. Some PSTs initially expressed concern, even anxiety, just around the thought of planning with others (I wasn't really quite sure how I was going to go with team planning, but I actually really enjoyed it, ... Everyone was very supportive; I had to plan with other people ... We had to get together with somebody else ... and work out a comprise, so that was really good I guess.). The 'others' includes their peers, predominately, they seem to be satisfied and comfortable with planning discussions with academics and school based staff (I actually worked collaboratively with my PLT. There were three other grade five teachers so I worked with them for the brainstorming; if it didn't work you can take it back to uni the next day or the next week and share and having that resource of people). There are a variety of successes reported, and some failures as well, as students managed planning times (so I thought we should have sat down at then beginning and gone 'well where do we want the kids to be at the end of the unit'.).

Experiences of planning over time There are examples of enthusiastic reporting of successful teams planning together (I had two people who I was working with we're really good partners so we shared a lot of information and we were able to build upon each other), researching science concepts and resourcing lessons with materials, and discussing students learning needs. The planning week by week, and following up on previous teaching, for some had not been a successful, or team experience, and for some had an infrequent experience (Planning I think because I'd never really done any planning week to week). In addition some were able to experience the need to plan, and then be flexible in response to students learning needs (you can see that it's still going to work even if things don't go exactly to plan). Confidence from working and planning with

others The students who reported on successful teamwork, in their placement, shared collegiate experiences of knowing the students and making more informed decisions together. (I really liked that we got the chance to meet the kids and decide on what they were interested in and go on from there; we actually get to see it for ourselves). The regular contact with schools, and the regular classrooms experience, contributed to the confidence and enjoyment levels, because PSTs felt more confident. Their increased positive identities were aligned with the idea that they felt that they knew what was needed to be taught (we got a feeling of what they wanted to know which


43


was really good felt that was really engaging for them).

Confidence in teaching science Confidence is a key element evident in the discussions and repeated with frequency by the PSTs. This is associated with team planning and teaching, as reported above, but it is also associated with the teaching of science in classrooms (So I think it's opened my eyes to the wonderful things that you can do through science and its made me feel more confident approaching it in a school setting; and honestly much more excited about teaching science. I'm certainly not hesitant anymore I'm ready to do it and I've already got lots of ideas yes it was a very ... really positive experience of science teaching and learning; I think without the amount of experience that I had I wouldn't be able to meet the needs of the students like I'm able to now).

Valuing teaching science The teaching of science is valued for both the classroom practice (I was a little bit, not hesitant, but a bit unsure when it came to teaching science) and as a valued experience that they could refer to in a statement on their CV (I go into teaching I'll know how to do it ... I've delivered a science unit and when I go for a job interview I think confidentially I'd land a successful science (inaudible -‐ assuming 'job') because of this, this and this.)

Successful class experiences teaching science

This change in confidence is a major factor noted by classroom teachers, and in the subsequent interviews for this project,

confidence is oft stated, and tied to a successfully supported placement teaching science. The PSTS have experienced the positive impact of science teaching in classrooms, and how level engagement and enthusiastic participation. Students explain how nervous they were before, but as a result of high levels of classroom engagement, now declare growth in confidence levels (I guess I was so nervous and didn't get much sleep the night before my first lesson ... The kids were really engaged ... it was quite good content ... So I guess probably the confidence was the biggest thing ... I've been much more relaxed; yes absolutely I feel a lot more confident).


44


Chapter 11. Sustainability

Sustaining effective university-‐school partnerships requires an understanding of the expectations and needs of each participant. Each setting is complex in the range and diversity of expectations and needs and the variation is as unique as the individuals involved. Each person has different constraints and affordances required at the institutional level that may enable or constrain elements of participation. The differing needs and expectations need to have been explicitly shared and understood to support the building of the relationship, and this goes some way to contributing to sustaining an effective relationship. This chapter identifies elements that contribute to success and underpin the future sustainability of relationships. When examining a university-‐school partnership and how it is contributing to the identified needs of the different stakeholders, the GUSP can support the evaluation of this process:

• The evaluation phase of the GUSP encourages each partner to justify the relevance of the existing program, and opportunities for future improvements (3A).

• Review of the productive elements and constructive enablers and impediments of institutional expectations can be addressed when focusing on 3B.

• The roles and responsibilities of the participants will be the focus when appraising the capacity of the partnership to respond to present and future expectations of members of the partnership (3C).

• Assessing the range and types of interactions between stakeholders, and the links to educational research that arise (such as linking theory to practice, reflection, learning theory), provide evidence of the nature and quality of learning occurring within the partnership (3D).

Different elements, evident in different actions, and in different sites will be required to be examined and evaluated by the different partners. Sustainability can be explored through three questions:

• What is success and what does it look like? • How is sustainability measured? • What blocks success?

What is success and what does it look like?

The success of the partnership relationship has significance at the level of supporting others and enabling growth. Ensuring the partnership is successful requires careful consideration of a number of elements to ensure sustainability is likely. Key stakeholders currently involved in partnerships or who desire to be involved in partnerships have identified key elements for a school-‐university partnership to be successful. These elements are:

Giving Pre-‐Service Teachers the opportunity to teach science ‘There's the benefit of the just-‐in-‐time nature of it. At the moment when I teach them, it eight months, six months whatever to when they make it into a classroom (Darren: Teacher Educator).’

Willingness, Recruitment, Enthusiasm ‘A willingness to participate. So you’ve got to have the people, so the lecturer who is willing and can then tell the students to go (Alexa: Teacher Educator).’

Communication ‘A partnership infers that the partners are working towards a common goal -‐ which in acknowledging and promoting the teaching and learning of science -‐ for PST’s and the children. This is achieved by having clear


45


communication with the principal and the teachers and the PST and tutors about the obligations, expectations and relationships that are integral to the program (Gail: STEPS Project).’

Respect, Goodwill ‘Respect between the university, myself and the school. So, there’s not an idea of a divide, we are moving beyond boundaries (Ivan: Teacher Educator).’ ‘The goodwill of the school is really important. You need a teacher in the primary school that understands the importance of it and will invest in it, so there is a little bit of organisation that has to happen. You need a lecturer at the university that understands the importance of it too. Someone who is prepared to put in that background work to make it happen. The students take it on board because it is an assessment task (Carl: Teacher Educator).’

Mutual benefit ‘One of the important things if you are using a school based model is that it is good professional development for the teachers who are involved in the mentoring of the pre-‐service teachers in the schools (Niall: Teacher Educator).’

How is sustainability measured? The nature of a school-‐based partnership can be a determinant of sustainability and all partners need to experience benefits and recognise the value for all. For the partnership to succeed crucial, there needs to be regular monitoring of how the nature of the partnership responds to the current and future needs of each partner. Evaluation takes account of needs and benefits, and is completed with trust, reciprocity and respect in mind. Measures such as anecdotal evidence and level of engagement exist to determine this success for the classroom teachers and their students. For pre-‐service teacher development, the sustainability of a

school-‐university partnership is measured by:

Observation ‘(It’s) me being out there are watching, I’m looking that they’re engaging with what’s going on. With a group of two or three pre-‐service teachers, it’s quite easy to just take a background role. I’m looking at how they’re engaging, I’m looking at their questioning, their confidence in how they are engaging and talking with the students (Carl: Teacher Educator).’

Debrief/Reflection ‘Refection is a big part of what we are really talking about, so I’m looking for them to reflect on their practice, what went well, what didn’t, how they are going to improve for the next session and then a lot of the indicators of how they are going some from the write up of the reflection (Carl: Teacher Educator).’

Surveys and questionnaires ‘we have the pre-‐ and post-‐surveys that they fill out and also we've had focus groups and teacher educator diaries and interviews. So, we've used some of the information to assess how it's going and in each case it's been quite a positive response overall (Michelle: Teacher Educator).’

What blocks success?

In many cases, in addition to the elements required for a successful school-‐university partnership to operate, there are issues and blockers that impede the sustainability of a partnership. These issues are either able to be overcome or simply need to be managed as part of the monitoring and evaluating the partnership. Common issues identified are:

Timing issues/timetabling ‘Time and resources are huge restraints. There is only the same time allowance on our work plans for engaging in this unit but


46


it is much more time consuming compared to delivering lectures and tutorials. There are never enough resources to support our students wonderful ideas and I supplement the budget every year. The time tables of schools do not align with ours and it is very difficult to get blocks of consecutive weeks to go to the schools without losing time to other events (Jeff STEPS Project).’

Location/travel/parking ‘I think the distance is certainly as issue we have such big numbers of students so it might be difficult to organise to ensure you got good teacher mentors. Clearly we are hoping for that but it doesn’t always happen. I think that’s pretty crucial if the students are going to be in the schools for long periods (Niall: Teacher Educator).’ ‘Transporting of resources each week to the school to conduct the workshops is sometimes difficult when transferring a large amount of equipment or heavy equipment from a car (Sandra: STEPS Project).’

Communication ‘There is an imposition on what the classroom teacher has planned and what the PSTs are doing (Abigail: Teacher Educator).’

Space in the school or at university ‘One of the constraints is this notion of the on-‐line students not participating so it is not an experience that all the students in the MTeach would have (Davina: Teacher Educator).’

Workload – demand on TE/isolation/ demands on the teacher ‘I’m the only one doing it (Alexa: Teacher Educator).’

Resourcing – who pays for it/ who gets it together/ source it yourself ‘In a mentor based program where mentors (scientists) come from outside of the university, it can be difficult to source mentors (Alexa: Teacher Educator).’

Being a PST supervising teacher ‘I think in a time where the voluntary nature of pre-‐service teacher supervision is becoming more challenging there has been amongst some of our local schools less interest in hosting students (Wanda: Teacher Educator).’

Supervision /partnering It’s time; it's schools. I know some of the partners are having trouble getting into the school. I think you have to be strategic in how you approach the school (Lorelle: Teacher Educator).’


47


Chapter 12. Conclusion

This project responded to significant and growing critique of the quality of teacher education, which has recently intimated a shift from predominantly university-‐based teacher education programs toward one more reliant on schools (TEMAG, 2014, 2015). The premise of the university-‐school partnerships represented in this document is twofold: 1) the teacher educator’s role of directing the shape of pre-‐service teachers’ (PSTs’) experiences and teaching PSTs to reflect on their experiences is essential, and 2) school-‐based teaching experiences are essential for the development of PSTs’ professional identity and practice, and not just in the traditional formal practicum arrangements. While schools play an essential role in initial teacher education, the expertise provided by university teacher educators is needed to foster PST development. This has been recognised in other studies (e.g. Brandenburg, 2004; Jones, 2010; Loughran, 2002) where the role of the teacher educator has also been viewed as essential in helping pre-‐service teachers notice important elements of teaching and learning experiences and subsequently, learn to articulate aspects of their own and others’ praxis; what Loughran (2002) phrased as ‘making the tacit, explicit, meaningful and useful’ (p. 38). Partnerships that maintain professional integrity and recognise the essential roles of both universities and schools are needed to enhance learning and raise PSTs’ awareness of the value of teaching marginalised subjects in primary schools, such as science. School-‐based partnerships specific to science teacher education are critical in providing these opportunities due to the low levels of quality and time spent on science in primary schools, as discussed earlier. These impediments limit PSTs’ ability to observe

the teaching of science and to practice it themselves during a standard practicum. A science-‐dedicated school-‐based experience helps to overcome this issue, especially where the teacher educator plays an active role in supporting PST learning. The partnership practices of five universities represented in the STEPS project were initiated to deal with the reported low confidence of PSTs in relation to science (Howitt, 2007). Each university developed their partnerships independently; however, central to all was a desire to provide experiences that might disrupt students’ negative perceptions of science and to foster at least ‘provisional identities’ (Ibarra, 1999) in relation to science where they can begin to see themselves as being able to teach science. To achieve this, teacher educators work with schools to provide time and space for PSTs to interact with children over some weeks. Partnerships are only valuable if they have impact. The intended impact depends on the need and rationale, and what each partner is willing to contribute. Developing successful university-‐school partnerships involves appreciating that it is a process requiring ongoing attention to the changing needs and institutional requirements, where the relationships involve a degree of risk taking and trust, reciprocity and mutuality, respect, adaptability and responsiveness. There are a diversity of approaches and types of partnerships, depending on the degree of embeddedness desired; they can be Connective, Generative, or Transformative. Each serves a purpose, and may be short term or long term.

Flexibility of the STEPS Interpretive

Framework While the Interpretive Framework is currently explicitly written for partnerships


48


in science education (especially the Guiding Pedagogical Principles), the four-‐part framework is adaptable to other educative partnership contexts. The STEPS resources have been designed to be applicable to a variety of institutions in and beyond Australia. The Interpretive Framework have applications beyond the STEPS Project as a tool for assisting interested parties to negotiate, maintain and/or evaluate projects. In particular, any partnership that is based on an educative process can benefit. In 2015 the Interpretive Framework will be applied to a project in the Geelong region called “Skilling the Bay” (Deakin University, 2015-‐2017, managed by The Gordon

Institution, DEECD funded) where partnerships between universities, secondary schools and industry partners will be work together for curriculum renewal. Collaboration with Deakin’s Faculty of Science, Engineering and the Built Environment is required. The STEPS Tools (PNT, PMT and PET) were initially constructed to support the negotiations in this project by way of trialling the STEPS Interpretive Framework. Further opportunities are available as the STEPS Project team embarks on a new research agenda focused on applying the Interpretive Framework to new disciplines and contexts.


49


References

Argyris, C. and Schön (1996). Organisational learning II: Theory, method and practice. Asia

Pacific Journal of Human Resources, 36(1), 207-‐109. Australian Academy of Science (AAS) 2014. Primary Connections. Canberra: AAS. Bandura, A. (1977). Self-‐efficacy: Toward a unifying theory of behavioural change. Psychological

Review, 84(2), 191-‐215. Brandenburg, R. (2004). Round table reflections: (Re)defining the role of the teacher educator

and the preservice teacher as ‘co-‐learners’. Australian Journal of Education, 48(2): 166-‐181.

Bybee, R.W. (1989). Science and Technology Education for the Elementary Years: Frameworks for Curriculum and Instruction. Washington, DC: The National Centre for Improving Instruction.

Campbell, C. (2006). Innovative Science Education Assessment – linking theory with practice. Conference Proceedings for the International Conference on Science and Mathematics Education (CoSMED), Penang, Malaysia

Chief Scientist (2013). STEM: Country Comparison: Recommendations. Canberra: Australian Government.

Chubb, I. (2013). Science, Technology, Engineering and Mathematics in the National Interest: A strategic approach: A Position Paper. Canberra: Commonwealth of Australia.

Darling-‐Hammond, L. (2000). How teacher education matters. Journal of Teacher Education 51(3), 166-‐173.

Darling-‐Hammond, L. (2006). Constructing 21st century teacher education. Journal of Teacher Education, 57(3), 300-‐314.

Dobson, I. (2003). Science at the crossroads? A study of trends in university science from Dawkins to now 1989-‐2002, Centre for Population and Urban Research, Monash University. A study commissioned by the Australian Council of Deans of Science.

Department of Education, Science and Training (DEST). (2003). Australia's teachers: Australia's future -‐ advancing innovation, science, technology and mathematics. Canberra, ACT, Australian Government Department of Education, Science and Training: 7

Dewey, J. (1938). Experience and education. New york: Berley. Goddard, R.D. (2003). The impact of schools on teacher beliefs, influence, and student achievement:

The role of collective efficacy. In J. Raths & A. McAninch (Eds.), Advances in teacher education (Vol. 6) (pp. 183-‐204). Westport, CT: Information Age Publishing.Goodrum, Hackling and Rennie (2003).

Helms, J. (1998). Science-‐and me: Subject matter and identity in secondary school science teacher. IJournal of Research in Science Teaching, 35(7), 811-‐834.

Hinton, T., Gannaway, D., Berry, B., & Moore, K. (2011). The D-‐Cubed Guide: Planning for Effective Dissemination. Sydney: Australian Teaching and Learning Council. Available: http://www.olt.gov.au/dissemination

Hobbs, L. (2012). Examining the aesthetic dimensions of teaching: Relationships between teacher knowledge, identity and passion. Teaching and Teacher Education, 28, 718-‐727.

House of Representatives Standing Committee on Education and Vocational Training (2007). Top of the class. Report on the inquiry into teacher education. House of Representatives Standing Committee on Education and Vocational Training.


50


Howitt, C. (2007). Pre-‐Service Elementary Teachers’ Perceptions of Factors in an Holistic Methods Course Influencing their Confidence in Teaching Science. Research in Science Education, 37(1), 41-‐58.

Ibarra, H. (1999). Provisional selves: Experimenting with image and identity in professional adaptation. Administrative Science Quarterly, 44, 764-‐791.

Jones, M. (2008). Collaborative Partnerships : A Model for Science Teacher Education and Professional Development. Australian Journal of Teacher Education, 33(3).

Jones, M. (2010). Collaborative partnerships: A model of professional learning in primary science for practicing and preservice teacher (Doctoral thesis). Australian Catholic University, Melbourne. Retrieved from http://dlibrary.acu.edu.au/digitaltheses/public/adt-‐acuvp299.29062011/

Jones, M. and Carter (2007).Kenny, J. (2010). Preparing primary teachers to teach primary science: a partnership based approach. International Journal of Science Education, 32 (10), 1267-‐1288.

Kenny, J. (2012), University-‐school partnerships: Pre-‐service and in-‐service teachers working together to teach primary science, Australian Journal of Teacher Education, 37(3), Article 6.

Kenny, J., Hobbs, L., Jones, M., Chittleborough, G., Campbell, C., Gilbert, A., Redman, C., and Herbert, S. (2014). Science Teacher Partnerships with Schools (STEPS): Project-‐Partnerships in science teacher education. Australian Journal of Teacher Education, 39(12), 43-‐65.

