Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
This article was downloaded by: [The University of Manchester Library]On: 21 November 2014, At: 04:37Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registeredoffice: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK
Educational Research and Evaluation:An International Journal on Theory andPracticePublication details, including instructions for authors andsubscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/nere20
Empowering school- and university-based teacher educators as assessors: Aschool – university cooperationKari Smith aa University of Bergen , NorwayPublished online: 30 May 2008.
To cite this article: Kari Smith (2007) Empowering school- and university-based teacher educatorsas assessors: A school – university cooperation, Educational Research and Evaluation: AnInternational Journal on Theory and Practice, 13:3, 279-293, DOI: 10.1080/13803610701632109
To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13803610701632109
PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE
Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the“Content”) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis,our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as tothe accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinionsand views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors,and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Contentshould not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sourcesof information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims,proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever orhowsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arisingout of the use of the Content.
This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Anysubstantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing,systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms &Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions
Empowering School- and
University-Based Teacher Educators
as Assessors: A school – university
cooperation
Kari Smith*University of Bergen, Norway
The focus of this paper is to present a model for empowering all parties in the Practicum triad,
school-based and university-based teacher educators, as well as student teachers, in assessment.
Assessment of the Practicum, which shares a number of commonalities with Work-Based Learning,
plays a crucial role in the certification of new teachers. However, we know little about the quality of
the assessment competence of the assessors. The assessment process is complex, and the partners
involved need to engage in a dialogue about what and how to carry out the assessment. The current
model is introduced as part of a new framework for student teachers’ Practicum within a school-
university partnership at a Norwegian university to guide such a dialogue.
Introduction
School-university cooperations and partnerships are becoming more and more
common in a number of countries such as the USA, UK, Australia, and Israel
(Ariav & Smith, 2005; Cambell & Kane, 1998; Christie, Conlon, Gemmell, & Long,
2004; Johnson & Johnson, 2002). In Norway, it is practiced by a number of colleges
of teacher education and by some universities (Smith & Samdal, 2006). School-
university partnerships in Norway do not, however, have a long history resulting in a
rich body of research and critical reflection as can be found in the context of North
American teacher education. The purpose of this position paper is to describe the
complex nature of student teachers’ practical experiences (Practicum) within the
framework of a university-school partnership and to present a model for empowering
all involved parties as assessors. A passing mark in the Practicum is an integrated part
of the qualification. However, the competence of the assessors has not been given due
*Department for Education and Health Promotion, Faculty of Psychology, University of Bergen,
Christiesgt. 13, 5020, Bergen, Norway. Email: [email protected]
Educational Research and EvaluationVol. 13, No. 3, June 2007, pp. 279 – 293
ISSN 1380-3611 (print)/ISSN 1744-4187 (online)/07/030279–15
� 2007 Taylor & Francis
DOI: 10.1080/13803610701632109
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
The
Uni
vers
ity o
f M
anch
este
r L
ibra
ry]
at 0
4:37
21
Nov
embe
r 20
14
attention in the literature. The model derives from a brief discussion of the value of
partnerships, the value of student teachers’ Practicum within partnerships, and issues
related to assessment and assessment competence of the assessors.
Since the Holmes Group presented its report in 1986, USA partnerships between
schools (as workplace) and universities have often been mentioned in the long-
standing discussion around the American educational system (Sands & Goodwin,
2005), as well as in the international dialogue on how to improve pre- as well as
inservice teacher education (Castle, Fox, & O’Hanlan Souder, 2006; Teitel, 1999).
Partnership programs led to the development of Professional Development Schools,
which serve as sites for student teachers’ clinical experiences and whose teaching staff
is invited to engage in professional development activities led by the university faculty.
A major aspect of such partnerships is shared responsibility of students’ Practicum,
which allows us to use the terms ‘‘school-based’’ and ‘‘university-based’’ teacher
educators (Koster, Korthagen, Wubbels, & Hoornweg, 1996). School-based teacher
educators are those teachers who welcome student teachers into their classrooms and
guide them in the beginning stages of a long professional development process. An
interesting point is, however, that in Norwegian the word is ‘‘veileder’’, the one who
leads the way, which is a good indication for how the role is perceived in Norway.
University-based teacher educators are the academic staff who teach educational
courses such as didactics and pedagogy at the university, supervise the students’
Practicum by visiting them, and who frequently have the final say concerning
assessment.
Even though much has been written about partnerships and PDS programs, there
is not much documentation on the effectiveness of the programs. Some of the more
recent studies show promising results (Rivlin, Hanushek, & Kain, 2002). Castle et al.
(2006) found that the assessment of student teachers’ competencies of those who had
done their Practicum within a PDS program was significantly higher on several
standards of the Interstate New Teacher Assessment and Support Consortium
(INTASC) than for students who had been more randomly placed in schools. A
possible explanation for the very favorable findings in the above study is that in the
PDS program the students spent much more time in school than in other programs.
In addition to the fact that they gained more hands on experience of teaching, the
extended time student teachers spent in schools might have led to shared
understanding by all involved parties of realistic goals for the Practicum within the
specific context of the school and the extent to which the goals were achieved.
There is wide recognition of the importance of the Practicum in teacher education
(e.g., Korthagen, Kessels, Koster, Lagerwerf, & Wubbels, 2001; Smith & Lev Ari,
2005). The need of student teachers to gain access to practitioners’ tacit knowledge of
teaching is expanding (e.g., Cambell & Kane, 1998). The Practicum is seen as the
component of teacher education which shares several similarities with Work-Based
Learning (WBL). In WBL, the workplace (in this case the school) is perceived as a
site of knowledge with its own curriculum (Brodie & Irving, 2007) within a specific
context. Korthagen (2004) is only one of many who claim that teaching is highly
contextualized and so are the characteristics for good teaching.
280 K. Smith
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
The
Uni
vers
ity o
f M
anch
este
r L
ibra
ry]
at 0
4:37
21
Nov
embe
r 20
14
In WBL, learning is seen as the product of students’ activities and their reflections
on workplace experiences rather than as a product of teachers’ or tutors’ lectures
(Walsh, 2007). Walsh (2007) refers to Biggs (2003), who argued that professional
skills consist of declarative knowledge in the relevant knowledge base, procedural
knowledge, skills needed to apply the declarative knowledge, and conditional know-
ledge, which is awareness of when to apply declarative and procedural knowledge.
By looking at the literature on teacher knowledge, one can easily compare Biggs’
definition of professional skills in WBL to Shulman’s (1986) definition of teacher
knowledge consisting of ‘‘content knowledge, pedagogical content knowledge,
curricula knowledge, general pedagogical knowledge, knowledge of aims and purposes
knowledge of learners, and knowledge of educational contexts, settings and
governance’’ (Gudmundsdottir & Shulman, 1987, p. 60). What distinguishes WBL
from Shulman’s teacher knowledge is the emphasis on procedural knowledge and how
to apply the complex relevant declarative knowledge as listed by Shulman.
There seems to be more to teaching than the product of theoretical knowledge and
practical skills. There seems to be a space in which autonomous and professional
decision-making takes place that is not always directly related to the acquired theory
and mastery of teaching techniques. Brunstad (in press) has presented the idea of
such a space of autonomous and professional decision-making as comparable to
decision-making by army officers in crisis situations. Figure 1 provides an illustrative
overview of this autonomous professional space. The act of teaching also seems to
take place in such an autonomous space. Professional action in this space is exercised
when unexpected situations develop and immediate decisions need to be made. The
argument is that teaching is full of those unexpected situations in which the teacher
needs to act quickly and profoundly.
In teacher education, the space of professional autonomy is given less attention
because it cannot be translated into academic planning with curricula and course
syllabi. It is applied spontaneously and develops directly from the immediate
situation. As is shown in Figure 1, it is based on theoretical knowledge and practical
skills. However, the claim in the present paper is that this is not enough, and there is
even more to teaching than what lends itself to inclusion in predescribed goals.
Behavior in the space of professional autonomy reflects personality characteristics,
values, beliefs, courage, and imagination in addition to professional knowledge. In
a study of Norwegian mentoring activities, however, Sundli (2007) found that
discussions between student teachers and their mentors in the post-teaching feedback
Figure 1. Professional decision-making (Adaptation of Brunstad’s model from 2007)
A School – University Cooperation 281
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
The
Uni
vers
ity o
f M
anch
este
r L
ibra
ry]
at 0
4:37
21
Nov
embe
r 20
14
session focus on ‘‘how the pupils followed the teaching program and how the students
managed to get through their planned work’’ (p. 209). The student teachers’ behavior
and actions within the space of professional autonomy seem to receive less attention
during the feedback sessions. WBL stands for a more holistic nature of the learning
experience, linking theory, practice, and spontaneous actions within particular
situations and including professional actions in the space of professional autonomy.
Therefore, WBL seems to be able to make up for the lack of cohesion that is
experienced in many teacher education programs (e.g., Hoban, 2005; Korthagen,
Loughran, & Russell, 2006).
In summary, in this discussion paper it is argued that teaching cannot be reduced
to measurable techniques. The complexity of teaching reaches far beyond theoretical
knowledge and practical skills. The teacher is required to act in response to speci-
fic situations within unique contexts. In such situations, the teacher exercises pro-
fessional autonomy. In the present paper, it is argued that predescribed criteria for
assessment of student teachers’ teaching during the Practicum are therefore
insufficient. Instead, a model is presented that seeks to empower all parties involved
in the Practicum triad in assessment: school-based teacher educators, university-
based teacher educators, and the student teachers.
Assessment of the Practicum
A key function of teacher educators, either being school based or university based, is
the responsibility for assessing the student teachers’ teaching competence. This is,
however, perhaps one of the most difficult tasks, as the assessment serves multiple
functions which seem to be contradictory. On the one hand, the function of
assessment is to present the student teachers with feedback and guidance to enhance
reflection and improve the student teachers’ practice. Hence, the assessment is
formative and aimed at a learning curve. On the other hand, the assessment holds a
summative and judgmental function intended to protect the profession from
incompetence (Smith, 2006).
Not surprisingly, therefore, there seems to be a great deal of confusion regarding
the assessment of teaching during the Practicum. Besides the general two-sided focus
of the assessment, this is due to a number of more specific questions that arise. First,
the question is what the object of assessment is and how it should be defined. Is it
teaching performance or teaching competence? Do we assess what we actually see
when observing teaching, or do we assess the potential competence for teaching
which we believe we detect in the students in the reflective dialogues we carry out
with them? The second question is about good teaching. What is ‘‘good teaching’’?