Keys, P. (2005). Are teachers walking the walk or just talking the talk in science education? Teachers and Teaching: Theory and practice, 11(5), 499-‐516.

Korthagen, F., Loughran, J., & Russell, T. (2006). Developing fundamental principles for teacher education programs and practices. Teaching and Teacher Education, 22, 1020-‐1041.

Kruger, T., Davies, A., Eckersley, B., Newell, F., & Cherednichenko, B. (2009). Effective and Sustainable University-‐School Partnerships: Beyond determined efforts by inspired individuals. Canberra: AITSL.

Loughran, J. (2002). Effective reflective practice: in search of meaning in learning about teaching. Journal of Teacher Education, 53(1), 33-‐43.

Loughran, J. (2006). Developing a pedagogy of teacher education: Understanding teaching and learning about teaching. New York: Routledge.

Marginson, S., Tytler, R., Freeman, B., & Roberts, K. (2013). STEM: Country comparisons: International comparisons of science, technology, engineering and mathematics (STEM) education. Final report. Australian Council of Learned Academies, Melbourne, Vic.

McNamara, S., Jones, M., & McLean, K. (2007). Stories in ICT professional development: Report from the Victoria project. In C. Reading (Ed.), Partnerships in ICT learning study: Case studies (pp. 139-‐158). Canberra: Department of Science, Education and Training.

Murphy, C., Beggs, J. Carlisle, K., & Greenwood, J. (2004). Students as ‘catalysts’ in the classroom: The impact of co-‐teaching between science student teachers and primary classroom teachers on children’s enjoyment and learning of science. International Journal of Science Education, 26(8), 1023-‐1035.

Parliament of Victoria, Education and Training Committee, (2005). Step up, step in, step out. Report on the suitability of pre-‐service teacher training in Victoria. Melbourne: Victorian Government Printer.

Peterson, J. E. & Treagust, D.F. (2014) School and University partnerships: The role of teacher education institutions and primary schools in the development of preservice teachers’ science teaching efficacy. Australian Journal of Teacher Education, 39(9), http://dx.doi.org/10.14221/ajte.2014v39n9.2


51


Rossner, P. and Commins, D. (2012). Defining enduring partnerships: Can a wellworn path ne an effective, sustainable and mutually beneficial relationship? Brisbane: Queensland College of Teachers.

School centres for teaching excellence http://www.education.vic.gov.au/about/programs/partnerships/Pages/partnernationalsteach.aspx http://www.education.vic.gov.au/Documents/about/programs/partnerships/schoolcentresteachexcelfactsheet.pdf

Speldewinde, C.A. (2014). STEPS (Science Teacher Education Partnerships with Schools): Annotated Bibliography. Geelong VIC: Deakin. Available: http://www.stepsproject.org.au

Stake, R. (2006). Multiple case study analysis. New York: The Guilford Press. Teacher Education Ministerial Advisory Group (TEMAG) (2014). Teacher Education Ministerial

Advisory Group Issues Paper. Canberra: Australian Government. Teacher Education Ministerial Advisory Group (TEMAG) (2014). Action now: Classroom ready teacher.

Canberra: Australian Government. Tytler, R. (2007). Re-‐imagining science education: engaging students in science for Australia's future:

Australian Education Review 51, Australian Council for Educational Research. Tytler, R., Osbourne, J., Williams, G., Tytler, K., Cripps Clark, J. (2008) Opening up pathways:

Engagements in STEM across the Primary-‐Secondary school transition. Canberra: DEEWR.Ure, C., Gough, A., and Newton (2009).

Van Manen, J. (1990). Researching lived experience: Human science for an action sensitive pedagogy. London: The Althouse Press.

White, S, New research into the work and role of Teacher Educators in School-‐University -‐ community partnerships School Centres of Teaching excellence (SCTA) symposium session one http://www.education.vic.gov.au/about/programs/partnerships/Pages/partnernationalsteach.aspx accessed on January 7, 2014

Yin, R. (2009). Case study research: Design and methods (4th Ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Interpretive Framework May 2015 Deakin University, RMIT, University of Melbourne, University of Tasmania, Australian Catholic University

Supported by the Australian Government Office for Learning and Teaching.




2


Produced by The STEPS Project, May 2015 Research Team: Dr Linda Hobbs (Deakin University) Assoc Prof Coral Campbell (Deakin University) Dr Gail Chittleborough (Deakin University) Dr Sandra Herbert (Deakin University) Dr Mellita Jones (Australian Catholic University) Dr Christine Redman (University of Melbourne) Dr John Kenny (University of Tasmania) Dr Jeff King/Andy Gilbert (RMIT) Reference group: Professor Russell Tytler (Deakin University) Professor David Clarke (University of Melbourne) Professor Annette Gough (RMIT) Evaluator: Mr Paul Chesterton Project website: http://www.stepsproject.org.au Contact: Dr Linda Hobbs (Project leader): [email protected]


3



4


Acknowledgements This project emerges out of years of working with schools and appreciating the roles that schools play in pre-‐service teacher education. Thanks to the principals, teachers, students and wider school communities with whom we are honoured to work: ultimately it is for the growth and enhancement of these places of learning that we undertake the important work of building partnerships. To the pre-‐service teachers’ past, current and future, this work is a testament to the pedagogical contract within which we collaborate with you on your (and our) learning journey. To the participants of the study at the schools and universities, thanks for your insights, honesty and forward thinking in helping us create new ways of thinking about what we do. To those who acted as a ‘reference’ to clear thinking (reference group: Russell Tytler, David Clarke and Annette Gough), or kept our eyes on the outcomes (evaluator: Paul Chesterton), thanks for your mentoring and participation in the generation of some amazing ideas! To those who gave feedback, either as active participants or interested bystanders at conferences or workshops, reviewers of papers, colleagues, friends and family, it is through sharing our thoughts that we become aware the gaps and inconsistencies, but also what is cogent and fundamental. We acknowledge Dr Jeff King, who began this journey but did not pass the post with us, but whose spirit we take with us, and to whom we dedicate everything that emerges. And we give the final acknowledgement to the OLT who enabled us to come together as an amazing group of people, a partnership that has been transformative, built on trust, reciprocity, respect, recognition of our diverse and respective talents, adaptability and responsiveness, and a shared commitment to science education and our students. It’s been a great journey!


5


Table of contents

Chapter 1. The STEPS Project: Vision and Goals .................................................................................... 7

Chapter 2. Underpinning ideas of the Interpretive Framework ........................................................... 10 The state of primary science education ........................................................................................................................................... 10 Partnership theory ................................................................................................................................................................................... 11 Self efficacy and Identity theory ......................................................................................................................................................... 12

Chapter 3. What is an Interpretive Framework? ................................................................................. 14

Chapter 4. Methodology in developing the Interpretive Framework .................................................. 15 Pre-‐thinking: ............................................................................................................................................................................................... 16 Conceptualising the Interpretive Framework .............................................................................................................................. 16 Emergence of the Interpretive Framework ................................................................................................................................... 17 Dissemination and evaluation ............................................................................................................................................................. 17

Chapter 5. The STEPS Interpretive Framework ................................................................................... 19 The GUSP and RPP .................................................................................................................................................................................... 20 Chapter 6. Growing University-‐School Partnerships ........................................................................... 21 GUSP Components .................................................................................................................................................................................... 21 A. Need and Rationale ............................................................................................................................................................................... 21 B. Institutional and Unit Demands ...................................................................................................................................................... 21 C. Relationships ............................................................................................................................................................................................ 22 D. Nature and quality of learning ........................................................................................................................................................ 22 E. Commitment to action ......................................................................................................................................................................... 22

Chapter 7. Representations of Partnership Practices .......................................................................... 24 RPP components ........................................................................................................................................................................................ 24 A. Purposes ................................................................................................................................................................................................. 24 B. Institutional Practices ..................................................................................................................................................................... 24 C. Nature of Partnership ...................................................................................................................................................................... 24 D. Linking theory an practice ............................................................................................................................................................ 24

Typology ........................................................................................................................................................................................................ 24 1. Connective ............................................................................................................................................................................................. 24 2. Generative ............................................................................................................................................................................................. 25 3. Transformative ................................................................................................................................................................................... 25

Chapter 8. Narratives ......................................................................................................................... 27

Chapter 9. Using partnerships for effective science teacher education ............................................... 27 Guiding Pedagogical Principles ........................................................................................................................................................... 28 Enabling growth through educational practices partnership principles .......................................................................... 29 Risk-‐taking and Trust ................................................................................................................................................................................ 29 Reciprocity and Mutuality ....................................................................................................................................................................... 30 Recognition of Respective Goals ........................................................................................................................................................... 30 Respect ............................................................................................................................................................................................................. 30 Adaptable and Responsive to Changing Needs .............................................................................................................................. 30 Diverse Representations ........................................................................................................................................................................... 31

Growth Model for using partnerships in teacher education .................................................................................................. 31


6


Chapter 10. Vignettes ........................................................................................................................ 33 Vignette 1. Partnerships between teacher educators and schools: Reciprocity, Trust, Risk Taking, and Communication and Feedback ............................................................................................................................................................ 33 Vignette 2. Schools perspectives: Strategic relationships with university ...................................................................... 37 Vignette 3. Teacher educator perspectives – Integrating educational research into practice ................................ 39 Vignette 4. The Pre-‐service teacher experience: Shifting, learning, valuing ................................................................... 42

Chapter 11. Sustainability .................................................................................................................. 44 What is success and what does it look like? .................................................................................................................................. 44 How is sustainability measured? ........................................................................................................................................................ 45 What blocks success? ............................................................................................................................................................................... 45 Chapter 12. Conclusion ...................................................................................................................... 47 Flexibility of the STEPS Interpretive Framework ....................................................................................................................... 47

References ......................................................................................................................................... 49

Tables Table 1. Growing University-‐School Partnerships (GUSP) ..................................................................................................... 23 Table 2. Representations of Partnership Practices (RPP) ...................................................................................................... 26 Table 3. Vignette Audiences and Themes ....................................................................................................................................... 33 Figures Figure 1. Themes informing the STEPS Project ........................................................................................................................... 15 Figure 2. The STEPS Interpretive Framework .............................................................................................................................. 19 Figure 3. The STEPS Guiding Pedagogical Principles ................................................................................................................ 29 Figure 4. STEPS Growth Model for Effective Teacher Education ......................................................................................... 32 Appendices Appendix 1. Growing University-‐Schools Partnerships (GUSP) Narratives .................................................................... 52 Appendix 2. Representations of Partnership Practices (RPP) Narratives ........................................................................ 60


7


Chapter 1. The STEPS Project: Vision and Goals

The STEPS project responds to international concern about primary teachers’ lack of science knowledge and confidence to teach science, and recent questioning of the effectiveness of traditional approaches to teacher education. This project reviews and builds on established, innovative and successful practices at five universities, to develop and promote a framework supporting school-‐based approaches to pre-‐service teacher education. The models involve partnerships between universities and primary schools to engage pre-‐service primary teachers in classroom teaching and learning that effectively connects theory with practice. Through critical appraisal of these and similar models, the project aimed to identify key features of the approach and the critical success factors required to establish and maintain strong working relationships with schools and build student capacity. The principles, framework, and resources together with exemplifying case studies, were designed and disseminated to promote uptake of these innovative practices in the sector. A key strength of this project is that it simultaneously addressed two key areas of national concern in education: the promotion of more effective practical teaching experiences that bridge the theory practice gap that be-‐devils many teacher education programs; and the confidence and competency of primary teachers to teach science. Both were pertinent at a time when the introduction of the Australian Curriculum was mandating that science be taught at primary schools, and that the proportion of time spent teaching science should be raised from an average of 3 percent closer to the European average of 9.5 percent (Chief Scientist, 2013). These innovations bridge theory and practice within partnerships between the academy and the profession. In these collaborative programs, PSTs design and implement science

curriculum in primary schools, not as part of the normal practicum arrangements, but as part of their coursework. A central aspect of the programs, and the direction of the proposed investigation, was the guiding of student reflection on their practice. While such reflection on practice that responds to the quality of the experience can be difficult to sustain and assess, it was seen as critically important for informing PSTs’ developing pedagogical content knowledge, professional identity and teaching philosophy (Kenny, 2010). A variety of models of university-‐school links can be found, both nationally and internationally, each having its own partnership arrangements, approaches, theories, and learning and assessment objectives and outcomes. The project team represented five different models of school-‐based delivery of science education involving school partnerships, each with a history of successful implementation and evaluation. These types of programs are generally locally developed, grounded in particular contexts, and reflect the teacher educators’ knowledge and beliefs about science teaching and learning. For example, among the five models represented here, there is diversity in:

• the interaction between the PSTs and school children, ranging from teachers working with small groups or whole class;

• reflective practices, ranging from teaching team reflection to individual teachers, with the reflective focus on individual students, small groups or whole class analysis;

• how theory informs the approach and positions the students;

• assessment focus and purposes; and • the nature of the partnership and the degree to

which teacher professional development is incorporated into the partnership.

Despite this diversity, a common core exists that involves a commitment to bridging


8


theory-‐practice through providing for authentic teaching experiences, where PSTs take responsibility for planning and implementing curriculum while supported by academics in partnership with teachers, then reflect on that practice. While these programs must be evolving and responsive to local needs, this core commitment persists. While these innovative practices can often demonstrate a history of success, and have been published (see, for example, Kenny, 2010, 12; Jones, 2010), there is a paucity of research that attempts to identify the distinctive nature of this type of practice to draw out general principles attending to successful outcomes. This project provided a meta-‐analysis of the methodologies, informing theories, and principles associated with establishing and maintaining strong working relationships with schools, achieving strong educational outcomes, and promoting reflection on practice. There was a need to more sharply analyse the nature and benefits of these types of partnerships for PSTs and for schools, and to work in ways that maximise these benefits in order to improve the confidence and competency of primary teachers to teach science. This project collated and analysed the deliberations of teacher educators who had successfully established partnerships with schools for the purpose of school-‐based delivery of teacher education curriculum. These deliberations informed the development of resources, principles, and framework that can guide the establishment and maintenance of such powerful learning experiences. The project outcomes were to:

1. Synthesise the variety of teaching and reflective practices and informing theories used in school-‐based science teacher education programs.

2. Document exemplars of innovative pedagogies that represent the range of contexts, constraints and affordances that lead to quality student outcomes.

3. Create an interpretive framework informed by contemporary practice that can guide

improvement of science teacher education programs.

4. Determine sustainable methods for establishing and maintaining effective school-‐university partnerships generalisable across a range of contexts.

5. Facilitate uptake of innovative school-‐based practices within the sector for the purpose of improving the educational outcomes of science teacher education programs, and teacher education programs generally.

These outcomes were expected to lead to extension and refinement of practices that would have an impact on the confidence and competency of primary teachers in their teaching of science. It was also expected that there would be refinement to our own practice as a result of the collaboration. The outcomes of this project were instantiated through the generation of materials and theories that supported the development of partnership arrangements between schools and universities, and enhanced the reflective practices of PSTs within such programs. Development and dissemination of these outputs occurred throughout the project (see below) and included opportunities for academics, teachers and other interested stakeholders to contribute to the development and evaluation of the materials. The main focus of the project was the development of an Interpretive Framework designed to help support judgments about current practice, and provide a framework for initiating practice. The framework was drafted initially through analysing the existing practices of the research team and situating these practices within the literature, and then further refined through the scoping of practices occurring at other institutions. During this process the framework was scrutinised and refined by discussions at round tables, conference workshops and seminars. The framework articulates the nature of the theory-‐practice relationships, nature of relationships integral to the


9


partnership, and the notions of reflection and identity formation.

Value and Need for the Project This project capitalised on the successful experience of five institutions, each pursuing a model of science teacher education that accords with acknowledged features of good practice, including:

a. a close relationship between educational theory and classroom practice;

b. productive partnerships between universities and schools in teacher education, involving academics, school teachers and leaders, PSTs and school children; and

c. the centrality of reflective practice focusing on the development and implementation of curriculum, the relational and instructional elements of the pedagogical contract, and the development of PST’s professional identity.

The project represents a significant curriculum renewal in science education, pointing the way

forward for theory-‐practice coordination into teacher education. The features listed above indicate a significant and innovative approach to teacher education that addresses concerns about the lack of coordination of theory and practice in teacher education courses, and the need for better models of university-‐school-‐community relationships in teacher education (ACDE, 2004). A key strength of this project is that it simultaneously addresses two key areas of national concern in education: firstly, the promotion of more effective practical teaching experiences that bridge the theory practice gap that be-‐devils many teacher education programs; secondly, the confidence and competency of primary teachers to teach science. This is particularly important given that the introduction of the Australian Curriculum and the mandatory requirement for science to be taught at all year levels.


10


Chapter 2. Underpinning ideas of the Interpretive Framework

This project responds to significant and growing critique of the quality of teacher education, a discussion that shifts teacher education to schools and away from universities (TEMAG, 2014). Teacher education demands that Pre-‐service teacher (PSTs) have varied experiences. The role of the teacher educator and universities is being challenged with clinical and apprentice-‐type programs increasing in popularity. We argue that the teacher educator’s role of directing the shape of PSTs’ experiences and teaching PSTs to reflect on their experiences is essential. Our research provides compelling evidence of the significance of the school-‐based teaching experience for the development of PSTs’ professional identity and practice. It also provides convincing evidence of the expertise provided by the teacher educators to foster PST development. Schools play an essential role in teacher education too. Partnerships that maintain professional integrity and recognise the essential roles of both universities and schools are needed to enhance learning and raise awareness to the joys and value of teaching marginalised subjects such as science in primary schools.