Since different parties are involved, there can be disagreement about the standards
that are required. Is there agreement between school-based and university-based
teacher educators regarding expectations and required standards? The third question
has to do with how defined and agreed upon criteria and standards are measured.
When externally prescribed standards are applied, assessment of teaching is likely to
take the form of check offs on a list of competencies. Has the student teacher acquired
282 K. Smith
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
The
Uni
vers
ity o
f M
anch
este
r L
ibra
ry]
at 0
4:37
21
Nov
embe
r 20
14
the competence, and to what extent is the competence mastered? The practical
application of such a view was widely spread some decades ago (Korthagen, 2004),
and it seems that it is receiving increased popularity in today’s era of accountability
and standards of measurable achievements. In this view, teaching is seen mainly as a
technical activity, and the main criterion for good teaching is producing high scores in
high stakes testing contexts (Cochran-Smith, 2006). Such a view simplifies the
assessment task: either the teacher ‘‘delivers’’ or not. Policy-makers who want to see
results and numbers, however, are likely to be satisfied.
But is it that simple? Justification for prescribed assessment procedures in many
contexts is grounded in the need to achieve consistency due to external standards and
inspection (Whitehead & Fitzgerald, 2007) but it is most likely at the expense of
validity. As has been argued before, the assessment of teaching competencies is a
complex activity. Korthagen (2004) referred to a definition of competence as ‘‘an
integrated body of knowledge, skills and attitudes, and as such, they represent a
potential for behavior, and not the behavior itself’’ (p. 80). This means that
competencies cannot be assessed directly on the outside, as they are internal and
hidden to other people. What we can assess, is behavior in situations which trigger
performance of the competencies.
The central question we need to ask when assessing student teachers’ Practicum
seems to be whether we are mainly interested in what we can actually observe or in
looking at the underlying potential of the student who is in the middle of a learning
process? Therefore, a checklist of competencies seems to be a superficial solution to a
much more complex challenge, and we are in danger of falling into what Cochran-
Smith (2005) called the outcomes trap, in which all learning products are believed to
be observable and measurable.
Finally, on top of the questions related to the assessment of the Practicum, there is
a tension in many school-university partnerships concerning the responsibility for
assessment of the Practicum. Does it lie with the school-based teacher educators, who
are likely to have contact frequently with the student teacher during the practicum?
Or does it lie with the university-based teacher educator, who visits a few times during
this important period and keeps a distance? Christie et al. (2004) claimed that it is
difficult for the latter group to delegate responsibility to their colleagues in school,
even though the school-based teacher educators have more evidence to base the
assessment on. However, school-based teacher educators are likely to feel a tension
between their roles as supporters and critical friends and their roles as assessors,
especially in relation to the summative assessment (grading). On the other hand, if
information collected by school-based educators does not create the foundation for
assessment, the validity of assessment is at stake, as school-based teacher educators
are the ones who know the context of teaching and should be able to assess the
appropriateness of actions in that specific setting. They accumulate more practical
and nondocumented evidence of the student teachers’ various teaching performances
and serve as partners in the student teachers’ reflective dialogue.
The tension partly grounds in concerns about teachers’ competencies to assess
student teachers. As already pointed out, assessment in teacher education holds
A School – University Cooperation 283
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
The
Uni
vers
ity o
f M
anch
este
r L
ibra
ry]
at 0
4:37
21
Nov
embe
r 20
14
several functions (Frenkel & Smith, 2006), and the two major ones are modeling
sound assessment to future teachers (formative) and to serve as gatekeeper for the
teaching profession (summative). Furthermore, student teachers will, in turn,
become the assessors of pupils’ learning, and the way they are being assessed as
students shapes their assessment approaches taken as teachers (Butterfield,
Williams, & Marr, 1999; Graham, 2005; Smith, 2006). The formative function is
to a large extent based on assessment processes which strengthen learning and
becomes a skill which is essential to all teachers (Black, Harrison, Lee, Marshall, &
Wiliam, 2003; Stiggins, 2002; Wiliam, Lee, Harrison, & Black, 2004). The
summative function and role of gate-keeping is essential in protecting the teaching
profession from incompetence. Both functions of assessment require a high level of
assessment competence, and a serious challenge is the competence-level of school-
based and university-based teacher educators in assessment. How skilled are
assessors of the Practicum in applying the various assessment tools?
The research literature does not yet offer evidence-based answers to the above
questions and tensions. The topic does not seem to have caught the interest of teacher
education researchers, even though it is a topic frequently discussed around lunch
tables in many teacher education contexts. In Norway, assessment has, until now, not
been a focus for teacher education, so teachers in schools have not been well educated
in assessment during their preservice education. The picture is to a large extent
similar up to today, in spite of the fact that assessment is often spotlighted in political
discussions about education. It can be assumed that the majority of the current
student teachers in Norway are not well informed within the area of assessment. To
find evidence-based answers to all the questions and issues related to assessment, a
dialectic process engaging all teacher educators is required. It requires intensive
cooperation between the school and the university. In partnership programs which
claim to share the responsibility for teacher education, close cooperation is needed in
order to develop mutual trust and full understanding of how the responsibility for
assessment is shared. In the next section, a model of empowerment to improve such
cooperation is proposed.
Empowering Teacher Educators and Students in Assessment
Realizing that the assessment competence of all parties involved in the Practicum is
crucial to the quality of teacher education led to the development of a model for
empowering school-based and university-based teacher educators and preservice
students in assessment (Figure 2). Theoretical knowledge about educational
assessment, as well as hands-on experience are part of the model. It engages all
parties in joint action research projects around issues related to assessment of student
teachers’ Practicum. It is assumed that through those action research projects, school-
based and university-based teacher educators are personally experiencing how
assessment can be used for professional development purposes for student teachers
and are more likely to implement assessment as a learning tool in their own roles as
teacher educators. Similarly, by participating in the action research projects, student
284 K. Smith
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
The
Uni
vers
ity o
f M
anch
este
r L
ibra
ry]
at 0
4:37
21
Nov
embe
r 20
14
teachers will become knowledgeable about assessment and at the same time
experience learning-oriented assessment. This experience is intended to be
transferred into their own teaching in the future.
The model consists of seven steps.
Step 1. Joint workshop for all parties (school-based teacher educators, university-
based teacher educators, and student teachers) in the Practicum triad. The workshop
focuses on the basic level of knowledge about and understanding of assessment
paradigms, as expressed in assessment activities. A more detailed list of topics
includes: assessment terminology, criteria for quality assessment, assessment and
learning, ethical issues in assessment, assessment instruments, assessment criteria,
and communities of practice and action research.
Step 2. Joint discussion of the purpose and aims of the Practicum within the
framework of Norwegian steering documents. In order to strengthen the construct
validity of the assessment, all parties need to have a shared understanding of the role
of the Practicum in the teacher education program and use a common language when
discussing aims and focus for assessment. The close relevance of WBL to teacher
education is introduced. The complex relations between performance of teaching,
competencies for teaching, and critical reflection for future learning will be the main
focus of the discussion. This step deals with the ‘‘what’’ of the assessment.
Step 3. Joint discussion of what assessment tools to use (based on information
introduced in Step 1) for the specific aims of the Practicum and when the assessment
should take place. Reaching agreement about processes of formative assessment
including the role of feedback, how and by whom, and how to design the components
of summative assessment is a central focus of this step. Any discussion on the
Figure 2. Model of empowerment in assessment
A School – University Cooperation 285
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
The
Uni
vers
ity o
f M
anch
este
r L
ibra
ry]
at 0
4:37
21
Nov
embe
r 20
14
appropriateness of various instruments takes the context of the Practicum into
consideration.
Step 4. Joint discussion around the definition of assessment criteria, which involves
developing assessment rubrics to be used with various assessment tools. Included in
this step is the training in the application of rubrics to create a common under-
standing of descriptors with the purpose of strengthening the reliability of the
assessment.
Step 5. Joint discussion about the delegation of responsibility for formative and
summative assessment. The school-based teacher educators will probably play a
bigger role in the formative assessment process, whereas the university-based teacher
educators are likely to be heavily involved in the summative process. The students are
important informants throughout the whole assessment process. For successful
completion of this step, acceptance of and respect for each other’s expertise is crucial.
Each party owns information essential to the assessment process. The student
teachers can best understand their personal learning processes and outcomes and
need to be encouraged to articulate their reflections so that they become accessible to
the teacher educators and properly documented for assessment purposes. The
expertise of school-based teacher educators is the practice of teaching within the
context of specific schools, which needs to be made accessible to the students.
University-based teacher educators usually have a wider knowledge of the theoretical
body of knowledge which student teachers are expected to possess. The expertise of
each group of participants in the assessment process should become shared
knowledge during the discussions undertaken in Step 5.
Step 6. Joint discussion of how to reach agreement among the participants when
summative assessment is undertaken and decisions are being made. The moderation
process is essential in the model to create common ground. Assessment tools used
lend themselves to subjective assessment, participants engage in the process with
different focuses, and opinions will differ. During the moderation process, a shared
final summative assessment is sought that is accepted by all parties.
Step 7. Joint action research involving all parties examining the effectiveness of the
model. This step documents the implementation process of the model. By
documenting the learning process and the continuous reflection of the practicum
triad, a constant improvement of the model is aimed for. The model shares common
features with WBL models, which raise questions about when changes occur, what
has been learnt, the value of learning, steps to be taken in future planning of goals,
and designing routes to achieve those goals (Brodie & Irving, 2007).
The significance of the model may be in its situated nature, thereby accounting for
the recognized need to reach shared understanding of what the required competences
of teaching within specific schools are (e.g., Korthagen, 2004; Stotsky, 2006).