The state of primary science education The focus on science education is grounded in the reported disengagement of students from science, and concerns about the amount and quality of science teaching in primary schools. The quality of science education has been the focus of a number of research projects nationally and internationally (see, for example Dobson, 2003; Tytler, 2007). These studies consistently report that students are ‘turned off’ science across the middle years of schooling, and that, in the primary years, science is approached in a disconnected fashion or not at all (Keys, 2005; Tytler et al.,

2008). In particular, the relevance of science to young people’s lives and the particular pedagogies being adopted by teachers of science has been questioned. There are indications that a large proportion of primary teachers have low levels of confidence and background knowledge in science, which impacts both their willingness and ability to teach science effectively. These are critical areas of concern when considered in combination with other studies which show that the development of children’s understandings is fundamentally tied to the quality of teaching (Darling-‐Hammond, 2000; DEST, 2003), thus highlighting the need for significant improvements in current and future primary teachers’ attitudes, personal efficacy and ability to teach science effectively.

In Australia, there has been a long history of science instruction in primary schools suffering from low teacher confidence, poor knowledge, and a packed curriculum and time restrictions. In addition, the more pressing issues of literacy and numeracy often push science to the periphery in many primary schools (see for example critiques offered by


11


Goodrum, Hackling & Rennie, 2001; Tytler, 2007). As a result, the image of a burgeoning 'crisis of interest' in science education is being promulgated (Chubb, 2013) in response to a picture of school science that often misses the possibilities for engaging science approaches in favor of sanitised, and predictable forms of science that permeate primary science teaching (Tytler, 2007). In Australia, time taught teaching science lags far behind other content areas, which is reflected in achievement levels below other developed nations (Peterson & Treagust, 2014; Chubb, 2001; Marginson et al., 2013). These are important concerns when we extrapolate how both poor teaching practices and limited opportunities directly impact student engagement with school science and teaching: "considerable evidence of student disenchantment with school science in the middle years, and a growing concern with a current and looming shortage of qualified teachers of science" (Tytler, 2007, p. 1).

Partnership theory In the simplest terms, partnerships can be viewed as two or more entities working toward a shared vision. For the purposes of this study we wish to define the notion of partnership as the "concept of a genuine university-‐school 'partnership' connotes a collaboration of professional conversations, collegial learning and aligned processes" (Rossner & Commins, 2012, p. 2). This definition for partnerships rests on the essential work of Kruger (2009) who argued that there are three key factors of successful partnerships: trust, mutuality and reciprocity. Trust is constructed as understanding between stakeholders that there should be benefits to be gained for each stakeholder; mutuality depicts the degree to which each partner understands that working together does lead to gains for each; reciprocity speaks to the value each partner holds for the other (Kruger, 2009). Successful partnerships are ones that convey an affinity for an equal relationship demonstrated through a shared

vision, equitable use of available resources, and a balance power between stakeholders in decision-‐making processes (Argyris & Schon, 1996). School-‐university partnerships provide the basis for these school-‐based experiences. Formal practicum arrangements offer obvious partnership opportunities and have been the subject of a variety of ALTC funded projects. For example, the project lead by Calvin Smith (funded 2011) examining the impact of ‘work integrated learning’ on work-‐readiness is underscored by the need for strong links between universities and the profession (Smith, 2011), as is the project lead by Ryan and Jones (funded 2009) exploring practicum arrangements in rural and regional areas. The ALTC project ‘Practicum Partnerships: Exploring models of practicum organisation in teacher education for a standards based profession’ (Ure, Gough & Newton, 2009) found a range of tensions and ambiguities inherent in traditional practicum partnership arrangements, and made a number of recommendations concerning the need for closer collaboration between universities and schools; clarification of the purpose of the practicum; and conceptualisation of effective teaching and teacher development. Their draft recommendations included a call for research on ‘increasing the links between the placement experience and the academic content of programs to create more informed knowledge about the application of pedagogy’ (p. 56). Research has shown that the incorporation of partnerships into science teacher education provides benefits for PSTs’ confidence to teach science and to develop their science pedagogical content knowledge (PCK) (Kenny, 2010). In designing such authentic learning experiences, the literature suggests that the role of the university lecturer is crucial in supporting PSTs (Howitt, 2007) by, for example, providing science PCK expertise that may not otherwise be readily available from many primary teachers (Kenny, 2012).


12


Teacher educators are also essential in facilitating PSTs’ reflection, assisting them in recognising those aspects of their experiences that are important for enhancing teaching and learning (Loughran, 2006). Indeed, Darling-‐Hammond (2000) has noted that more effective teachers emerge from teacher education when extended practicum experiences and university coursework are tightly integrated. While there is evidence to suggest that the in-‐service teachers who participate in partnerships with PSTs view their participation as professional learning, the most productive relationships arise when a good professional relationship is established between the PSTs and their in-‐service colleagues. Establishing direct contact between the participants early, and reducing the supervisory aspect of the relationship between the pre-‐service and in-‐service teachers, contributes to the relationship becoming one of mutual learning (Jones, 2008; Kenny 2012; Murphy et al., 2008). This mutuality also helps to reduce the ‘threat’ of assessment PSTs often associate with the normal practicum, which can impede their willingness to trial different approaches in the classroom (McNamara, Jones & McLean, 2007). While this research points to critical success factors leading to productive relationships in specific programs, the purpose of the proposed project is to establish critical success factors that are inclusive of a variety of partnership arrangements and pedagogies, and to situate these within a coherent Interpretive Framework. The project thus has the capacity to provide significant answers to issues currently occupying the minds of teacher educators and key policy makers, concerning the relationship between university teacher education, schools and PST practicum arrangements. We are not arguing for a replacement of traditional practicum arrangements but rather for discipline-‐based

partnerships – for science but potentially also for other curriculum areas -‐ as an important adjunct to current practice that can open up models for more effective practicum organisation. The exploration of assessment of students in these programs, centred in evidence based reflective practice, will inform current concerns about defensible teaching standards and knowledge of pedagogies.

Self-efficacy and Identity theory In his seminal work, Bandura (1977) purported that mastery experiences, those experiences of personal accomplishment, are one of the most influential sources of efficacy information. Furthermore, an individual’s perceived efficacy is a strong determining factor in: the types of activities and settings individuals elect to participate in (Bandura, 1977); their resilience and perseverance to overcome perceived barriers (Goddard, 2003); and the types of strategies with which they select to teach (Jones & Carter, 2007). This suggests that, if provided with opportunities to successfully teach science to children, PSTs’ reported low levels of self-‐efficacy beliefs about their ability to teach science would improve. Subsequently, PSTs’ willingness to plan and conduct science lessons should increase as should their selection of appropriate science teaching strategies if these are built into the mastery experiences in which they are engaged. Evidence from experience with the five models suggests that the approach is effective in increasing students’ confidence and interest, and capabilities in teaching science. However, providing mastery experiences alone is not sufficient if meaningful understanding of science teaching and learning is to be achieved. Korthagen et al. (2006) argued that learning does not occur through the experience, but rather through reflection on experience and through interaction with others. Furthermore, effective reflective practice using concrete


13


examples has the potential to bridge the theory practice divide (Loughran, 2002), an element that teacher education courses are often criticised as lacking (Darling-‐Hammond, 2006; House of Representatives Standing Committee on Education and Vocational Training, 2007; Parliament of Victoria, Education and Training Committee, 2005). Darling-‐Hammond (2006) also offered the view that the integration of course-‐work and fieldwork help PSTs to better ’understand theory, to apply concepts they are learning in their course work, and to better support student learning‘ (p. 307). This integration of theory and practice through the key role of reflection better prepares PSTs to ’handle the problems of everyday teaching through theory-‐guided action‘(Korthagen et al., 2006, p. 1021). In fact, Darling-‐Hammond (2006) asserted that teacher education programs need to provide opportunities for PSTs to analyse and apply theory; reflect on their subsequent practice; and have further opportunities to retry and improve.

School-‐based partnerships specific to science teacher education are critical in providing these opportunities due to the low levels of quality and time spent on science in primary schools, as discussed earlier. These low levels of quality science and amount of time in which science is taught in classrooms limits PSTs’ ability to observe the teaching of science and to practice it themselves during a standard practicum. A science-‐dedicated school-‐placement helps to overcome this issue where teachers and PSTs are committed to providing time for science teaching and learning, and teacher educators can facilitate the teaching and learning taking place to enhance quality.

The school-‐based experiences in the five participating universities involve science education academics providing opportunities and support for primary science PSTs to plan and reflect on their science teaching experiences in light of theory in order to foster a developed sense of praxis.


14


Chapter 3. What is an Interpretive Framework?

In the context of approaches to pedagogy and teacher education, an Interpretive Framework provides a framework for examining and understanding practice, as well as conceptualizing and implementing practice. It is both generative and evaluative. It describes the ‘who’, ‘what’ and ‘why’ of practice: who is involved, what are we doing, and why are we doing it (this way) and possible outcomes. Like a ‘concept framework’, an Interpretive Framework can include guiding principles to direct action or thought. Like a policy framework, it provides a structure for a framework document. Like a media engagement framework, it is a construct that helps to understand those involved, that is,

who may stand to benefit or be affected by the activity. Like an Enterprise architecture framework, it organizes the structure of the activity and incorporates the views of those likely to be involved. In summary, an Interpretive Framework:

• is a framework for examining and understanding practice;

• is a framework for conceptualizing, structuring and implementing practice;

• consists of guiding principles; • provides the structure for a document; • helps to understand those who may stand to

benefit or be affected by the activity; and • incorporates the views of those likely to be

affected.


15


Chapter 4. Methodology in developing the Interpretive Framework

The development of the Interpretive Framework was iterative in its approach in that data collection occurred in phases and each phase informed the aspects included in the framework and its refinement as the project progressed. The initial phase (Phase 1) involved the sharing and documentation of current practice and subsequent cross-‐case analysis to identify common and unique features of the various cases.

This was followed by an analysis of literature (Phase 2) that situated the cross-‐case analysis within the learning of the broader sector, allowing for a deeper analysis of practice, and assisting the identification of key themes that would inform the Interpretive Framework (see Figure 1).

Figure 1. Themes informing the STEPS Project

Phase 3 involved data generated from key stakeholders within the individual case studies. Data included questionnaires and interviews with pre-‐service teachers and interviews with university tutors and school teachers and principals involved in the 2013 programs. These data ensured that the

development of the Interpretive Framework would be informed by the experiences of the students, tutors, and school stakeholders. Phase 4 enabled other examples of partnerships in science education to be captured through interviews with science


16


teacher educators from around Australia. Data included:

• 106 pre-‐ and 105 post-‐questionnaires from PSTs • 10 PST interviews • 15 interviews with university staff • 80 interviews with teachers and principals • 20 interviews with other teacher educators

Multiple sources of data have assisted in confirming the key elements of the multiple cases, thereby ensuring the credibility and reliability of the framework. Stake (2006) claims that at least three sources of confirmation are needed for data to provide “assurances that key meanings are not overlooked” (p. 33).

Pre-thinking: Initial discussions identified varied elements of the project. These helped to guide the literature search and annotated bibliography, and to conceptualize the data collection associated with evaluation of our projects. These elements related to theory underpinning the approach, the potential impact of the school-‐based practice, and the specifics associated with the different models of practice of the project team (see Figure 1). The theoretical elements refer to areas of the literature that are informing the study. The current state of “Science teaching in primary schools”, as well as the tendency for pre-‐service teachers to have limited positive experiences with science and opportunities to see science taught or teach science on placement. This element is related to the conceptualization of a “theory-‐practice divide” between authentic classroom practice and educational theory. There appear to be changes in the teacher education sector moving towards situated learning experiences that require “Partnerships” with schools as a way of linking theory with practice. “Partnerships” are fundamental to the school-‐based practice. The research is conceptualising value for the schools, also the

distinctiveness of the science context in terms of this approach. “Reflective practice” and “Teacher efficacy and identity” are fundamental to the practices: teacher identity can be a mechanism for developing a teacher efficacy and professional identity and teacher reflection is a mechanism through which identity development occurs. Reflective practice, identity and efficacy focus strongly on the experience of the pre-‐service teacher. This focus on teachers thinking their way into a space is a move away from the previous model of primary science teachers, which was principally focused on competence and confidence (a deficit model). Timing of the school-‐based practice is important so that PSTs are ‘ready’ to begin to develop an identity in relation to science. The potential impact of the project is on “Teacher Education” through providing practical and theoretical models of effective science practice through real science teaching experiences that pre-‐service teachers often do not have during placement or as an in-‐service teacher. The project also has a potential impact on “School practice” through preparing willing and able teachers, but also modeling for the school teachers involved contemporary and effective science teaching pedagogy. The project examined the specifics of the models used by each university involved. They are all different in terms of “site difference and contexts”, that is the schools used; and the “nature of the school-‐based approach” and “specifics of each model” vary depending on the unit aims and goals and nature of the partnerships involved. In addition, the variety of models included has meant that the project has been able to generate “critical success factors and barriers” that may be inherent in different contexts. Conceptualising the Interpretive Framework The first stage to developing the Interpretive Framework was to identify the most


17


fundamental elements underpinning our practice – who is involved, what are we doing, and why are we doing it this way. We decided the framework must:

• Be broad enough to allow for depth of theoretical exploration within the different dimensions

• Have practical application • Have theoretical application • Draw on current practice • Draw on current literature • Lead to new practice • Support the development of new practice • Encompass all elements of establishing and

implementing practice We looked at existing frameworks from the literature and government and organizational documents. Frameworks that we looked at were presented in different ways:

• Diagrams/figures with key elements that were discussed

• Tables with relationships between various elements or components, what might be done, and possibilities or outcomes.

• Full documents that described the background theory, lists of the framework elements that are teased out, and case studies to contextualize and apply the framework.

• Descriptions of various elements.

Emergence of the Interpretive Framework The team identified parameters that we wanted incorporated into the framework, which included who the key stakeholders were, as well as the elements of our practice that we felt needed to be attended to in our framework. That all of these key stakeholders and elements of practice arise as a result of the partnership was a strong underpinning theme. This set of parameters served as an identification of what was important. Framing the Interpretive Framework was ultimately a representational issue: deciding which areas of our practice would be highlighted and afforded through further inquiry; the form of representation that would act as productive constraints on our thinking. Also, there were pedagogical

decisions made based on our desire to inform and instruct others of the partnerships and pedagogies that we want to promote. The framing and development of the Interpretive Framework followed the following lines of inquiries:

• How are partnerships grown over time? • What are different types of partnerships, and

what are their respective their purposes and values?

• What is fundamental to the pedagogies that can arise within partnerships?

• What is needed for partnerships to achieve quality learning outcomes and changed practices?

Dissemination and evaluation

The emerging ideas have been subject to a comprehensive dissemination strategy, which has enabled useful feedback. For example, draft 6 of the Interpretive Framework was presented to academic and professional audiences at four events in 2014:

• Workshop prior to ASERA, Melbourne • ASERA Conference, Melbourne • ATEA Conference, Sydney • EDULEARN Conference, Barcelona

Feedback from these events led to further changes to the two tables Growing University School Partnerships (GUSP, p.23) and Representations of Partnership Practices (RPP, p.26) as well as identifying some key themes that needed to be attended to when constructing the vignettes as outlined in Chapter 5, 6 & 7. The dissemination strategy included the following (based on the D-‐cubed dissemination resources by Hinton et al., 2011): branding, conferences, email lists, discussion forums, social networking tools, funding sub-‐projects at other institutions, participatory dissemination, guides and teaching materials, influencing policy, journal


18


articles, book proposal, media releases, meetings, roundtables, invited presentations,

newsletters, project workshops, webpages, online repository through the project website.


19


Chapter 5. The STEPS Interpretive Framework

This project strives to describe practices that might not be possible without the partnership arrangement. The STEPS Interpretive Framework (see Figure 2) focuses on describing practices in a number of ways:

1. Growing partnerships as a process comprised of different stages involving various key stakeholders working together for educational benefits (Chapter 6). Narratives are used to illustrate practice (Chapter 8);

2. Representing practices in diverse ways depending on the degree of cooperation and

collaboration inherent in the partnership (Chapter 7). Narratives are used to illustrate practice (Chapter 8);

3. Capturing the principles underpinning quality partnerships and the changes that can be enabled through partnerships (Chapter 9). Vignettes are used to illustrate principles in practice and aspects of participation for the various stakeholders(Chapter 10); and

4. Capturing pedagogical principles underpinning the practices that can be enabled by partnerships (Chapter 9).

Figure 2. The STEPS Interpretive Framework

All parts of the Interpretive Framework recognise the needs of the range of key stakeholders and elements of practice (see below) that have been found to be fundamental in these partnerships.

Key stakeholders: • Schools: Those schools involved in the

partnership, usually recruited by the teacher educator through an existing partnership, such as, placement schools, other research or educational activities by the teacher educators,

Connective, Generative or Transformative

• Purpose • Institutional Structures • Nature of Partnership • Linking Theory with practice

See Narratives for Sample Practice

Principles of Partnership Practice • Risk-taking & Trust • Reciprocity and Mutuality • Recognition of Respective Goals • Respect • Adaptable and Responsive • Diverse Representations

Growth Model • Enablers of Growth • Personal and Professional Development:

Identity, Confidence, Praxis, Relationships

See Vignettes for Sample Practice

Initiating, Implementing & Evaluating

• Aims and Rationale • Institutional Requirements • Relationships • Nature and Quality of Learning • Commitment to Action See Narratives for Sample Practice

Guiding Pedagogical Principles 1. Partnerships between university and schools. 2. Commitment to quality science education. 3. Authentic interaction with children to bridge the

theory-practice divide. 4. Science teacher educator plays an active role. 5. Practice informed by pedagogical and learning

theories. 6. Pre-service teachers and children interaction is

integral. 7. Involves planning, implementing and

assessment of a learning sequence in science. 8. Reflection on and articulation of practice that

focuses on pre-service teacher development and identity, and children’s learning.