286 K. Smith
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
The
Uni
vers
ity o
f M
anch
este
r L
ibra
ry]
at 0
4:37
21
Nov
embe
r 20
14
Different contexts require different competencies. Therefore, it is the metacognitive
understanding of a situation and the ability to select the appropriate behavior for this
context which is of professional value. An additional strength of the model is that it
supports both teacher educators and students in developing reflective competence as
a tool for future career-long professional development (e.g., Day, 1999, 2004;
Dewey, 1933; Korthagen & Wubbels, 2001; Schon, 1987). Lee (2005) pointed at the
value of developing student teachers’ reflective competence:
The central goal of reflective teacher education is to develop teachers’ reasoning about
why they employ certain instructional strategies and how they can improve their teaching
to have a positive effect on students. Therefore it is recommended that preservice
teachers engage in reflective activities not only to better learn new ideas but also to
sustain professional growth after leaving the program. (Lee, 2005, p. 699)
When it comes to reflection, again the similarities with WBL are noticeable. The
student teacher is expected to recognize when learning takes place, what the value of
the learning is, and what is needed for future learning (Brodie & Irving, 2007). These
are all internal reflective activities grounded in the specific context in which learning
takes place. These activities are not easily observable performances and therefore
difficult to assess. Within the Practicum triad including the school-based and
university-based teacher educator, and the student teacher, it is the latter who holds
the key to the inner chamber where the reflection takes place around behavior and
actions in the space of professional autonomy. It is the student who can inform the
others about the reflective processes he/she is going through.
In addition to the internal and implicit nature of reflection, the concept of
reflection is often seen as vague in itself and as such difficult to assess (Lee, 2005;
Rodgers, 2002; Smith, 2005). More than 70 years after Dewey’s (1933) elaborate
thoughts on reflection, the concept is still lacking an explicit definition, which causes
the danger of problematic construct validity of the assessment, thus reducing the
quality of the assessment.
In answer to the inherent difficulties to assess internal and hard-to-define reflective
processes, in many educational contexts the checklists of competencies have been
replaced by standards which give a more general description of required teacher
knowledge and skills. Numerous countries have developed standards for new teachers
(see Smith, 2005), and even though there is skepticism and criticism with respect to
the overuse of standards for teaching (Apple, 2001; Burroughs, 2001; Cochran-Smith,
2005; Delandshere & Arens, 2003; Murray, 2001), the development of standards in
teaching ‘‘have taken the teaching profession a large step forward’’ (Smith, 2005,
p. 100). In Norway, the standards for teacher education are described in a framework
for teacher education and reflected in five required competencies of teaching:
. competence in the subject matter taught;
. didactical competence;
. social competence;
A School – University Cooperation 287
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
The
Uni
vers
ity o
f M
anch
este
r L
ibra
ry]
at 0
4:37
21
Nov
embe
r 20
14
. competence for change and development;
. professional ethical competence.
During the Practicum, the student teachers’ performance is assessed with these
competencies in mind. Due to their broad definition, the list serves as focus points for
assessment instead of checklists. By using standard guidelines instead of concrete
checklists, the extent to which students perform at the required standards during the
Practicum becomes a subjective opinion allowing differences between students. This
increases the importance of dialogue between the triad members to ensure fair,
reliable, and valid assessment of the Practicum.
In summary, the intended significance of the empowerment model proposed here
is that it creates a shared understanding of what is to be assessed, as well as the
explicit standard qualities for ‘‘passing the Practicum’’, without turning it into a
decontextualized checklist. The next challenge in the assessment after developing an
agreement on what to assess, is finding the best suitable ways to assess, that is, the
assessment tools. The next section shortly positions the model in light of suitable
assessment tools.
Assessment Tools
Yet another question to ask is what tools do we use to assess student teachers’
learning and teaching during the Practicum? Assessment is based on collected
evidence and, as already pointed out, it is not quite clear of what we are collecting
evidence, and by whom evidence is collected (Cochran-Smith, 2006). Similar to
WBL, during the Practicum it is the professional behavior that needs to be assessed,
and, as such, the assessment cannot be decontextualized (Walsh, 2007). The key to
quality assessment lies in the assessment tools and the ways these are being applied.
Common tools for assessing teaching mentioned in the literature are observations
and problem-based enquiries, action research, cases, critical incidents, and port-
folio (Darling-Hammond & Snyder, 2000; Smith, 2005). Whereas observation is
perceived to be the most appropriate tool to assess teaching performance, the other
tools are also used for collecting documentation on learning, professional develop-
ment, and the student teachers’ reflective processes. All these tools are open and
subjective assessment tools, and the group of assessors needs to develop joint criteria
for assessment and scoring rubrics. Therefore, they should be used in a context of
extensive processes of moderation (Step 5). The moderation process itself requires
close cooperation between the school-based and university-based teacher educators.
They need to reach an agreement on an assessment in which all involved have full
professional confidence.
The portfolio tool in particular seems suitable in light of the empowerment model
for its encompassing nature. Portfolio has become a common learning and assess-
ment tool in teacher education. Recent literature on the use of portfolio as a tool
to enhance reflection points out that the portfolio itself does not lead to deep
reflective processes in student teachers. The quality of reflection is more related to the
288 K. Smith
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
The
Uni
vers
ity o
f M
anch
este
r L
ibra
ry]
at 0
4:37
21
Nov
embe
r 20
14
type of feedback and guidance students get when working with the portfolio
(Klenowski, 2000; Klenowski, Askew, & Carnell, 2006; Mansvelder-Longayroux,
Beijaard, & Verloop, 2007; Orland-Barak & Kremer-Hayon, 2001; Smith & Tillema,
2006). The portfolio tool seems promising in light of the empowerment model
presented in this paper. The dialogical negotiation process between school-based and
university-based teacher educators and the student teachers that is at the core of the
model is likely to add value to the use of student portfolio as an assessment tool of
students’ reflective processes, progress, and achievements during the Practicum. The
content of the portfolio represents a shared understanding of what to assess as
negiotiated between the triad members in Steps 4, 5, and 6. It gives room to a report
on joint action research (Step 7). At the same time, the portfolio tool is open enough
to start from guidelines and standards instead of predefined and closed checklists and
gives room for further reflective discussion.