See Case Studies for Sample Practice

Growing(University/School(

Partnerships((GUSP)(

Representing(Partnership(Practices((RPP)(

Enabling(Innovative(Practices(

Enabling(Growth(

ACTION(PLAN(Negotiating,(Monitoring,(Evaluating(


20


or recruited for more pragmatic reasons such as closeness to the university.

• Teachers: Teachers at the school whose classes are involved in the program, or other teachers in the school that might be influenced in some way by the program.

• Children: Children at the partnership schools involved in the learning and teaching activities conducted by the pre-‐service teachers

• Pre-‐Service Teachers: University pre-‐service teachers enrolled in the units that incorporate the school-‐based programs. They are usually responsible for planning, conducting, reflecting on and reporting on a primary science unit of work involving children

• University: responsible for preparing pre-‐service teachers to be teacher-‐ready.

• Teacher educators, course directors: Those involved in delivering the courses that incorporate the school-‐based programs. The course directors are the directors of an entire teacher education course or program, and generally have an overall understanding of the values, goals and intentions of the course, and may or may not have an appreciation of the role that school-‐based experiences add to the overall pre-‐service teacher experience.

Elements of practice: • Content knowledge, skills, nature of disciplinary

practices (NOS): science content from the science curriculum selected for teaching to pre-‐service teachers and/or taught by the pre-‐service teachers to school children.

• How to teach, pedagogy: Teaching approaches and strategies that are considered fundamental to science education. These may be part of a tutor-‐led curriculum, and maybe part of the planning and implementation of pre-‐service teachers’ units. For example, probing prior understanding, representation theory, inquiry,

promoting curiosity, SIS components of effective teaching.

• General pedagogy: Generic pedagogy that may also be part of the tutor-‐led curriculum, but which also pre-‐service teachers bring with them from the broader education course or program. For example, classroom management, questioning, standards of graduate teachers, dealing with diversity.

The GUSP and RPP

Chapters 6 and 7 use tables (as the GUSP and RPP) to capture the essence of the partnerships for both schools and universities. The cells of the tables contain brief descriptions, which are later demonstrated through a series of narratives in Chapter 8. These narratives draw on research into our own practices, and the experiences of other science teacher educators using university-‐school partnerships. While the GUSP and RPP are drawn from current practices from the 5 institutions involved in the STEPS project, they have been evaluated to establish goodness of fit and usefulness for other such partnerships in the education sector. They are descriptive of current practice and visionary for new practice.


21


Chapter 6. Growing University-‐School Partnerships

Table 1 focuses on Growing University-‐School Partnerships (GUSP). This part of the Interpretive Framework describes the phases of initiating, implementing and evaluating school-‐based teacher education. The descriptions have been derived through analysis of the practices of 5 existing or past examples of this practice. Five Components are used in the GUSP to describe the likely processes and thinking required at each phase of development. While the development from initiation to evaluation appears to be linear for each component, these types of processes are iterative and must remain responsive to the needs of all key stakeholders, which might mean starting again at another school if a previous school is no longer available, for example. Descriptions of the processes involved in developing these types of partnerships help others who might be considering adopting such partnerships to be aware of what thinking and planning is needed over time. It also can help those within existing partnerships by providing a language to talk about often undocumented and amorphous practices. The GUSP is intended for use by school and university stakeholder groups. The cells of the GUSP can, therefore, be interpreted by each group. Elaboration of the five components is described below.

GUSP Components

A. Need and Rationale Whether initiating, implementing or evaluating a university-‐school partnership, the needs of each partner and their respective rationale for being involved in the partnership need to be considered. Identifying needs and rationale ensures that each partner’s core requirements are accounted for in the establishment of a partnership arrangement. In effective partnerships, partners regularly check with one another in the implementation phase to ensure that each other’s’ needs are being met, and where possible, are flexible in arrangements to meet emergent needs that may not have been apparent in the initiation phase. In the evaluation phase each partner should review ways in which arrangements did and did not meet their respective needs and adjust the partnership arrangement accordingly for future iterations.

B. Institutional and Unit Demands Both universities and schools have a range of constraints that may shape the way in which a partnership can be organised. Aspects such as timetabling, curriculum and resources, to name a few, may limit the extent of the partnership arrangement. Each organization should try to identify as many constraints and affordances as possible to ensure the success of a partnership. Partners should also be prepared to respond, if possible, to changing constraints if and when they become apparent during the partnership implementation periods. The evaluation phase also allows for changing or emergent constraints to be better planned for in further partnership iterations.


22


C. Relationships An essential aspect of initiating a partnership arrangement is to define the type of partnership that is desired/possible. Defining the nature of the partnership means considering the role each person is wanting and able to commit. Partnerships can be connective, generative or transformative. Each of these types of partnership is valuable in its own right, but provides different opportunities for the level of partners’ involvement before, during and after the partnership period. Table 2 (Representations of Partnership Practices) explores the nature and extent of partner roles in more detail. In evaluating the nature of the partnership, each partner can reconsider their level of involvement and maintain similar or negotiate different levels of involvement for future iterations.

D. Nature and quality of learning The nature and the quality of the learning arising from pre-‐service teachers’ (PSTs’) interaction with children is the core purpose of the partnership. Here, the learning experiences of the children are of fundamental concern. Thus careful planning of the types of learning experiences -‐ ways in which subject and general content and pedagogy is implemented – is essential. The other stakeholders also stand to learn from their involvement in the partnership; the degree to which this is planned for will depend on the type of partnership. Learning is informed by educational research, particularly related to science education and effective teacher practice. Involvement of the different stakeholders in planning and implementation of the learning experience can depend on the nature of the partnership that has been negotiated. In evaluating these interactions, both partners consider the experience of the children, the PSTs, classroom teachers, and teacher educators, and how educational research can inform the most effective experience possible.

E. Commitment to action Commitment to action emphasises that the various partners generate common understanding of what they are committing to. When a lead partner initiates contact there is careful consideration to how contact is made and the process of entering into a partnership. Negotiation requires discussion about the aims and rationale for involvement, requirements, constraints, enablers, type of relationship desired, and learning outcomes to be achieved. During implementation, all partners monitor and reflect on current levels of commitment and involvement. This ensures that aims and rationale, institutional requirements, and learning needs are consistent with the practices occurring within the partnership. There is scope to shift practice as the partnership progresses. Evaluation occurs at a time when it is possible to respond with change as necessary, such as at the end of a year or after completion of an iteration of the partnership practice. Evaluation is informed by data. Sustainability of the practice depends on continued common understanding of what each partner is committing to. A set of Tools have been developed to support the three stages of partnership growth:

• Partnership Negotiation Tool (PNT), includes a template for recording the negotiation as it progresses;

• Partnership Monitoring Tool (PMT); and • Partnership Evaluation Tool (PET)

The Tools consist of sets of questions to guide thinking. They can be used in association with the other parts of the Interpretive Framework included within Figure 2.


23


Table 1. Growing University-‐School Partnerships (GUSP)

A. Aims

and Rationale

B. Institutional

Requirements

C. Relationships

D. Nature and Quality of Learning

E. Commitment to Action

1. In

itiat

ion

Phas

e

Identify mutual

and differing needs and

provide rationale

Identify requirements,

constraints and enablers governing the approach to partnership

development

Negotiate roles and

responsibilities and define value and

parameters defining the nature of the partnership

Conceptualise an approach to

PST interactions with children

Initiate contact Negotiate actions (See Partnership Negotiation Tool)

2. Im

plem

enta

tion

Phas

e

Be mindful of the needs

and rationale and be

responsive to emerging

needs

Manage, compromise,

justify and respond to

requirements (limitations and

possibilities)

Maintain and work with

partners to meet individual

and differing needs of partners

Enable interactions with children that reflect

subject-related and general content and pedagogy

Monitor and reflect on current levels of commitment and

involvement (See Partnership Monitoring Tool)

3. E

valu

atio

n Ph

ase

Evaluate the needs and rationales for their

continued relevance and future

possibilities.

Evaluate against

institutional requirements, and consider

different possibilities & approaches.

Evaluate the nature of the partnership to

respond to current and future needs

and possibilities.

Evaluate the nature of

interactions drawing on a

range of evidence,

including key stakeholders’

reflections and educational research.

Evaluate commitment and respond with

change as necessary (See Partnership Evaluation Tool)


24


Chapter 7. Representations of Partnership Practices

This part of the Interpretive Framework (Table 2) depicts a typology of practices. These types—described as Connective, Generative and Transformative—are based on the nature of the purposes, embeddedness within the partner institutional structures, nature of the partnership as collaborative or cooperative, and extent to which links between theory and practice results in reflection on practice and professional identity development for the various partnership stakeholders. The table is not meant to imply increasing value but to describe differing types of practices, each with its own value and arising out of the desired purposes and educational outcomes. It is not meant to suggest a trajectory that a partnership must move through in order to reach maturity. Again, the descriptions in each cell have been derived through analysis of the practices of 5 existing or past examples of this practice. Descriptions of the types of partnerships assist those who might be considering entering into partnerships to consider the desired outcomes, structures, and level of responsibility taken by each partner. It also can help those within existing partnerships by providing a language to talk about often undocumented and amorphous practices.

The Table is intended for use by school and university stakeholder groups. All cells have the same content, therefore, they should be interpreted by each group.

RPP components

A. Purposes Describes the rationale for partners, and in particular, schools, for participating in the school-‐based partnership.

B. Institutional Practices Describes the structures that exist within each institution and how they are managed and/or adapted to facilitate the school-‐university partnership.

C. Nature of Partnership Describes the level of co-‐operation or collaboration between partners to service a need or engage in joint effort and commitment to partnership outcomes.

D. Linking theory and practice Describes the degree to which each partner is involved in: reflection on theory and practice; and opportunities for professional identity development.

Typology

1. Connective Connective partnerships are co-‐operative in nature. They are typified by a “win-‐win” outcome where each partner recognizes a key benefit/value from working together. They arise when one or other of the partners may have a particular need and the other is able to provide a space or service to accommodate that need. These partnerships sit within existing structures and tend to be “one-‐off” or short-‐term in nature. They are provided because both partners recognize schools as important sites for PSTs to link theory and


25


practice. These partnerships meet important short-‐term needs and provide seeding opportunities for other partnerships and/or more long-‐term generative or transformative partnerships.

2. Generative Generative partnerships, whilst still mainly co-‐operative in nature, see a greater level of commitment and participation from both partners. These partnerships generate new or different practices and outlooks in the school and university programs by committing to longer-‐term involvement in the partnership arrangement due to the recognised mutual benefits. Partners respond to one another’s needs to develop programs that may involve small modifications to existing structures in order to accommodate one another’s needs. PSTs are engaged in reflection on their practice where they make links to underpinning theoretical ideas. Teachers are cognisant of what PSTs are doing in the classroom and this provides opportunities for them to also reflect on

practice that may be linked to theory. These partnerships meet important long-‐term needs and are well-‐established in both the school and university planning.

3. Transformative

Transformative partnerships are collaborative and focused on active involvement in planning and delivery of curriculum for the purpose of professional learning. They are on-‐going and embedded in the programs of the collaborating institutions. Partners have an invested interest in working collaboratively to develop key practices and outcomes that are aligned with and fundamental to their teaching and professional learning. Partners engage in critical reflective practice that is guided by theory-‐practice nexus and over time develops a sense of professional identity forged through their collaborative experience.


26


Table 2. Representations of Partnership Practices (RPP)

A. Purposes

B. Institutional

structures C. Nature of partnership

D. Linking theory with practice

1. C

onne

ctiv

e

Engagement

based on provision of

curriculum or other service

need.


short-term and opportunistic and sit within existing

structure.

Both partners provide short-term

services with a focus on one

partner’s needs but with mutual

benefits and value for all.

Both partners

recognise schools as important sites for PSTs to link

theory and practice.

2. G

ener

ativ

e

Partners recognise

opportunities for mutual



considered long-term and are planned and

catered for in the teacher education

and school programs.

Partners jointly plan the structure

of the school-based practices to the benefit of both.

Opportunities exist for both partners to reflect on practice that may be linked

to theory.

3. T

rans

form

ativ

e

Partner involvement

based on active


Partnerships are embedded in the

ongoing structures and practices of the

institutions.

Partners take joint responsibility for mutually agreed

practices and outcomes that are embedded in their

respective core outcomes.

Both partners engage explicitly in

reflective inquiry guided by theories

of professional identity

development.


27


Chapter 8. Narratives

The Narratives have been developed to demonstrate what the GUSP and RPP look like in practice. These narratives provide context for the cells of the GUSP and RPP. Each Narrative aligns with one or more cells of the GUSP or RPP. They are short descriptions of some elements of our partnership practice. The narratives are derived from interview data with the various stakeholders; the data were coded against the cells of the GUSP and RPP tables (e.g. Row 2, Column D). Some of the data have been included to provide authenticity for the narratives. All cells have narratives, which illustrates the diversity of partnerships and pedagogical approaches across the five models in the STEPS Project. The narratives are located in Appendix 1 (GUSP) and Appendix 2 (RPP).


28


Chapter 9. Using partnerships for effective science teacher education

Using partnerships to foster growth requires attention to both the educational practices that are enabled because of the partnership, as well as the partnership practices, which position the stakeholders as participants, contributors and beneficiaries of the partnership.

Guiding Pedagogical Principles

The GPPs formed the basis of a video (see Figure 3 for the representation used in the video), which was written and acted by members of the STEPS Project team, filmed at a partner school, and produced with assistance from Deakin University digital learning staff (Deakin Learning Futures). The video is intended as a resource for students, and as a tool to facilitate uptake of school-‐based approaches in the sector. The video is informative of the learning

experiences that PSTs will face within a school-‐based science education unit. The video is structured around the GPPs, and The Guiding Pedagogical Principles (GPPs) capture the educational practices that can be afforded because of a partnership. Partnerships enable authentic interaction between pre-‐service teacher and the school children. Quality and effective science teacher education can be achieved when the following guiding principles are exhibited. includes interviews with a school principal, STEPS Project leader, and PSTs, and footage of the practice in action. It is located on the STEPS Project website: http://www.stepsproject.org.au/interpretive-‐framework

Guiding Pedagogical Principles 1. Embedded within a partnership between university and schools. 2. A commitment to quality science education. 3. Authentic interaction with children in schools for the purpose of bridging the

theory-practice divide

4. Science teacher educator plays an active role in supporting the pre-service teacher in school settings.

5. Science teacher educator and pre-service teacher practice is informed by

pedagogical and learning theories.

6. Interaction between pre-service teachers and children is integral to a science-related unit.

7. Involve planning, implementing and assessment of a learning sequence in science.

8. Reflection on and articulation of practice that focuses on pre-service teacher development and identity, and children’s learning.


29


Figure 3. The STEPS Guiding Pedagogical Principles

Enabling growth through educational practices partnership principles There are a diversity of approaches and types of partnerships, some more co-‐operative, others more collaborative. Each serves a purpose, and may be short term or long term. The practice of initiating, maintaining and evaluating any type of partnership can be underpinned by a set of principles to guide the partnership practice. Effective partnerships require:

Partnership Principles Effective partnerships require:

• Risk-taking & Trust • Reciprocity & Mutuality • Respect • Recognition of respective goals • Adaptability & Responsiveness

to changing needs • Diverse representations

Risk-‐taking and Trust Entering a partnership for the first time requires each member of the partnership to take a risk. Schools enter the partnership risking that the pre-‐service teachers will be capable and reliable as this affects both classroom organization and children’s learning. The teacher educator risks the quality of the teaching and learning experience of the pre-‐service teachers, as a poor school experience can have long term detrimental effects on pre-‐service teachers’ confidence. Both schools and teacher educators risk that the other will be organized and effective in contributing to the management of the partnership – being timely, open and honest with communication and providing the necessary structures to support the partnership. These risk factors tend to influence the nature of most partnerships; beginning with “low-‐


30


risk” level partnerships that may evolve to more sophisticated and transformative types of partnerships over time as trust is built through experience. There will always be risk, but experience in the partnership and commitment to its success from all members ensures that this risk is minimized.

Reciprocity and Mutuality As identified in other partnership studies (e.g. Kruger et al., 2009), reciprocity and mutuality are important factors in partnership arrangements. There needs to be mutual benefit for each partner otherwise motivations to be involved can be adversely affected. In school-‐university partnerships, the mutual benefits emerge almost naturally, but they must be nurtured to ensure they are not forgotten in the administrivia that can overtake time and energies in managing the partnership. Some of the reciprocal benefits of school-‐university partnerships include the dedicated science learning experiences that pre-‐service teachers bring to the classroom. These learning experiences are seen as beneficial for children’s learning as well as for teachers who value the gaining of new ideas for science teaching. Principals and teachers also value the contribution they are making to the profession by supporting pre-‐service teacher learning. Pre-‐service teachers gain valuable, authentic experiences that help to build their teacher identity, self-‐efficacy and knowledge to teach science and knowledge of children and their responsiveness to science learning experiences. Teacher educators also gain valuable experience in the classroom, observing changes in school and classroom structures, trends in children’s interests, capabilities and engagement; and technologies that are entering classrooms that can be embedded in their own programs. Having these mutual

benefits motivates each partner to commit to and work towards the success of the partnership.

Recognition of Respective Goals Linked to reciprocity and mutuality is the principle that recognises the goals of respective members of the partnership. The primary motivations of each partner must be realised if the partnership is to have any longevity. This means it is important to identify and cater for the main goals of each partner. For schools this is often tied to the learning experience of the children. If children are not provided with a quality learning experience the partnership will be at risk. This makes it of vital importance that teacher educators work closely with pre-‐service teachers to build their capacity to plan and deliver a quality program. For teacher educators, the key goal is usually to gain access to children to ensure there is an authentic learning experience for pre-‐service teachers, which enables them to embed theory into their practice in a supported way as they learn to become an effective teacher. Recognition of these primary goals lays the foundation on which the partnership is structured and maintained over time.