Conclusion
The discussion in the present paper deals with difficulties in developing an
understanding of the complex nature of teaching for assessment purposes in teacher
education and the need to find suitable ways of assessing teaching during the student
teachers’ Practicum. There is an increasing urgency for such discussions in the
present era of accountability, in which standards and measurable achievements press
for rather restrictive views on teaching (Cochran-Smith, 2006). In this paper, it was
argued that teaching cannot be reduced to measurable techniques. Rather, the
essence of teaching goes beyond theoretical knowledge and practical skills. The space
beyond acquired knowledge and skills, the space in which the teacher is required to
act in light of the context and the specific situation within that context, is called the
space of professional autonomy. The claim put forward in this paper is that
predescribed criteria used when assessing right or wrong actions and behavior of
student teachers lack construct validity and are therefore insufficient for assessment in
a work-based learning context. With the intention to ensure high quality assessment
of the Practicum, a model for empowering all parties in the Practicum triad (school-
based and university-based teacher educators, student teachers) was introduced. The
model is planned to be introduced into the new partnership-model developed at a
Norwegian university. However, based on current international discussions con-
cerning what is considered good teaching and standards for teachers, it can be
assumed that the relevance of the model reaches beyond the Norwegian context.
How is the proposed model different from what has been the tradition? The quality
of students’ Practicum depends on numerous factors, such as the logistics, the type of
school, and the professional quality of the many actors involved. A basic principle of
the practical component of partnership programs is the shared responsibility for the
Practicum between schools and university, including responsibility for assessment. In
most traditional programs, the responsibility lies mainly with the university, and
school-based educators are often chosen by the university faculty as a result of their
personal and professional contacts with successful teachers. The students observe and
A School – University Cooperation 289
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
The
Uni
vers
ity o
f M
anch
este
r L
ibra
ry]
at 0
4:37
21
Nov
embe
r 20
14
teach in their classes and are visited by the university-based educator, who ultimately
has the responsibility for setting the final grade. This is what Rodgers and Keil (2007)
call the traditional student supervision triad.
The model that was presented in this paper takes as a starting point a true
partnership between school-based and university-based teacher educators and
student teachers. The heart of a true partnership lies in the understanding that
parties who share a common goal cannot separately reach that goal and need to join
forces (Barnett, Hall, Berg, & Camarena, 1999). In partnership models, the intention
is that the responsibility to achieve the desired goal is, as far as possible, equally
divided.
Some of the criticism on school-university partnership programs is that the
responsibility is not really shared, often due to the fact that university faculty is
reluctant to give up the full responsibility for assessing students’ learning and to fully
trust school-based teacher educators’ practical knowledge (Ariav & Smith, 2005;
Christie et al. 2004; Koster et al., 1996). But the role of school-based teacher
educators is rightfully receiving increased attention recently. For instance, Smith and
Lev Ari (2005) found that students rated the Practicum as the most significant
component of their teacher education as long as 4 years after graduation. Within the
Practicum, the school-based educators were found to be the most significant
contributors to learning and development. There is, however, currently not sufficient
research which explains and helps us understand in which ways school-based
educators influence student teachers (Graham, 2006). The quality of communication
and shared understanding of goals among all parties involved seem to be a major
criterion for a successful Practicum (Graham, 2006), as well as for quality assessment
of student achievements. By implementing the model, we hope to gain more insight
into the role of school-based teacher educators in a successful Practicum and reach
better equilibrium between all participants involved.
Challenges to be expected when introducing the new model for the Practicum are
multiple. First of all, based on experiences in other contexts and on research,
university teachers are often reluctant to share the final responsibility for the
assessment, which leads to a destructive feeling of inequality in the partnership,
frequently expressed by school-based teacher educators. There is a tension caused by
a top-down attitude, sometimes unintended, by the university staff (Ariav & Smith,
2006).
Moreover, its implementation requires time, a thing which is not in surplus to
school-based teacher educators and which university staff feel is spent at the expense
of research, meaning less promotion opportunities. Time is not only required during
the initial implementation, but after that, it is also a major factor in sustaining the
model. The implementation needs to be repeated when new partners join the triad. A
semiversion of the model could be developed for use with new student teachers,
which is probably the group that changes most frequently.
An additional challenge is to accept the fact that there is no right or best way to
assess student teachers’ learning and teaching experiences during the Practicum.