Respect Respect is observed in many ways in a partnership arrangement and is key to its success. It is one of the most pervasive principles in that it is linked to each of the other principles identified. There is respect in the risk-‐taking and building of trust over time; respect for the needs and the goals of each of the partner members; respect for one another’s goals; and respect for the types of partnerships that can be established at different stages of the relationship. Respect is fundamental to initiating, maintaining and enhancing partnership arrangements.

Adaptable and Responsive to Changing Needs When partnership arrangements are first established, it can be difficult to foresee all


31


the factors that might influence the success of the partnership. This makes it essential that all members of the partnership adopt a willingness to respond to emerging needs. This can occur at different stages of the partnership. In initiating a partnership, some flexibility is needed in negotiating the structures and processes to ensure that each member’s primary goals are met and that the limiting factors around time and resources are accounted for. When partnership arrangements are being implemented, some needs may emerge and need to be responded to quite suddenly, whilst others may come from reflection and be built into an evaluation. In the evaluation stage, adapting and responding to changing needs and/or new ideas can help the partnership evolve and this builds sustainability and potentially, sophistication in the nature of the partnership.

Diverse Representations A key factor emerging from this project is the need to value a diverse range of partnership types. Partnership studies often purport the value in those partnerships that are operating at a high level of collaboration. Certainly, these sorts of partnerships, termed transformative in this project, are of significant benefit to all involved. However, in the establishment of new partnerships, the risk involved in entering such a high-‐level arrangement can be a deterrent. This is when partnerships that are of a lower risk are of importance, and should not be less valued because they are operating at a more connective than transformative level. It is from these beginnings that more generative or transformative partnerships can grow. There are also situations in which a connective partnership better meets the needs and goals of its members. For example, short-‐term projects linked to community or global events can be capatilised on by a connective partnership. Hence there is a need to identify the nature, and guide the formation and implementation of a diverse range of partnerships, and to

value each type of partnership for the value it brings its members at a given point in time.

Growth Model for using partnerships in

teacher education People enter into partnerships because they recognise the value that they can play in enabling growth. Using partnerships to foster and enable growth within teacher education requires being aware of: the potential for partnerships to enable innovation in pedagogy (Guiding Pedaoggical Principls); the principles required for making partnerships sustainable and effective (Parternship Principles); and the fact that partnerships develop, strenghten and evolve over time. The focus of growth is tied to the nature and quality of the learning experience that occurs within the specific partnership. See Figure 4 for a representation of how partnerships enable growth. For the university-‐school partnerships represented in the STEPS project, the overarching aim is growth in the quality and effectiveness of teaching (through the relationship developed through the partnership) and teacher education (through praxis, and confidence and identity changes, both of which are possible because of the partnership). Identity, Confidence, Praxis, and Relationship are four meta-‐themes that have been found to be recurrent in the data, and are illustrated through the vignettes in Chapter 10. In Figure 4, the Partnership is the enabler of growth through: collaboration within and across partner groups; two-‐way communication which is needed for developing and maintaining trust, acknowledging of the risks, and in achieving reciprocity where each partner is willing to contribute to meeting the needs of the other partner/s; and coordination of arrangements by key people who can act as


32


administrators, boundary spanners and gatekeepers. The intended outcome is achieved as Personal and Professional Development, the effective of which is evidenced through

changes in behavior, expertise (including knowledge and practice), and attitudes and values.

Figure 4. STEPS Growth Model for Effective Teacher Education

University-School Partnerships

Growth As more effective teaching and

teacher education

Identity Confidence Praxis Relationship

Collab

orat

ion

Coo

rdin

atio

n

Com

mun

icatio

n

Behav

iour

Exp

ertis

e

Attit

udes

and

Va

lues

Enablers of growth

Personal and Professional Development

Growth Model for Effective Teacher Education


33


Chapter 10. Vignettes

The vignettes are compilations of the data generated throughout the project, including the case studies, interviews relating to the five partnerships models, and interviews completed with other teacher educators within the science education sector in Australia. The vignettes are written around themes that relate to questions and issues that emerged during dissemination and evaluation of the project outcomes (workshops, presentations, as well as the teacher educator interviews). These themes are important in supporting

uptake of school-‐based practices by other teacher educators. The themes are written for different audiences. Each vignette contains different themes. The nature of the vignette depends on the audience. The vignette is informed by data but does not necessarily include the data verbatim, although the contributing data is footnoted. The themes prepared for different audiences are listed in Table 5.

Table 3. Vignette Audiences and Themes

Vignette Audience Theme/s

1

Teacher educators and schools

Trust and Reciprocity, Risk taking, Communication and Feedback

2 Schools and/or teachers The valuing of science, Strategic relationship with schools

3 Teacher educators

Integrating educational research into practice

4 Students

Shifting, learning, valuing


34


Vignette 1. Partnerships between teacher educators and schools: Reciprocity, Trust,

Risk Taking, and Communication and Feedback

Reciprocity: Reciprocity is important to the partnership model. It is only experienced when the needs of each partner provides the motivation for both partners to commit to an ongoing relationship. Partners need to see the benefits that the partnership arrangement brings to their core business. The more each partner tries to view the arrangement from the needs of their partners’ as well as their own needs, the stronger and more sustainable the partnership arrangement can be. It is this mutual benefit that defines the reciprocity that partnership arrangements need for success.

Benefits for Universities For teacher educators and pre-‐service teachers one of the primary motivations for involvement in a partnership is the opportunity for the pre-‐service teachers to gain authentic experience of teaching a unit of science to children. Pre-‐service teachers need a successful and authentic experience of teaching science to children to not only enhance their knowledge and capability in teaching science5 but also to build their confidence. Having a school-‐university partnership in teacher education provides pre-‐service teachers with an opportunity to apply and practice the theory they are learning in the university setting in a timely and often concurrent manner. This concurrent theory-‐practice learning is not always possible when the formal teaching experience sits before or after curriculum units, or even once they have entered the profession. To gain a good understanding of teaching scientific concepts in a way that develops children’s knowledge, pre-‐service teachers need to teach a whole unit of science so they can conduct the necessarily assessment and learning activities that build knowledge over time within a focus area. This is something that does not necessarily occur on rounds. Pre-‐service teachers also need to see the way in which children respond to science learning in order to develop a sense of whether their teaching activities and approaches are successful or not. This direct involvement with children

learning science also gives them the much needed opportunity to witness the engagement and enjoyment children have in learning science, which is often unexpected due to their own poor experiences and/or attitudes towards science. The partnership also serves an important function of helping those teacher educators who visit or are involved in the schools during the teaching periods that are connected to their units. Teacher educators need to see what is happening in the school to not only assess the success of their own science education programs, but also to see the ways in which classrooms and schools are evolving over time.

Benefits for Schools School-‐university partnerships also provide a number of benefits for schools. Schools need strong science programs, but they often struggle to address science adequately for a range of reasons. Teachers need to cover a lot of content from a range of curriculum areas and they often feel the pressure of a crowded curriculum. Teachers also need to have confidence in their background knowledge of science and in their ability to teach it effectively. The lack of this confidence and/or knowledge can limit their ability and incentive to each science. A partnership with a university science teacher education program can help to address these needs by providing access to expert science educators to ensure there is adequate support in the development and


35


delivery of science units. Schools also need to have appropriate resources – both staffing and material– to provide a rich science curriculum. Access to such resources can be difficult for schools and a partnership approach helps to address this through the use of equipment borrowed from the university involved. Schools also value the engagement and excitement that the science program brings out in the children. The nature of the school-‐university partnership allows children to see that science is accessible to them and not something that is only for the “smart kids” or “nerds.”

Many principals and teachers view the partnership as an opportunity for science professional learning where they learn a range of new activities and ideas and keep up-‐to-‐date with contemporary pedagogical approaches. Many schools also highlight the benefit of the partnership for future recruitment as they get to know the pre-‐service teachers and their capabilities through the program. The partnerships with universities are viewed as an attractive selling point for some schools and they advertise it through their newsletters and school council meetings as a way of demonstrating the school’s success.

Risk taking and Trust: Trust between partners is always an important component of successful partnerships. Trust is, however, something that takes time and experience to establish. This means that at the beginning of any partnership arrangement, both partners need to examine and commit to taking the risk of working with one another. This risk taking can be quite difficult for school-‐university partnerships as it is often the teachers and teacher educators organising the partnership arrangement that places the learning of their respective students at risk. Ensuring that a partnership runs smoothly and is successful can be quite demanding on the people involved. There is a significant amount of work involved including that of recruiting willing partners, determining the needs and desires of each partner, and establishing a program that addresses these needs and desires. Beginning a program like this can also be risky in ensuring that there are enough pre-‐service teachers and enough children to meet everyone’s needs. These types of considerations require commitment and flexibility from everyone involved and partners may need to alter those aspects of their programs they can if they want a partnership to proceed. Partners need to negotiate some challenging aspects such as timetabling and consider how other

programs each partner needs to deliver will fit in/around the partnership arrangement. The reward for taking this initial risk is the relationship and trust that is able to be established over time. Ideally, schools and universities will have the same people involved in the program in an on-‐going basis to allow the relationships to develop and trust to build. However, even then, there is no guarantee that a successful partnership will eventuate. Partnerships can be maintained or grown once that initial trust is established and consistency of success is experienced.

Communication as a tool for developing and sustaining relationships


36


Feedback and communication is needed between all key stakeholders: university students, teachers, principals, children and university tutors. Communication is needed for establishing the relationship so that the needs and demands of the school and university can be built into the developing relationship. Also important is ongoing communication and opportunities for feedback in order to maximise the learning taking place for students and to ensure that the relationship continues to be beneficial for the children, the teachers, and in meeting the unit objectives. Communication is needed for developing and maintaining trust in the program delivery positive outcomes, and in achieving reciprocity where each partner is willing to contribute to meeting the needs of the other partner/s. Feedback is an important mechanism for checking that all is well, that changing needs are recognised, and that there is room for movement and change.

Communication Communication is needed when negotiating partnership arrangements, both negotiating the current arrangements and helping shape future arrangements. Good communication between the University representative, principals and the teachers involved, are central to the relationship. Good communication when establishing a relationship can help to dispel apprehensions from principals and teachers that might have developed from past experiences of working with partner organisations, such as other universities. Discussions with the classroom teachers prior to teaching about the topics, the approach, and expectations are central to getting teachers feeling at ease and knowing it is all going to be ok. This first communication establishes the nature of and expectations for future interactions. Schools need to know that they can influence the nature of the relationships and the type of experiences that their students are involved in. By listening to schools, there is greater opportunity for the work of the students to be valued because the content might tie into the curriculum, and there is greater potential for the classroom teachers to extent and support the work of the students.

Feedback Feedback for the school about the value of the partnership, leading to ongoing involvement

is important. Feedback between students and the teacher, and between tutor and students are central. Good feedback means satisfaction, which hopefully translates as sustainability of the program. Teachers and principals are attuned to whether issues arise. Getting the principals and teachers on-‐side is central so positive feedback about what the children are doing with science gives principals and teachers assurance that it is working. An open line of communication between PST and teacher works best if the flow of information goes both ways. The teachers appreciate the teaching ideas that students offered through their lessons, as well as being briefed on the concepts and standards that their children were covering. Teachers also feel comfortable when their knowledge of the different learners in the classroom are sought, respected and built into the relationships developed between their children and the students. Students appreciated the feedback, guidance and support of the classroom teachers. Such feedback has the effect of assisting in the immediate teaching of the unit, promoting reflection on that teaching, and providing a positive memory of the school and the experience. This opportunity for feedback arises out of attentiveness to what the students are doing (instead of using that hour as time release) which the teacher might then extend later. Finding that balance between giving the students space and


37


having input to proceedings is needed to make it work. Feedback from the tutor was also valued by students in relation to the

teaching that was going on, the lesson plans that were being constructed and generally how the students were going.


38


Vignette 2. Schools perspectives: Strategic relationships with university

School involvement in the program was initiated through contact with the principal by the university and the information passed onto teachers. These groups generally had similar ideas about involvement in the program, but slightly different perspectives. Both principals and teachers saw the value in working with the university to support pre-‐service teachers, where collaboration emerged as a powerful experience for both pre and in-‐service teachers.

Principal perspective (Before) Principals tended to focus on how the program fit with their strategic priorities and the perception that teachers needed additional support in science. The principals articulated that a university supported program of pre-‐service teachers working in their school was a great idea and were keen to be involved. The principals surveyed said they saw the value of what science has to offer in the curriculum but they recognised that often their teachers lacked confidence with science. Being involved in this program offered a good opportunity to engage with science and in many cases, science was also a strategic curriculum priority for their school. They also felt the program offered their teachers an opportunity for professional development in science by working collaboratively with the PSTs as colleagues. Lastly, principals also perceived that schools were partly responsible for improving links with the university and contributing to the professional growth of PSTs by providing experiential opportunities for future teachers.

Principal perspective (After)

Principals often mentioned that the program helped to strengthen links between primary schools and their university partners, they expressed a willingness to be involved in future offerings of the program as the closer relationship ultimately improved both teacher and student engagement with science.

The feedback was positive and many principals reported increased enthusiasm for science across the school. Many remarked that the partnership met their expectations with regard to the benefits they had anticipated for their teachers before the program started, in terms of increased confidence with science and their professional development. Principals added that they would like to develop closer links between the school and the University in order to explore more sustainable outcomes by finding ways for this experience to have a wider impact in the school. Some suggestions to improve the effectiveness of the program included providing opportunities to provide feedback; extending the partnership approach to other curriculum areas; recognising the program as mutually beneficial; and coordinating the partnership program with the practicum to take advantage of the relationships built up between the PST and the class.

Teachers’ perspective (Before): Teachers saw the value that science had to offer but tended to focus more on the barriers to teaching science including their lack of confidence with the subject. They clearly saw the program offered a good professional development opportunity that would also benefit their students. While some teachers admitted they tended to avoid science due to a range of barriers, they were aware of the unique opportunity it could offer their students to learn through inquiry based learning experiences and observation; to draw on their life


39


experiences; to use science processes; to explore and better understand how things work in the world around them and to provide ideas for integrating other areas of the curriculum with science. The teachers hoped that through their involvement in the program, their students would be engaged and their natural curiosity would be stimulated. Teachers also were looking to get some fresh ideas and build their own confidence with science. The teachers tended to view the PSTs as peers and saw the program as a chance to really focus on science. They felt the program would help to overcome the problems due to the over-‐crowded curriculum and ensure they dedicated a period of time to science so it isn't swallowed up with competing curriculum demands.

Teachers’ perspective (After): Many teachers were surprised how effective science was within their own classrooms. When they witnessed the engagement of their own students with science it had a very positive effect on their own attitudes towards science. They also expressed a willingness to be involved in the program in future and made suggestions for further improvement. The teachers were very supportive of the program and willing to participate in future, seeing the cooperation with the university as a positive for all. Teachers noticed that the science activities really engaged their students; how their students looked forward to the weekly science lesson and responded

so well to the hands on nature of the activities. This reminded them of the importance of including science in the teaching program and caused them to reflect on whether they were doing do enough science with their class. In some cases, where teachers lacked confidence, watching the pre-‐service teacher helped them to realise that teaching science need not involve complicated preparation, it can be more easy to implement than they had thought. Where teachers were more confident with science, they reported that they learned some new science content and/or it provided fresh ideas and allowed them to reflect upon their own teaching by observing and assisting rather than supervising the PST. The teachers were very supportive of the program and saw the benefits for their students, teaching colleagues and PSTs alike. Some suggested ways in which the program could be improved such as: including visits to the classroom before the lessons started so that the PSTs could get a better idea of the needs of the class; a chance to build a relationship prior to teaching the class; and more time to de-‐brief after lessons. Teachers new to the program suggested better communication about the program so they were more aware of their role and who they might contact if they needed to clarify something. Where programs were more established, the teachers appreciated the open lines of communication and building relationships with the university staff.


40


Vignette 3. Teacher educator perspectives – Integrating educational research into

practice

This vignette reflects the reported reflections of university tutors working in school-‐based science education for pre-‐service primary teachers. It discusses the tutors’ perceptions of the affordances and constraints of these programs with respect to changes in pre-‐service teachers’ confidence and identity and their ability to teach science aligned with school-‐university based science education experienced in the partnership.

Need for improved primary science education

The quality of science education has been the focus of a number of research projects nationally and internationally, including concerns about primary teachers’ lack of science knowledge and confidence to teach science. The practice of integrating multiple learning domains such as science into units of work has led to science’s lack of prominence in the curriculum, so pre-‐service teachers may have little opportunity to observe or engage in science teaching whilst on practicum. School-‐based science education for pre-‐service primary teachers has the potential to build their science knowledge and confidence to teach science. The Science Teacher Partnerships with Schools (STEPS) project investigated the effectiveness of school-‐based approaches to pre-‐service primary science teacher education.

Affordances of school-based model The school-‐based experience was found to provide pre-‐service teachers with an authentic engagement with the teaching of science while being supported by their university tutors. The PSTs are actually doing this every week and then have the ability to reflect on it before they go and do the next week. They can interact with the university tutor and the classroom teacher

before and after their teaching. Then, in the reflection afterwards, important connections can be made. The school-‐based model applied to pre-‐service teacher education, therefore, provides the opportunity to employ intense, explicit work for primary children drawing upon their real life experiences to make sense of the world around them. It gives the pre-‐service teachers a more realistic view of what the science is and how to teach science. It makes the connection between the theory and the practice so much more real and effective. There are high levels of positive feedback for the school-‐based science education model and an appreciation by school teachers of the planning, preparation and flexibility demonstrated by pre-‐service teachers. School-‐based experience has advantages, which cannot be gained in the University environment and is particularly so as an intense focus on a teaching domain and small teaching groups of primary school children ensure relationships and rapport are built over time. Additionally, it allows the construction of their science understandings through hands-‐on activities and targeted individual attention. This is supported by teachers and teacher educators who observe and support the pre-‐service teachers delivering the unit of science. The model provides a way for PSTs


41


to have a focus on the observation and implementation of theory. This leads to the practice and implementation of theory. Allowing the pre-‐service teachers to witness the benefit of what they have done in classes at university. It is practicing teaching, not just learning the theory and learning about it in a classroom at university with no context. The PST can go out and do what they have been told about or advised to do and practice it. It provides an opportunity for the entwining of theory and practices so bridging that theory/practice gap. It is not just the PST learning about teaching in isolation and then expecting teaching to be put it into place when they go out on their practicum or when they eventually graduate. Their school-‐based experience is accompanied by an on-‐site tutorial where theoretical frameworks such as the 5Es are

discussed. Theoretical frameworks such as the 5Es can be incorporated into an on-‐site tutorial and this can then be supplemented by the school-‐based experience derived from the PSTs participation in the model. So it is a big part of the tutorials, not just talking about the theory but also discussing how it can be applied and then practising the theory straight away. The model encourages and supports them to be more professional about what they are doing as well as supporting them. It is important to note that obstacles may impede the success of the model, in particular issues relating to timetabling both in a school and in the University environment. Despite this, the placement provides pre-‐service teachers with excellent preparation to move into teaching.


42


Vignette 4. The Pre-service teacher experience: Shifting, learning, valuing

This vignette reflects the reported outcomes of growth that pre-‐service teachers experience as a result of a science teaching focus that arises from the school-‐university partnership. It relates to changes in confidence and identity aligned with school-‐university based science education experienced in the partnership.

Working in school based teams for planning

A significant and notable growth reported in the data is in the changes to students’ identity and their teaching practices. This arose from the experiences of working with a range of others, peers, mentor teachers and university staff. The students experience team planning and team teaching. This can be experienced when working with each other, or with school based teachers, or with university academics. Some PSTs initially expressed concern, even anxiety, just around the thought of planning with others (I wasn't really quite sure how I was going to go with team planning, but I actually really enjoyed it, ... Everyone was very supportive; I had to plan with other people ... We had to get together with somebody else ... and work out a comprise, so that was really good I guess.). The 'others' includes their peers, predominately, they seem to be satisfied and comfortable with planning discussions with academics and school based staff (I actually worked collaboratively with my PLT. There were three other grade five teachers so I worked with them for the brainstorming; if it didn't work you can take it back to uni the next day or the next week and share and having that resource of people). There are a variety of successes reported, and some failures as well, as students managed planning times (so I thought we should have sat down at then beginning and gone 'well where do we want the kids to be at the end of the unit'.).

Experiences of planning over time There are examples of enthusiastic reporting of successful teams planning together (I had two people who I was working with we're really good partners so we shared a lot of information and we were able to build upon each other), researching science concepts and resourcing lessons with materials, and discussing students learning needs. The planning week by week, and following up on previous teaching, for some had not been a successful, or team experience, and for some had an infrequent experience (Planning I think because I'd never really done any planning week to week). In addition some were able to experience the need to plan, and then be flexible in response to students learning needs (you can see that it's still going to work even if things don't go exactly to plan). Confidence from working and planning with

others The students who reported on successful teamwork, in their placement, shared collegiate experiences of knowing the students and making more informed decisions together. (I really liked that we got the chance to meet the kids and decide on what they were interested in and go on from there; we actually get to see it for ourselves). The regular contact with schools, and the regular classrooms experience, contributed to the confidence and enjoyment levels, because PSTs felt more confident. Their increased positive identities were aligned with the idea that they felt that they knew what was needed to be taught (we got a feeling of what they wanted to know which


43


was really good felt that was really engaging for them).

Confidence in teaching science Confidence is a key element evident in the discussions and repeated with frequency by the PSTs. This is associated with team planning and teaching, as reported above, but it is also associated with the teaching of science in classrooms (So I think it's opened my eyes to the wonderful things that you can do through science and its made me feel more confident approaching it in a school setting; and honestly much more excited about teaching science. I'm certainly not hesitant anymore I'm ready to do it and I've already got lots of ideas yes it was a very ... really positive experience of science teaching and learning; I think without the amount of experience that I had I wouldn't be able to meet the needs of the students like I'm able to now).

Valuing teaching science The teaching of science is valued for both the classroom practice (I was a little bit, not hesitant, but a bit unsure when it came to teaching science) and as a valued experience that they could refer to in a statement on their CV (I go into teaching I'll know how to do it ... I've delivered a science unit and when I go for a job interview I think confidentially I'd land a successful science (inaudible -‐ assuming 'job') because of this, this and this.)

Successful class experiences teaching science

This change in confidence is a major factor noted by classroom teachers, and in the subsequent interviews for this project,

confidence is oft stated, and tied to a successfully supported placement teaching science. The PSTS have experienced the positive impact of science teaching in classrooms, and how level engagement and enthusiastic participation. Students explain how nervous they were before, but as a result of high levels of classroom engagement, now declare growth in confidence levels (I guess I was so nervous and didn't get much sleep the night before my first lesson ... The kids were really engaged ... it was quite good content ... So I guess probably the confidence was the biggest thing ... I've been much more relaxed; yes absolutely I feel a lot more confident).


44


Chapter 11. Sustainability

Sustaining effective university-‐school partnerships requires an understanding of the expectations and needs of each participant. Each setting is complex in the range and diversity of expectations and needs and the variation is as unique as the individuals involved. Each person has different constraints and affordances required at the institutional level that may enable or constrain elements of participation. The differing needs and expectations need to have been explicitly shared and understood to support the building of the relationship, and this goes some way to contributing to sustaining an effective relationship. This chapter identifies elements that contribute to success and underpin the future sustainability of relationships. When examining a university-‐school partnership and how it is contributing to the identified needs of the different stakeholders, the GUSP can support the evaluation of this process:

• The evaluation phase of the GUSP encourages each partner to justify the relevance of the existing program, and opportunities for future improvements (3A).

• Review of the productive elements and constructive enablers and impediments of institutional expectations can be addressed when focusing on 3B.

• The roles and responsibilities of the participants will be the focus when appraising the capacity of the partnership to respond to present and future expectations of members of the partnership (3C).

• Assessing the range and types of interactions between stakeholders, and the links to educational research that arise (such as linking theory to practice, reflection, learning theory), provide evidence of the nature and quality of learning occurring within the partnership (3D).

Different elements, evident in different actions, and in different sites will be required to be examined and evaluated by the different partners. Sustainability can be explored through three questions:

• What is success and what does it look like? • How is sustainability measured? • What blocks success?

What is success and what does it look like?

The success of the partnership relationship has significance at the level of supporting others and enabling growth. Ensuring the partnership is successful requires careful consideration of a number of elements to ensure sustainability is likely. Key stakeholders currently involved in partnerships or who desire to be involved in partnerships have identified key elements for a school-‐university partnership to be successful. These elements are:

Giving Pre-‐Service Teachers the opportunity to teach science ‘There's the benefit of the just-‐in-‐time nature of it. At the moment when I teach them, it eight months, six months whatever to when they make it into a classroom (Darren: Teacher Educator).’

Willingness, Recruitment, Enthusiasm ‘A willingness to participate. So you’ve got to have the people, so the lecturer who is willing and can then tell the students to go (Alexa: Teacher Educator).’

Communication ‘A partnership infers that the partners are working towards a common goal -‐ which in acknowledging and promoting the teaching and learning of science -‐ for PST’s and the children. This is achieved by having clear


45


communication with the principal and the teachers and the PST and tutors about the obligations, expectations and relationships that are integral to the program (Gail: STEPS Project).’

Respect, Goodwill ‘Respect between the university, myself and the school. So, there’s not an idea of a divide, we are moving beyond boundaries (Ivan: Teacher Educator).’ ‘The goodwill of the school is really important. You need a teacher in the primary school that understands the importance of it and will invest in it, so there is a little bit of organisation that has to happen. You need a lecturer at the university that understands the importance of it too. Someone who is prepared to put in that background work to make it happen. The students take it on board because it is an assessment task (Carl: Teacher Educator).’

Mutual benefit ‘One of the important things if you are using a school based model is that it is good professional development for the teachers who are involved in the mentoring of the pre-‐service teachers in the schools (Niall: Teacher Educator).’

How is sustainability measured? The nature of a school-‐based partnership can be a determinant of sustainability and all partners need to experience benefits and recognise the value for all. For the partnership to succeed crucial, there needs to be regular monitoring of how the nature of the partnership responds to the current and future needs of each partner. Evaluation takes account of needs and benefits, and is completed with trust, reciprocity and respect in mind. Measures such as anecdotal evidence and level of engagement exist to determine this success for the classroom teachers and their students. For pre-‐service teacher development, the sustainability of a

school-‐university partnership is measured by:

Observation ‘(It’s) me being out there are watching, I’m looking that they’re engaging with what’s going on. With a group of two or three pre-‐service teachers, it’s quite easy to just take a background role. I’m looking at how they’re engaging, I’m looking at their questioning, their confidence in how they are engaging and talking with the students (Carl: Teacher Educator).’

Debrief/Reflection ‘Refection is a big part of what we are really talking about, so I’m looking for them to reflect on their practice, what went well, what didn’t, how they are going to improve for the next session and then a lot of the indicators of how they are going some from the write up of the reflection (Carl: Teacher Educator).’

Surveys and questionnaires ‘we have the pre-‐ and post-‐surveys that they fill out and also we've had focus groups and teacher educator diaries and interviews. So, we've used some of the information to assess how it's going and in each case it's been quite a positive response overall (Michelle: Teacher Educator).’

What blocks success?

In many cases, in addition to the elements required for a successful school-‐university partnership to operate, there are issues and blockers that impede the sustainability of a partnership. These issues are either able to be overcome or simply need to be managed as part of the monitoring and evaluating the partnership. Common issues identified are:

Timing issues/timetabling ‘Time and resources are huge restraints. There is only the same time allowance on our work plans for engaging in this unit but


46


it is much more time consuming compared to delivering lectures and tutorials. There are never enough resources to support our students wonderful ideas and I supplement the budget every year. The time tables of schools do not align with ours and it is very difficult to get blocks of consecutive weeks to go to the schools without losing time to other events (Jeff STEPS Project).’

Location/travel/parking ‘I think the distance is certainly as issue we have such big numbers of students so it might be difficult to organise to ensure you got good teacher mentors. Clearly we are hoping for that but it doesn’t always happen. I think that’s pretty crucial if the students are going to be in the schools for long periods (Niall: Teacher Educator).’ ‘Transporting of resources each week to the school to conduct the workshops is sometimes difficult when transferring a large amount of equipment or heavy equipment from a car (Sandra: STEPS Project).’

Communication ‘There is an imposition on what the classroom teacher has planned and what the PSTs are doing (Abigail: Teacher Educator).’

Space in the school or at university ‘One of the constraints is this notion of the on-‐line students not participating so it is not an experience that all the students in the MTeach would have (Davina: Teacher Educator).’

Workload – demand on TE/isolation/ demands on the teacher ‘I’m the only one doing it (Alexa: Teacher Educator).’

Resourcing – who pays for it/ who gets it together/ source it yourself ‘In a mentor based program where mentors (scientists) come from outside of the university, it can be difficult to source mentors (Alexa: Teacher Educator).’

Being a PST supervising teacher ‘I think in a time where the voluntary nature of pre-‐service teacher supervision is becoming more challenging there has been amongst some of our local schools less interest in hosting students (Wanda: Teacher Educator).’

Supervision /partnering It’s time; it's schools. I know some of the partners are having trouble getting into the school. I think you have to be strategic in how you approach the school (Lorelle: Teacher Educator).’


47


Chapter 12. Conclusion

This project responded to significant and growing critique of the quality of teacher education, which has recently intimated a shift from predominantly university-‐based teacher education programs toward one more reliant on schools (TEMAG, 2014, 2015). The premise of the university-‐school partnerships represented in this document is twofold: 1) the teacher educator’s role of directing the shape of pre-‐service teachers’ (PSTs’) experiences and teaching PSTs to reflect on their experiences is essential, and 2) school-‐based teaching experiences are essential for the development of PSTs’ professional identity and practice, and not just in the traditional formal practicum arrangements. While schools play an essential role in initial teacher education, the expertise provided by university teacher educators is needed to foster PST development. This has been recognised in other studies (e.g. Brandenburg, 2004; Jones, 2010; Loughran, 2002) where the role of the teacher educator has also been viewed as essential in helping pre-‐service teachers notice important elements of teaching and learning experiences and subsequently, learn to articulate aspects of their own and others’ praxis; what Loughran (2002) phrased as ‘making the tacit, explicit, meaningful and useful’ (p. 38). Partnerships that maintain professional integrity and recognise the essential roles of both universities and schools are needed to enhance learning and raise PSTs’ awareness of the value of teaching marginalised subjects in primary schools, such as science. School-‐based partnerships specific to science teacher education are critical in providing these opportunities due to the low levels of quality and time spent on science in primary schools, as discussed earlier. These impediments limit PSTs’ ability to observe

the teaching of science and to practice it themselves during a standard practicum. A science-‐dedicated school-‐based experience helps to overcome this issue, especially where the teacher educator plays an active role in supporting PST learning. The partnership practices of five universities represented in the STEPS project were initiated to deal with the reported low confidence of PSTs in relation to science (Howitt, 2007). Each university developed their partnerships independently; however, central to all was a desire to provide experiences that might disrupt students’ negative perceptions of science and to foster at least ‘provisional identities’ (Ibarra, 1999) in relation to science where they can begin to see themselves as being able to teach science. To achieve this, teacher educators work with schools to provide time and space for PSTs to interact with children over some weeks. Partnerships are only valuable if they have impact. The intended impact depends on the need and rationale, and what each partner is willing to contribute. Developing successful university-‐school partnerships involves appreciating that it is a process requiring ongoing attention to the changing needs and institutional requirements, where the relationships involve a degree of risk taking and trust, reciprocity and mutuality, respect, adaptability and responsiveness. There are a diversity of approaches and types of partnerships, depending on the degree of embeddedness desired; they can be Connective, Generative, or Transformative. Each serves a purpose, and may be short term or long term.

Flexibility of the STEPS Interpretive

Framework While the Interpretive Framework is currently explicitly written for partnerships


48


in science education (especially the Guiding Pedagogical Principles), the four-‐part framework is adaptable to other educative partnership contexts. The STEPS resources have been designed to be applicable to a variety of institutions in and beyond Australia. The Interpretive Framework have applications beyond the STEPS Project as a tool for assisting interested parties to negotiate, maintain and/or evaluate projects. In particular, any partnership that is based on an educative process can benefit. In 2015 the Interpretive Framework will be applied to a project in the Geelong region called “Skilling the Bay” (Deakin University, 2015-‐2017, managed by The Gordon

Institution, DEECD funded) where partnerships between universities, secondary schools and industry partners will be work together for curriculum renewal. Collaboration with Deakin’s Faculty of Science, Engineering and the Built Environment is required. The STEPS Tools (PNT, PMT and PET) were initially constructed to support the negotiations in this project by way of trialling the STEPS Interpretive Framework. Further opportunities are available as the STEPS Project team embarks on a new research agenda focused on applying the Interpretive Framework to new disciplines and contexts.


49


References

Argyris, C. and Schön (1996). Organisational learning II: Theory, method and practice. Asia

Pacific Journal of Human Resources, 36(1), 207-‐109. Australian Academy of Science (AAS) 2014. Primary Connections. Canberra: AAS. Bandura, A. (1977). Self-‐efficacy: Toward a unifying theory of behavioural change. Psychological

Review, 84(2), 191-‐215. Brandenburg, R. (2004). Round table reflections: (Re)defining the role of the teacher educator

and the preservice teacher as ‘co-‐learners’. Australian Journal of Education, 48(2): 166-‐181.

Bybee, R.W. (1989). Science and Technology Education for the Elementary Years: Frameworks for Curriculum and Instruction. Washington, DC: The National Centre for Improving Instruction.

Campbell, C. (2006). Innovative Science Education Assessment – linking theory with practice. Conference Proceedings for the International Conference on Science and Mathematics Education (CoSMED), Penang, Malaysia

Chief Scientist (2013). STEM: Country Comparison: Recommendations. Canberra: Australian Government.

Chubb, I. (2013). Science, Technology, Engineering and Mathematics in the National Interest: A strategic approach: A Position Paper. Canberra: Commonwealth of Australia.

Darling-‐Hammond, L. (2000). How teacher education matters. Journal of Teacher Education 51(3), 166-‐173.

Darling-‐Hammond, L. (2006). Constructing 21st century teacher education. Journal of Teacher Education, 57(3), 300-‐314.

Dobson, I. (2003). Science at the crossroads? A study of trends in university science from Dawkins to now 1989-‐2002, Centre for Population and Urban Research, Monash University. A study commissioned by the Australian Council of Deans of Science.

Department of Education, Science and Training (DEST). (2003). Australia's teachers: Australia's future -‐ advancing innovation, science, technology and mathematics. Canberra, ACT, Australian Government Department of Education, Science and Training: 7

Dewey, J. (1938). Experience and education. New york: Berley. Goddard, R.D. (2003). The impact of schools on teacher beliefs, influence, and student achievement:

The role of collective efficacy. In J. Raths & A. McAninch (Eds.), Advances in teacher education (Vol. 6) (pp. 183-‐204). Westport, CT: Information Age Publishing.Goodrum, Hackling and Rennie (2003).

Helms, J. (1998). Science-‐and me: Subject matter and identity in secondary school science teacher. IJournal of Research in Science Teaching, 35(7), 811-‐834.