What is appropriate for one context might not be the best approach in another
290 K. Smith
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
The
Uni
vers
ity o
f M
anch
este
r L
ibra
ry]
at 0
4:37
21
Nov
embe
r 20
14
context. A uniform assessment model for all is as unacceptable as a uniform list of
competencies required of all teachers teaching all subjects in all contexts. Hence, the
model can best serve as a guideline but in itself cannot become a fixed model of
Practicum assessment. This may render people who are involved in implementing the
new model uncertain and make them more unwilling to adopt and further distribute
it. The assessment process will remain complex, and all partners involved need to
be empowered and engage in a dialogue and search for appropriate assessment
processes. The model presented in this paper will be tried out in the near future. The
many challenges related to putting it into practice deserve serious attention in the
pre-, during-, and post-implementation processes.
References
Apple, M. W. (2001). Educating the ‘‘right’’ way: Markets, standards, God, and inequality. New York:
Routledge.
Ariav, T., & Smith, K. (2005). Creating partnerships between teacher education institutions and
the field: An international view with the emphasis on the Professional Development School
(PDS) model for professional development. In M. Silberstein, M. Ben-Peretz, & N. Greenfeld
(Eds.), New trends in teacher education: Partnerships between colleges and schools – The Israeli story
(pp. 21 – 67). Tel Aviv, Israel: Mofet Institute.
Barnett, B. G., Hall, G. E., Berg, J. H., & Camarena, M. M. (1999). A typology of partnerships for
promoting innovation. Journal of School Leadership, 9(6), 484 – 510.
Biggs, J. (2003). Teaching for quality learning at university. Maidenhead, UK: SRHE.
Black, P., Harrison, C., Lee, C., Marshall, B., & Wiliam, D. (2003). Assessment for learning: Putting
it into practice. Maidenhead, UK: Open University Press.
Brodie, P., & Irving, K. (2007). Assessment in work-based learning: Investigating a pedagogical
approach to enhance student learning. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 32(1),
11 – 19.
Brunstad, P. (in press). Military professional actions: More than knowledge and skills. PACEM.
Burroughs, R. (2001). Composing standards and composing teachers: The problem of National
Board Certification. Journal of Teacher Education, 52(2), 223 – 232.
Butterfield, S., Williams, A., & Marr, A. (1999). Talking about assessment: Mentor-student
dialogues about pupils assessment in initial teacher training. Assessment in Education, 6(2),
225 – 246.
Cambell, A., & Kane, I. (1998). School-based teacher education: Telling tales from a fictional primary
school. London: Cromwell Press.
Castle, S., Fox, R. K., & O’Hanlan Souder, K. (2006). Do professional development schools
(PDSs) make a difference? A Comparative study of PDS and non-PDS teacher candidates.
Journal of Teacher Education, 57(1), 65 – 80.
Christie, F., Conlon, T., Gemmell, T., & Long, A. (2004). Effective partnerships: Perceptions of
PGCE student teacher supervision. European Journal of Teacher Education, 27(2), 109 – 123.
Cochran-Smith, M. (2005). Teacher education and the outcomes trap. Journal of Teacher Education,
56(5), 411 – 417.
Cochran-Smith, M. (2006). Taking stock in 2006: Evidence, evidence everywhere. Journal of
Teacher Education, 57(1), 6 – 12.
Darling-Hammond, L., & Snyder, J. (2000). Authentic assessment of teaching in context. Teaching
and Teacher Education, 16, 523 – 545.
Day, C. (1999). Developing teachers: The challenges of lifelong learning. London: Falmer Press.
Day, C. (2004). A passion for teaching. London, New York: Routledge Falmer.
A School – University Cooperation 291
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
The
Uni
vers
ity o
f M
anch
este
r L
ibra
ry]
at 0
4:37
21
Nov
embe
r 20
14
Delandshere, G., & Arens, S. A. (2003). Examining the quality of the evidence in preservice teacher
portfolios. Journal of Teacher Education, 54(1), 57 – 73.
Dewey, J. (1933). How we think: A restatement of the relation of reflective thinking to the educative
process. Boston: Heath and Company.
Frenkel, P., & Smith, K. (Eds.). (2006). How to assess what: Functions of assessment in teacher
education. Tel Aviv, Israel: Mofet Institute.
Graham, B. (2006). Conditions for successful field experiences: Perceptions of cooperating
teachers. Teaching and Teacher Education, 22, 1118 – 1129.
Graham, P. (2005). Classroom-based assessment: Changing knowledge and practice through
preservice teacher education. Teaching and Teacher Education, 21, 607 – 621.
Gudmundsdottir, S., & Shulman, L. (1987). Pedagogical content knowledge in social studies.
Scandinavian Journal of Educational Research, 31, 59 – 70.
Hoban, G. F. (Ed.). (2005). The missing link in teacher education design: Developing a multi-linked
conceptual framework. Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Springer.
Holmes Group. (1990). Tomorrow’s schools. EAST Lansing, MI: Author.
Johnson, B., & Johnson, K. (2002). Learning from warthogs and oxpeckers: Promoting mutualism
in school and university research partnerships. Educational Action Research, 10(1), 67 – 83.
Klenowski, V. (2000). Portfolios: Promoting teaching. Assessment in Education, 7(2), 215 – 236.
Klenowski, V., Askew, S., & Carnell, E. (2006). Portfolios for learning, assessment and professional
development in higher education. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 31(3),
267 – 286.