Hinton, T., Gannaway, D., Berry, B., & Moore, K. (2011). The D-‐Cubed Guide: Planning for Effective Dissemination. Sydney: Australian Teaching and Learning Council. Available: http://www.olt.gov.au/dissemination

Hobbs, L. (2012). Examining the aesthetic dimensions of teaching: Relationships between teacher knowledge, identity and passion. Teaching and Teacher Education, 28, 718-‐727.

House of Representatives Standing Committee on Education and Vocational Training (2007). Top of the class. Report on the inquiry into teacher education. House of Representatives Standing Committee on Education and Vocational Training.


50


Howitt, C. (2007). Pre-‐Service Elementary Teachers’ Perceptions of Factors in an Holistic Methods Course Influencing their Confidence in Teaching Science. Research in Science Education, 37(1), 41-‐58.

Ibarra, H. (1999). Provisional selves: Experimenting with image and identity in professional adaptation. Administrative Science Quarterly, 44, 764-‐791.

Jones, M. (2008). Collaborative Partnerships : A Model for Science Teacher Education and Professional Development. Australian Journal of Teacher Education, 33(3).

Jones, M. (2010). Collaborative partnerships: A model of professional learning in primary science for practicing and preservice teacher (Doctoral thesis). Australian Catholic University, Melbourne. Retrieved from http://dlibrary.acu.edu.au/digitaltheses/public/adt-‐acuvp299.29062011/

Jones, M. and Carter (2007).Kenny, J. (2010). Preparing primary teachers to teach primary science: a partnership based approach. International Journal of Science Education, 32 (10), 1267-‐1288.

Kenny, J. (2012), University-‐school partnerships: Pre-‐service and in-‐service teachers working together to teach primary science, Australian Journal of Teacher Education, 37(3), Article 6.

Kenny, J., Hobbs, L., Jones, M., Chittleborough, G., Campbell, C., Gilbert, A., Redman, C., and Herbert, S. (2014). Science Teacher Partnerships with Schools (STEPS): Project-‐Partnerships in science teacher education. Australian Journal of Teacher Education, 39(12), 43-‐65.

Keys, P. (2005). Are teachers walking the walk or just talking the talk in science education? Teachers and Teaching: Theory and practice, 11(5), 499-‐516.

Korthagen, F., Loughran, J., & Russell, T. (2006). Developing fundamental principles for teacher education programs and practices. Teaching and Teacher Education, 22, 1020-‐1041.

Kruger, T., Davies, A., Eckersley, B., Newell, F., & Cherednichenko, B. (2009). Effective and Sustainable University-‐School Partnerships: Beyond determined efforts by inspired individuals. Canberra: AITSL.

Loughran, J. (2002). Effective reflective practice: in search of meaning in learning about teaching. Journal of Teacher Education, 53(1), 33-‐43.

Loughran, J. (2006). Developing a pedagogy of teacher education: Understanding teaching and learning about teaching. New York: Routledge.

Marginson, S., Tytler, R., Freeman, B., & Roberts, K. (2013). STEM: Country comparisons: International comparisons of science, technology, engineering and mathematics (STEM) education. Final report. Australian Council of Learned Academies, Melbourne, Vic.

McNamara, S., Jones, M., & McLean, K. (2007). Stories in ICT professional development: Report from the Victoria project. In C. Reading (Ed.), Partnerships in ICT learning study: Case studies (pp. 139-‐158). Canberra: Department of Science, Education and Training.

Murphy, C., Beggs, J. Carlisle, K., & Greenwood, J. (2004). Students as ‘catalysts’ in the classroom: The impact of co-‐teaching between science student teachers and primary classroom teachers on children’s enjoyment and learning of science. International Journal of Science Education, 26(8), 1023-‐1035.

Parliament of Victoria, Education and Training Committee, (2005). Step up, step in, step out. Report on the suitability of pre-‐service teacher training in Victoria. Melbourne: Victorian Government Printer.

Peterson, J. E. & Treagust, D.F. (2014) School and University partnerships: The role of teacher education institutions and primary schools in the development of preservice teachers’ science teaching efficacy. Australian Journal of Teacher Education, 39(9), http://dx.doi.org/10.14221/ajte.2014v39n9.2


51


Rossner, P. and Commins, D. (2012). Defining enduring partnerships: Can a wellworn path ne an effective, sustainable and mutually beneficial relationship? Brisbane: Queensland College of Teachers.

School centres for teaching excellence http://www.education.vic.gov.au/about/programs/partnerships/Pages/partnernationalsteach.aspx http://www.education.vic.gov.au/Documents/about/programs/partnerships/schoolcentresteachexcelfactsheet.pdf

Speldewinde, C.A. (2014). STEPS (Science Teacher Education Partnerships with Schools): Annotated Bibliography. Geelong VIC: Deakin. Available: http://www.stepsproject.org.au

Stake, R. (2006). Multiple case study analysis. New York: The Guilford Press. Teacher Education Ministerial Advisory Group (TEMAG) (2014). Teacher Education Ministerial

Advisory Group Issues Paper. Canberra: Australian Government. Teacher Education Ministerial Advisory Group (TEMAG) (2014). Action now: Classroom ready teacher.

Canberra: Australian Government. Tytler, R. (2007). Re-‐imagining science education: engaging students in science for Australia's future:

Australian Education Review 51, Australian Council for Educational Research. Tytler, R., Osbourne, J., Williams, G., Tytler, K., Cripps Clark, J. (2008) Opening up pathways:

Engagements in STEM across the Primary-‐Secondary school transition. Canberra: DEEWR.Ure, C., Gough, A., and Newton (2009).

Van Manen, J. (1990). Researching lived experience: Human science for an action sensitive pedagogy. London: The Althouse Press.

White, S, New research into the work and role of Teacher Educators in School-‐University -‐ community partnerships School Centres of Teaching excellence (SCTA) symposium session one http://www.education.vic.gov.au/about/programs/partnerships/Pages/partnernationalsteach.aspx accessed on January 7, 2014

Yin, R. (2009). Case study research: Design and methods (4th Ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.


52


Appendix 1. Growing University-‐Schools Partnerships (GUSP) Narratives

Narrative Data GUSP 1A (Initiation-‐ Aims & Rationale) Principals saw a strategic advantage for their schools from their involvement in the science program. Teachers understood the value that science offers to enrich the curriculum.

George (Principal – UTAS) We would hope that an increase interest in science results. In the case of the individual teacher – an increased confidence in teaching science in her class. Charles (Principal – UTAS) Science is a priority in 2007. Science enables us to teach inquiry thinking. Science is a way to lead boys into literacy Prue (Teacher – UTAS) Science can offer hands-‐on experiences for children. It enables engagement and caters for a wide range of preferred learning styles. Literacy and numeracy can also be taught through science.

GUSP1B (Initiation-‐ Institutional requirements) In setting up any program, there will be a range of requirements that affect the nature of what can be set up. For example, for the university the program might be embedded within core units/ courses (RMIT, Deakin, ACU models), elective units (UTAS) or clinical arrangements (Melb Uni). Working within the given constraints for all parties, requires negotiation and some compromises.

Christine (STEPS project team – Uni Melb) The Teacher fellow and the Clinical Specialist seek to find a class teacher who can be a Mentor teacher and who is teaching science in their class planner in term one and two. This is difficult because schools tend to design for a term focus and our university semester cuts across two terms. Our Teacher Candidates are finishing their teaching before the end of term two. This has created issues for our Teacher Candidates and why sometimes the Mentor teacher will provide a small group of students to the Teacher Candidate. Jeff (STEPS project team – RMIT) The partnership component of the school-‐based arrangement increased in importance and was more deliberately and carefully incorporated into planning and implementation of the unit. My own interest and rationale for the unit definitely moved from a predominantly PST focus to be more considerate of the partnership element and the outcomes for the school partners alongside the outcomes for RMIT and its students. The significance of the partner schools’ requirements meant that each iteration of the unit was slightly different and was adapted to accommodate particular school conditions.

GUSP 1C/2C (Initiation-‐ Relationships) The importance in planning the partnership arrangement and clearly discussing the needs of each partner in the beginning sets the stage for constructing an equal relationship.

Christine (Teacher – RMIT) ‘I think good communication and the opportunity to talk about it first, to say okay. I think there has to be something in it for both of us.’ Leanne (Principal – RMIT) ‘It’s like an equal relationship’


53


Furthermore, this builds the foundation of trust needed as university and primary school staff work together in the classroom.

GUSP 1D (Initiation-‐ Nature of Learning) All parties need to be aware of the learning they hope will result from their involvement. At the outset, some teachers were aware of the need to do science, but were unsure how to go about it. The program gave them an avenue to include science. PSTs had encountered the theory, but the classroom experience gave them an opportunity to apply it and reflect on what happened.

Billie (Teacher – UTAS) There are lots of clever experiments out there however I lack the understanding to be able to quickly relate these to real life situations and concepts. Yvonne (PST reflection – UTAS) Effective teacher questioning is mindful of the purpose and the context. This is something that I discovered to be important in my lesson today. Through reading the literature I have learnt that you should make sure that you allow adequate thinking time for high-‐order questions, you should always attempt to respond positively and constructively to an answer, should use questions to challenge, extend thinking and raise curiosity, and you should plan questions before the lesson. I did plan the question before the lesson and had thought about the fact that some students may not understand the word ‘justify’ and so I was prepared for this situation. Through reflection I have come to realise the importance and place of questioning in the classroom. Pearl (PST reflection – UTAS) Formative assessment should highlight the student’s weaknesses and strengths, this feedback has the ability to both motivate and direct students’ future learning (Earl, 2003). This feedback is designed to improve the students learning and to allow the teacher to analyse the students learning and in doing so find any concept areas that need further reinforcement (Wiliam, 2005). With this in mind I have given the students reasonably detailed feedback that explicitly points out the parts of their science journal that have been completed successfully, the parts that need some improvement and how this improvement can be achieved.

GUSP 1E (Initiation-‐ Commitment to Action) After the initial discussion, the program moves into action mode and all participants should be clear on their role and have input to the plan. In this case the science educator organised an information session where teachers came to the university were briefed on the program and met their

Roy (PST – UTAS) After speaking to Ceri (colleague teacher) I noticed that we were on the same level. That she wasn’t exactly sure how we were going to implement this topic in her classroom. I noticed that there were 17 boys and 6 girls in the classroom, this I would have to keep in mind if organising any groups. I felt relieved that we were both starting a project from scratch, as I was used to working with teachers who had already implemented class lessons that they knew worked. This turned out to be a valuable planning session were for two hours I felt that I was actively contributing ideas that were being taken seriously and listened to by a colleague teacher. I am starting to feel at this point that I am taken seriously as a teaching practitioner. Now that Jennifer and I have a bare skeleton of a framework to work off, I just need to add the meat to give it more form. I feel that Jennifer is taking this project seriously and her professional attitude towards me reflects this as I feel that I am seen as an equal, a colleague, not as just a university student.


54


PSTs for the first time. This was supported by the education department who provided time release for the teachers to attend. PSTs kept journals to record and reflect on their experiences.

Prior to meeting my colleague teacher I was nervous and concerned about how she world perceive me. I took a proactive course of action to demonstrate my professionalism by coming to the meeting prepared with a concept for exploration and an outline for the six lesson sequence. I also prepared questions about her teaching career, level of confidence with teaching science and about the learners in her classroom. I genuinely think that she appreciated this approach., therefore, I will continue to take a proactive approach to our working relationship. Karen (PST – UTAS) I explained that I had begun planning in advance but that I would be prepared to alter these plans if she was committed to a different concept. Billie (colleague teacher) said that she had considered looking at ecosystems but she encouraged me to share my planning and ideas. She liked my ideas and, she was happy to run with them. She also offered some ideas for a second lesson within the explore phase of my sequence. We also consulted my lecturer about ideas for this session.

GUSP 2A (Implementation-‐ Aims and Rationale) The needs of the schools, universities and pre-‐service teachers should be catered for in the implementation of the program e.g. the close working relationship between schools and Melbourne University require universities to be aware of the needs of the school; and for schools to be aware of the rationale of the science program. When there is mutual understanding, pre-‐service teachers are able to move between university and school seamlessly.

Miranda (Coordinator – Uni Melb) “…we’re working collaboratively and we’re working in a model that isn’t just about our students saying this is what we need, this is what we want, this is what the university says we have to do, it’s all for us, me, me, me, it’s about giving back to the school as well. So it should be that it’s this mutually beneficial model which again prepares our teachers, it’s not just about me in my classroom it’s about the broader school community and giving back…” Danielle (Teacher – Uni Melb) “I think other teachers are always willing to give support and people know that they can ask, or how would you approach doing a particular science activity or people know at the start of the year where they’re told where all the science equipment is kept, materials and that sort of thing “They’ve been able to talk with staff, we’ve always had a session where they started with the Melbourne Uni staff for their discussion at first...” Jane (Teacher – Uni Melb) “Well I’ve had groups of the (pre-‐service) students in my classroom over the years and they would come in third term for six weeks and I loved them coming because they knew what they were teaching, they had been taught, they had learnt, they knew their subject matter”

GUSP 2B (Implementation-‐ Institutional Requirements) The demands placed on student-‐teachers provided the impetus for them to work together in a professional manner. The challenges associated with both curricular design and enacting the curriculum unit in schools was beyond the capability of

Joanne (PST – RMIT) ‘I think that in order to deliver something like we did in such a short space of time we really needed that collaboration…Yeah I wasn’t really quite sure how I was going to go with the team teaching but I actually really enjoyed it, there wasn’t any negative, everyone was very supportive yeah it was really good.’ Matthew (Teacher – RMIT) ‘They were great by the end they all learnt off each other and worked as a team. That’s what’s good about the program too is that it shows our students down here that it’s important to work as a team right through the line. Even though you’re teaching science so many other concepts and values have been taught at the same time which is really important and so to see them working as a group makes it easier for our students to go off and continue work as a group’


55


even our best student teachers, if attempted alone. However, the team atmosphere, coupled with mentor and university staff support provides the opportunities for success.

Jason (Teacher – RMIT) ‘Maybe there’s that team environment that the pre-‐service teachers create. Maybe there’s a sense of almost a safety net for them so that helps them with the way that they conduct their lesson I would say as opposed to being isolated on your own.’

GUSP 2C (Implementation-‐ Relationships) Teachers appreciate the forward planning and managerial skills of the academic ensuring that aspects of the placement have been discussed and considered. The academic has communicated with teachers and identified resources, and begun to identify students learning needs. Students appreciate the preparation and the on-‐going support during the placement.

Sally (Teacher – ACU) “So at the school’s end they’ve got to be committed, they’ve got at least acknowledge it and want to do it. From the University end the university has to put in place or has to have in place the administrative support which I’m not sure is there. The Lecturer has got to know what they’re doing and I have no doubt Mellita knows exactly what she’s doing.” Lauren (Teacher – ACU) “As I say we had a group of four so that was good and we had Mellita come out and she watched what was going on and checked up on us and we knew we had her support the whole way through so that was really good. The school that we were partnered with was fantastic and they were really obviously very encouraging of pre-‐service teachers and that relationship with us, they were really helpful in themselves. So it was a really positive partnership”

GUSP 2D (Implementation-‐ Nature and Quality of learning) Staff and pre-‐service teachers spent considerable time researching and planning inquiry approaches in content areas assigned by partner schools. This led to productive classroom approaches where veteran teachers also found they were learning both content and pedagogy. The enthusiasm of the student teachers and their ability to spend considerable time thinking about and developing classroom ideas afforded them the confidence to try difficult approaches that they may not have attempted on their own. The science educator was able to provide

Sam (Teacher – RMIT) ‘I try to get activities which can be sort of hands on. The one area that myself am not too keen on is Physics so when it comes to Biology or Chemistry I’m fine. So the Physics aspect I really need to do a lot of work myself like Force and Energy and Levers and Pulleys, it’s not my forte. This year your students did that with my lot and it was fantastic, I learnt as well, so that was really good as well.’ James (Teacher – RMIT) 'Our students the enthusiasm and the input from numerous minds into a single lesson creates a very productive dynamic experience for the children.’ Joanne (PST – RMIT) ‘So I think we really tried to maximise the use of each other because we did things that no teacher on their own would be able to do, we were able to do so much more as a team" Jason (Teacher – RMIT) ‘For me I guess it reiterated the fact that they do love their hands on activities and that they do like to work in groups as well. They were grouped for a lot of the activities I don’t necessarily do that a lot my kids crave for that so it’s something I need to change as a teacher as well’ Ester (Teacher – RMIT)


56


pedagogical support and the PSTs were able to discuss aspects of the learning with their colleague teacher.

‘Exactly just even like classroom management techniques and ways of presenting information. I probably wouldn’t have thought to do those energy chains I would probably have done it a little bit differently.’ Roy (PST – UTAS) (My science educator suggested) a hands on activity to explain habitats so that students could understand the idea of pond habitats more easily. I was troubled as to how I would be able to do this without access to a pond nearby. A few activities were offered as a solution, one of which involved doing a bug survey as to how many bugs lived in a particular area of the play ground. Even though this was not a pond exercise, it still highlighted that bugs lived in different areas of the playground, and that different habitats where made up of different insects. I reflected on my last lesson and looked over what I needed to do so that I wouldn’t lose the class during my activities. I planned to face my class equipped with work sheets that had clearly spelt out what I required my students to do for the day. Mallory (PST – UTAS) I decided that for this lesson I would put all the items the students need for the investigation in a kit and place it under their table groups. I thought this way they would not notice it and I would save time and most of all it would not be as distracting as placing it on their desks. But I was wrong because the minute the students walked into the class from lunch the first thing they noticed was the kits! So they did get distracted and they did open the kits and got all the materials out which I did not want to happen. I asked Clarissa (colleague teacher) how she would have handled the materials and she said the best thing would have been to hand them one at a time. This makes sense because after investigating each item I could have collected it and gave the next item and this way they would not have all the materials on their desks to distract them. This would have also prevented me from repeating myself and asking them to stop playing with the materials so many times.

GUSP 2D (Implementation-‐ Nature and Quality of Learning) An interesting aspect of the partnership was that veteran teachers were asked to observe and provide feedback to student teachers. An unintended consequence of this task was that it provided those veteran teachers with an opportunity to reflect on their practice. Often they saw their students’ positive reactions to inquiry-‐based pedagogy and high levels of engagement. In turn, teachers reflected on their desires for wanting to add more of those elements into their own classroom practices.

Stephanie (Teacher – RMIT) ‘I was really pleased with their level of engagement with the kids that they’d got to know their names pretty quickly because they were only here for four or five sessions and they knew their names. They worked well with the kids, they were organised, they had really exciting things for the kids to do, stuff that I’d never done before because we don’t really have the access to the chemicals and stuff to be able to do like all that foamy stuff, that was good, I enjoyed that and the kids loved it they were really engaged with it.’


57


GUSP 3A (Evaluation-‐ Aims and Rationale) Every year there needs to be evaluation of the program. Is it meeting the needs of the universities, schools and pre-‐service teachers, and is the rationale still justifiable within the school and university contexts? Evaluation must take into account feedback from pre-‐service teachers, schools, as well as responding to institutional changes. While the needs and rationale may be the same, institutional changes may require a shift in how the experience is conceptualized.

Mellita (STEPS project team – ACU) This year to cater for the demand and in response to PST feedback that the experience still isn’t authentic because they worked in such large groups, I have had them planning and teaching in pairs, with a few on their own. Jeff (STEPS project team – RMIT) “the partnership component of the school-‐based arrangement increased in importance and was more deliberately and carefully incorporated into planning and implementation of the unit.” Sandra (STEPS project team – Deakin) The school-‐based science sessions continue because principals and teachers in schools, academics and pre-‐service teachers all consider them to be important in the teaching and learning of science and learning to teach science. Further they provide opportunities to foster an appreciation of science in all participants and professional learning for the teachers in the schools. Conversations with teachers at the school indicate their enthusiasm for the sessions, commenting that their children are highly motivated by the experience Linda (STEPS project team – Deakin) The unit is shifting to 4th year, trimester two, which will make this a capstone unit and need to focus more on teacher readiness. I envisage greater interaction between teachers and the students through planning and feedback meetings, although this will need to be valued by the teachers, and may lead to organisational complications. Aligning student units with the school’s curriculum directions might promote greater linking between learning experiences offered by the PST and classroom teacher, thus greater valuing of the PST involvement at the school.

GUSP 3B (Evaluation-‐Institutional Requirement) Programs have a way of changing over time as needs change or possibilities present themselves. In response to feedback and requests from schools, Deakin’s program has shifted from giving pre-‐service teachers an open choice for topics, to developing topics that fit in with the school’s theme or inquiry.

Arabella (Principal – Deakin) “Managing this from a partnership point of view would take some planning I guess. I see pre-‐service teachers working with our students in small groups, working on earth sciences, I saw a group working on water, another group solar power, etc. I’m wondering if there’s a way of negotiating with Deakin so that the work that the pre-‐service teachers are doing links to our integrated studies planner so that the work … extends or supports the other scientific enquiry that’s happening at the same time…” “I think there’d be some benefit if there was some sort of feedback or discussion at some point throughout the program that involved the classroom teachers, to talk about what the students were doing what they were observing and then feed that into the classroom teacher and have some discussion.”

GUSP 3C (Evaluation-‐ Relationships) There is often a perception that

Lou (Principal – RMIT) ‘I see that there’ve been real advantages, for a start we’ve employed a staff member out of it, so one of your trainee teachers impressed us.’... ‘Yes we try to be as accommodating as we can be because we see real benefit in this partnership as I said it’s a win/win for us all. I hope that’s your perception as well’


58


partnership programs are usually designed for the sole benefit of the university. Our partner schools counter this assumption and clearly articulate the benefits of working with RMIT students teachers. These benefits include recruiting future staff members, strengthening the school science program and promoting the school within the community.

Danny (Assistant Principal – RMIT) ‘We’re a small school we need to get our name out there with the programs that we’re doing so we’re happy to have the relationship between RMIT and us out there and known through the community. I talk about it regularly at School Council, it’s promoted through there when we do our school tours, either Lance or I depending on who’s taking the tours, we talk about our science program, we talk about our link to RMIT as well we think it’s fantastic.’

GUSP 3D (Evaluation-‐ Nature of the Learning) Teachers were able to take away valuable science teaching ideas and improve their science knowledge and practice. PSTs gained valuable insights into the importance of science pedagogies and the practicalities associated with their implementation in the classroom.

Billie (Teacher – UTAS) It really engages the pupils. I learnt concepts about pulleys and levers that I didn’t know about before.-‐ so I will probably use these again if I ever work on this topic again. Lyall (Teacher -‐ UTAS) “I have actually done more science this year than I ever have before…I can see where it fits now. So… I can take a literacy idea or a SOSE idea and you can bring all your science activities into it … I’ve really enjoyed it. “Yes” (I am more confident than before the project)…And I have seen the children… because I can step back while she is doing the lesson I actually can watch the children and see the enjoyment and it is allowing them to think of possibilities and question things and I like that because I like the kids to think.” Jane (PST Reflection– UTAS) After observing the change in behaviour and engagement in the students from when they were simply doing reading and writing exercises to doing hands on activities highlights the benefit of providing students with hands-‐on, authentic tasks to motivate them to learn. Hands-‐on learning and learning through experience are powerful tools to ensure students are actively engaged in their learning which in turn supports true understanding and learning (Rutherford cited in Haury & Rillero, 1994). …Solid organisation of lessons and resources and clear instructions to students will help to ensure a successful hands-‐on science lesson in which all students can learn and engage. Supporting the students through their exploration with guiding questions and prompting will help students make connections with existing knowledge and help them create new understandings. Hands-‐on lessons should not be something that is shied away from by the teacher due to lack of experience or confidence, it can be used as an opportunity to learn with the students and increase confidence for future lessons and efforts will be rewarded with happy students who want to learn.

GUSP 3E (Evaluation-‐ Commitment to Action) The programs improved iteratively. Participants provided feedback and

Kaitlin (PST-‐ ACU) It was a really positive experience for myself personally and I think our group at large, I don’t know I guess in an ideal world maybe gone in and visited the school prior to starting, we might have had a better understanding of what their classroom set up was like, but that’s okay you won’t always know what


59


suggested how the program could be made more effective.

As stated above being able to see and support each other’s practice would have been beneficial. Also it is always difficult planning when you don't know the school or children. I would recommend a pre-‐visit to the school before the plan gets written. Ethan (Teacher -‐ACU) I would make a suggestion that before they started that they came into the class for an hour and just sat in there and spent an hour looking at what happens, meet some of the kids, seeing how the room was set up, getting a feel for the environment. Just spend an hour and they don’t have to do anything just be there and informally chat to some of the kids just to get a feel of it… Nathan (Teacher-‐UTAS) To be honest there were some parts I was clear about and others I wasn’t. I didn’t know if I was supposed to teach more and assist less, but it worked anyway. Geraldine (Teacher – UTAS) Partnership (should) extend over a longer period, possibly as a precursor to the student’s 4th year school experience with the same group of students and teacher. Thank you for the opportunity. My students really enjoyed working with their student “science teacher” and I hope that the program will continue to grow. John (Science Educator-‐ UTAS) In response to communication problems, for the next iteration I negotiated for teacher participants to get half a day release from class to attend a session at the university. In this case they could be briefed about their role face to face, meet with their PST and begin planning what they want to teach. It was well received and much more effective.


60


Appendix 2. Representations of Partnership Practices (RPP) Narratives

Narrative Data

RPP1A (Connective-‐Purposes) Schools recognize the value that the program can have for them in raising the presence of science in the school, links to academic institutions, and assisting the school to meet its obligations to teach science. The pre-‐service teachers bring new teaching ideas and practices, and model the teaching of science to teachers who may lack confidence in their own science teaching.

Adam (Principal – Deakin) Absolutely yes it’s good for the school, it’s nice for us to be able to put in the newsletter that we’re in partnership with Deakin Uni and there’s a science program happening here and we’re working with pre-‐service teachers and that looks good for the school. Michael (Principal – Deakin) It’s also good to us as a receiving thing because we’re not great science teachers and the more time kids get with science the better. So it’s a win/win for us, we like being involved. Aaron (Principal – Deakin) We do teach science but the bulk of our science curriculum is done through Deakin… It’s a bit like the swimming program not as intense and not as regular and that’s why we love the Deakin program. It focuses us, teachers will follow on and finish off lessons that may have been started by the Deakin Science. There’s often times when Deakin Science practicals will peak an interest in the students and the teacher especially when we’re doing things like Space or there’s a cooking theme happening the science really couches in. So it’s a real win/win I guess.

RPP 1B (Connective-‐Institutional Structures) Teachers and PSTs relished the opportunity to work together. Teachers valued another professional working as a source of fresh ideas for science in the class. PSTs valued the chance to put theory into practice.

Noelene (Teacher – UTAS) Planning a sequence with another teacher. Another learning sequence as a resource. The opportunity to have 2 teachers working in the room together. New ideas!!! Claire (Teacher – UTAS) A chance to offer a science student interaction with students in my class. An opportunity to allow my students to do science with someone other than me.

Andrew (PST – UTAS) We went out into schools and taught. It was the biggest learning experience for me... We were a bit sick of theory and wanted to bring it all back and relate it. ...It was really valuable to me.

RPP 1C (Connective-‐ Nature of partnership) Teachers working together with PSTs was seen as a positive for both, and the students in the class, who had more avenues for asking questions, seeking feedback and exploring ideas.

Geraldine (Teacher – UTAS) Yes. The benefits to my students are what motivated me to be part of the program. Paul (Teacher – UTAS) Absolutely, team teaching allowed for double the normal amount of student/teacher interaction and meant children had more avenues for asking questions, seeking feedback and exploring ideas.


61


RPP 1D (Connective-‐Linking Theory to Practice) Principals felt that working more closely with the university strengthened the professional ties and it supported the strategic goal of improving science curriculum and teacher competence with science. Teachers were able to provide support for PSTs with authentic teaching tasks such as assessment which built their confidence to teach science

Debbie (Principal – UTAS) To promote science in the curriculum, and to support the pre service needs of future teachers Francesca (Principal – UTAS) Excellent opportunity to support beginning teachers in their growth and development. Nellie (Teacher – UTAS) (To) ensure the children get to develop some scientific concepts this term, and motivate me to get a bit more science back into the curriculum! Pearl (PST – UTAS) I think all teachers should do it, it’s so vital, especially for when we start assessing science. I did it because I had no confidence… I was scared… but the class gave me confidence ...The classroom experience was good because it was ok to make mistakes, and be supported to learn.

Schools recognize their responsibility in helping to prepare the next generation of teachers, and the important role that classroom experience plays in linking theory from university with practice.

Adam (Principal – Deakin) “I like the fact that the university and the pre-‐service teachers are building that relationship, building their knowledge. It’s another school they get to go into, so they visit schools for their formal rounds but it’s another school and a different context and every school’s got a different culture and vibe so it just gives them another look.” Michael (Principal – Deakin) It’s good for us morally in that we’re involved with teacher education and we enjoy that we’ve got a professional responsibility to that

RPP 2A (Generative-‐Purposes) By working closely together, teacher and pre-‐service teacher plan the unit. As a result there is also reflection on practice leading to mutual learning, new perspectives, and an opening up of new possibilities for practice.

Rachel (Teacher -‐ UTAS) “I am learning from her and she is learning from me…mutual learning.” Angie (Teacher -‐ UTAS) “It has motivated me to try and keep teaching science in my classroom” Tony (Teacher -‐ UTAS) “Instead of trying to run the whole program myself it gives me a chance to watch and listen to the class and learn about what does and doesn’t work. This learning can then be passed onto the uni student along with solutions to help things run smoothly.” Rebecca (PST-‐ UTAS) “In my 3rd year Prac the teacher I had enjoyed teaching science and we did a fair bit of science and it built my confidence. Watching how other people do it gives you confidence. That combined with the unit we did gave me enough confidence.”

Aaron (Principal -‐ Deakin)


62


RPP 2B RPP (Generative-‐Institutional Structures) Partnerships develop momentum over time so that the school integrates the opportunities the program into the school’s calendar of events and curriculum program. One of the Deakin schools has initiated a science night that showcases the work the children have completed with the pre-‐service teachers, and to promote science within the school community.

“I came to the school in 2008 and it had been going for at least three or four years before my time here and it was something that a lot of people talked about… One of the things that I was really excited about was the fact that the actual tute was running here and then the practical side was done with our children...Even though there may not have been the great follow up to start with, that evolved over time and it actually excited our staff and got our staff talking and thinking about how we can run science in our school, and how we can use the Deakin program to better suit our kids and our curriculum. Over the years it’s evolved into that program still running and then I guess dovetailing into a science evening that we invite Deakin Science students along to help us run and it really showcases the work they’ve done, the work that our children have done, and that our community and the value that it has on science… “for me there were a lot of upsides to the actual program. Number one is we had some expertise in the teaching of science, number two it covered our quota on our curriculum for science and, number three it kind of up-‐skilled our staff on what to do and what to look for and how to run science lessons.”

RPP 2C (Generative-‐Nature of partnership) Programs have a way of changing over time as needs change or possibilities present themselves. In response to feedback and requests from schools, Deakin’s program has shifted from giving pre-‐service teachers an open choice for topics, to developing topics that fit in with the school’s theme or inquiry.

Arabella (Principal – Deakin) “Managing this from a partnership point of view would take some planning I guess. I see pre-‐service teachers working with our students in small groups, working on earth sciences, I saw a group working on water, another group solar power, etc. I’m wondering if there’s a way of negotiating with Deakin so that the work that the pre-‐service teachers are doing links to our integrated studies planner so that the work … extends or supports the other scientific enquiry that’s happening at the same time…” “I think there’d be some benefit if there was some sort of feedback or discussion at some point throughout the program that involved the classroom teachers, to talk about what the students were doing what they were observing and then feed that into the classroom teacher and have some discussion.”

RPP 2D (Generative-‐ Linking theory with practice) The meaningful experiences exhibited in primary school partner classrooms led to positive conceptions of science within veteran teachers. This increased confidence was and important implication of the partnership impacted: pre-‐service teachers,

Fran (Principal – RMIT) ‘I found that that’s been one of the benefits of the program is that our teachers actually are feeling more confident about teaching science and working with the kids in that regard…. ‘I think it’s also maybe teacher confidence. We have so much PD surrounding literacy and numeracy and we have coaches in the region who come out and do that sort of stuff but science is not necessarily had the same....’


63


veteran teachers and ultimately primary students. RPP 3A(Transformative-‐ Purposes) When teachers saw they could work with the PSTs and bounce ideas, it provided an opportunity to reflect on their own teaching of science and begin to look for more opportunities to teach science and to develop conceptual learning sequences.

Prue (teacher – UTAS) It allowed me to reflect upon my own teaching by observing and assisting. It reinforced just how different children learn and how much they rely on their prior knowledge and experience when completing tasks – particularly when predicting and recording observations and results. Sally (teacher-‐UTAS) Definitely a change in attitude. I found a fantastic book in our school library full of science activities and sheets ready to go for the children to fill in when they completed the experiment. It also has a teacher section for every experiment explaining what to look for and some guiding questions. I feel confident to take science now because of this book but it was watching James take science with my class that encouraged me to seek out a book such as this. Billie (teacher-‐UTAS) I use science more frequently in my curriculum now as a way to develop students’ ability to ask questions. Try to plan sequences of linked science lessons, instead of using them as one off sessions.

RPP 3B (Transformative-‐ Institutional Structures) Where schools and universities work together in a way that is valued by both, overtime the programs are more likely to be embedded within the ongoing structures and practices of both institutions. The ongoing partnership associated with the Melbourne University clinical model has resulted in schools depending on and modifying practices.

Jane (teacher – Uni Melb) So the partnership has been very important for us and it means that we can develop our units with your guidance and that’s been a very, very important part of our school and university partnership.

RPP 3C (Transformative-‐ Nature of Partnership) University staff were uniquely positioned to observe student-‐teacher growth over the long-‐term.

Andy (STEPS project team – RMIT) ‘One of the things I’ve noticed this year is the incredible changes in my uni students from when I first meet them in Science 1 and then how more confident they are at the end of Science 2. I felt like they’d become teachers in a way, they’re much more confident I can see it in their eyes and I see it in the ways they act in class so it’s just a really positive thing and they have lots of positive stuff to say about it.’


64


In this case, a full year involving a traditional science methods class followed by the primary school partnership placement. The time in schools seemed to accelerate student teachers’ understanding of the role and responsibilities of the teaching professional. RPP 3D (Transformative-‐ Linking theory with practice) Teachers undertake formal PD or post graduate studies linked to the program. PSTs develop a science portfolio of the teaching and learning and assessment activities, which they use as part of a job applications after graduation. Some PSTs take on science leadership roles in their schools.

Prue (Teacher – UTAS) My pre-‐service teacher assessed the students at the conclusion of the unit of work. This was most helpful to me as I needed this feedback for my mid-‐year reporting. It was also a very valuable thing for the pre-‐service teacher to do as part of her own self-‐assessment. Yvonne (PST – UTAS) In my first year out I got given science co-‐ordinator so I took on a science leadership role and went to network meetings and talked to other teachers....It’s taking me in a direction I didn’t expect. The experience has increased my confidence...Going in and actually teaching science.