Korthagen, F., Loughran, J., & Russell, T. (2006). Developing fundamental principles for
teacher education programs and practices. Teaching and Teacher Education, 22, 1020 – 1041.
Korthagen, F., & Wubbels, T. (2001). Learning from practice. In F. A. J. Korthagen, J. Kessels,
B. Koster, B. Lagerwerf, & T. Wubbels (Eds.), Linking practice and theory: The Pedagogy of
realistic teacher education (pp. 32 – 50). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Korthagen, F. A. J. (2004). In search of the essence of a good teacher: Towards a more holistic
approach in teacher education. Teaching and Teacher Education, 20, 77 – 97.
Korthagen, F. A. J., Kessels, J., Koster, B., Lagerwerf, B., & Wubbels, T. (Eds.). (2001). Linking
practice and theory—The pedagogy of teacher education. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Koster, B., Korthagen, F. A. J., Wubbels, T., & Hoornweg, J. (1996). Roles, competencies and
training of teacher educators: A new challenge. In E. Befring (Ed.), Teacher education for
equality (pp. 397 – 411). Oslo, Norway: Lobo Grafisk.
Lee, H. J. (2005). Understanding and assessing preservice teachers’ reflective thinking. Teaching
and Teacher Education, 21, 699 – 715.
Mansvelder-Longayroux, D. D., Beijaard, D., & Verloop, N. (2007). The portfolio as a tool for
stimulating reflection by student teachers. Teaching and Teacher Education, 23, 47 – 62.
Murray, F. B. (2001). The overreliance of accreditors on consensus standards. Journal of Teacher
Education, 52(2), 211 – 222.
Orland-Barak, L., & Kremer-Hayon, L. (2001, August). Portfolios as evidence of learning: And what
remains ‘‘untold’’. Paper presented at the biennial meeting of the European Association for
Learning and Instruction (EARLI), Fribourg, Switzerland.
Rivlin, S. G., Hanushek, E. A., & Kain, J. F. (2002). Teachers, schools and academic achievement.
Retrieved July 11, 2002 from http://edpro.standford.edu/eah/papers/basic.july2002.
Rodgers, A., & Keil, V. L. (2007). Restructuring a traditional student teacher supervision model:
Fostering enhanced professional development and mentoring within a professional develop-
ment school context. Teaching and Teacher Education, 23, 63 – 80.
Rodgers, A. E. (2002). Defining reflection: Another look at John Dewey and reflective thinking.
Teachers College Record, 104(4), 842 – 866.
Sands, D. I., & Goodwin, L. D. (2005). Shared responsibility for teacher preparation: An
exploratory study of the match between skills of clinical teachers and those required of their
teacher candidates. Teaching and Teacher Education, 21, 817 – 828.
292 K. Smith
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
The
Uni
vers
ity o
f M
anch
este
r L
ibra
ry]
at 0
4:37
21
Nov
embe
r 20
14
Schon, D. A. (1987). Educating the reflective practitioner. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Shulman, L. (1986). Those who understand: Growth of knowledge in teaching. Educational
Researcher, 15, 4 – 14.
Smith, K. (2005). New methods and perspectives in teacher evaluation. In D. Beijaard, P. Meijer,
G. Morine-Dershimer, & H. Tillema (Eds.), Teacher professional development in changing
conditions (pp. 95 – 114). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Springer.
Smith, K. (2006). The function of modeling: Teacher educators as assessors of student teachers’
learning. In P. Frenkel & K. Smith (Eds.), How to assess what? Functions of assessment in teacher
education (pp. 46 – 66). Tel Aviv, Israel: Mofet Institute.
Smith, K., & Lev Ari, L. (2005). The place of Practicum in pre-service teacher education. Asian
Pacific Journal of Teacher Education, 33(3), 289 – 302.
Smith, K., & Samdal, O. (2006). Project for developing partnerships between university and schools.
Project application to Norwegian Research Council, Bergen, Norway: University of Bergen.
Smith, K., & Tillema, H. (2006). Portfolios for professional development: A research journey. New York:
Nova Science.
Stiggins, R. J. (2002). Assessment crisis: The absence of assessment for learning. Phi Delta Kappan,
83(10), 758 – 765.
Stotsky, S. (2006). Who should be accountable for what beginning teachers need to know? Journal
of Teacher Education, 57(3), 256 – 268.
Sundli, L. (2007). Mentoring: A new mantra for education? Teaching and Teacher Education, 23,
201 – 214.
Teitel, L. (1999). Looking toward the future by understanding the past: The historical context of
professional development schools. Peabody Journal of Education, 74(3/4), 6 – 21.
Walsh, A. (2007). An exploration of Biggs’ constructive alignment in the context of work-based
learning. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 32(1), 79 – 87.
Whitehead, J., & Fitzgerald, B. (2007). Experiencing and evidencing learning through self-study:
New ways of working with mentors and trainees in a training school partnership. Teaching and
Teacher Education, 23, 1 – 12.
Wiliam, D., Lee, C., Harrison, C., & Black, P. (2004). Teachers developing assessment for
learning: Impact on student achievement. Assessment in Education, 11(1), 49 – 65.
A School – University Cooperation 293
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
The
Uni
vers
ity o
f M
anch
este
r L
ibra
ry]
at 0
4:37
21
Nov
embe
r 20
14
