School–university partnerships and physical education teacher education student learning: A fruitful division of labour?

Professional learning theory

The research is rooted in an understanding of the complexity of learning generally, and PETE student learning in particular. Because the social relationships that student teachers develop in school and university contexts are of pivotal importance to their learning, this study is framed by situative theories that focus on the social nature of learning (Barab and Duffy, 2000: 26). The decision to focus specifically on PETE student professional learning was taken to address the dearth of research in this area in Ireland, and for its potential contribution to the wider student learning literature.

Learning is typified in situative theories as an increase in the capacity to contribute meaningfully to the practices of a specific community. Therefore, learning is construed as collaborative social practice centred in communities of practice and happens through legitimate peripheral participation (LPP) in those communities of practice (CoP) (Lave and Wenger, 1991). Moreover, Lave and Wenger (1991) assert that for learning to occur on the periphery of the CoP ‘newcomers have broad access to arenas of mature practice’ (p.110). Given this, it would appear helpful to gain an understanding of the ways in which school–university partnerships support co-operating teachers (CTs) to support PETE students (newcomers) to make the learning journey from LPP of the CoP to the core, that is, to full participation in the community of practice. If we view PETE student learning as social practice within ITE, it seems clear that we must interrogate how the school–university partnership itself, in which a PETE student is located, can be described as a community of practice that supports these neophyte learners. Based on situated learning theory, such a community of practice would comprise school principals (SPs), CTs, PETE student peers and university tutors (UTs), and would facilitate PETE student learning through collaborative enterprise on shared issues (Mawer, 1996). In this way, it is argued that teacher competencies can be developed in schools where PETE students can ‘take advantage of the resources available to them’ (Cochran-Smith, 2005: 9).

This paper considers the issue of PETE student learning on TP from a range of perspectives within a community of practice (or aspirant community of practice) centred on supporting student learning. Focused on five partnership case studies, the research investigated the ways in which CTs, UTs and SPs attempted to work in partnership as expert teacher educators to support Irish PETE students to learn.

Teachers’ career-long professional development

Coolahan (2003) argues that teacher professional development takes place in three stages referred to as the ‘3 I’s’. The ‘3 I’s’ refer to Initial Teacher Education, Induction and In-service training. In-service training is also referred to as continuing professional development (CPD). More recently, the Teaching Council of Ireland (2011b) referred to these phases as the Continuum of Teacher Education, a term also used by the European Commission (2010: 4) in its policy document ‘Common European Principles for Teacher Competences and Qualifications’. This study focuses on the first phase – ITE in Ireland – and looks particularly at TP as a key element of ITE.

A study by Darling-Hammond (2006b) examined seven exemplary ITE programmes in the US in a range of contexts: public and private settings, undergraduate and graduate qualifications, and large and small universities. The study found that these seven ITE programmes produced graduates who were extraordinarily well prepared from their first days in the classroom and that, despite superficial differences, the programmes had common features, including the following.

Strong relationships, common knowledge, and shared beliefs among school and university-based faculty jointly engaged in transforming teaching, schooling and teacher education (Darling-Hammond, 2006b: 305).

Brouwer and Korthagen’s (2005) findings concur with Darling-Hammond on this and, of specific interest to this research, comment on the quality of clinical experiences (TP) in an ITE programme. In their longitudinal study of 370 student teachers in the Netherlands, they concluded that there are three features of any TP model that are crucial for integrating practice and theory: (a) cyclical programming of college-based and student teaching periods; (b) supporting individual learning processes; and (c) intensive co-operation between teacher educators. Lewin (2004) adds to this, pointing out that having a ‘constructive supportive and enlightening’ (p.12) TP experience depends on four key factors: ‘How it is organised and supported, the mechanism of fusing theory with practice, visits of university tutors (in the absence of trained mentors) and timing and duration of teaching practice (TP)’ (p.12). Considering each of Lewin’s (2004) factors, it could be argued that TP should be located in schools that exhibit best practice and where student teachers are supported by well-trained mentors. It could also be argued that the university maintains constant contact with and support for the student teacher and his/her school mentor, and that TP and university-based sessions are cyclical and are of reasonable length such that theory and practice may be integrated. As Sutherland et al. (2005: 80) point out, in order to develop professional knowledge, PETE students need ‘opportunities to be involved in professional practice, and to reflect on and integrate the knowledge they have gained from their experiences with the theoretical knowledge provided by the institution’. However, a prevailing theme in the literature is the struggle to integrate theory and practice in ITE (Garm and Karlsen, 2004).

In reality, it seems clear that the characteristics of effective ITE identified above by Darling-Hammond, Brouwer and Korthagen and Lewin are not always evident in ITE programmes. Although TP ought to be at the heart of the ITE experience, Neville et al. (2005b) describe clinical experiences as ‘limited, disconnected from university coursework and inconsistent’ (p.13). One explanation for this might be financial constraints in some countries that limit university funding for mentor selection, training and employment (Skilbeck and Connell, 2003). Another reason could be rooted in poor relationships between schools and universities, with divergent expectations from student teachers and misunderstandings regarding the role of school and university in the process (McCullick, 2001).

Teaching practice as a site for PETE student learning

It can be argued that schools and universities have a joint and interconnected role in the education of novice teachers in the praxis of teaching. Yet, at times, there appears to be a dichotomous relationship between these two partners, with the school-based experience focusing novice teachers on day-to-day practicalities of working in school classrooms, while UTs endeavour to provide the theoretical basis to underpin and make sense of these school-based activities ( 2004; Furlong et al., 2000). Spendlove et al. (2010) suggest that the differing roles of school and university ‘represents a division of labour, which can be characterised as theory on the one hand, and practice on the other’ (p.66). In reality, it has been argued that there is often considerable tension in the relationship between school and universities within TP, with the majority of joint training programmes being ‘neither complementary nor collaborative' (Edwards and Mutton, 2007: 505).

With the more recent understanding of learning shifting to a social, situated and contextual view, the literature on PETE programmes suggests that TP, or clinical experience, is a central aspect of quality PETE programmes (Behets and Vergauwen, 2006). In spite of this, TP placement is often based on convenience rather than other considerations, with schools sometimes providing difficult contexts for the PETE student; for example, with poor facilities and untrained mentors (McIntyre et al., 1996). It is through TP that the PETE student learns the ‘rub between theory and practice’, solidifying teachers’ professional knowledge, encompassed in the generic term pedagogical content knowledge (PCK) (Amade-Escot, 2000). McCullick (2001) emphasises the importance of ensuring that teacher educators, CTs and UTs share a clear understanding of the curriculum of ITE and their role in promoting this on TP. Kinchin (2009) describes how student teachers view UTs as ‘Guide, mentor, advisor…mentors more than lecturers’ (p.4). However, there is a sustained view that of all teacher educators, the CT (mentor) has the most significant influence on PETE students’ learning (Coleman and Mitchell, 2000; Kinchin, 2009; McCullick, 2001).

Clearly, the process of TP and indeed ITE needs to be based on a lucid understanding of how pupils learn (O'Sullivan, 2003). This is an area, however, in which there is a gap in the existing literature. In addition, there appears to be a continued lack of consensus regarding the length of the TP experience (O'Sullivan, 2003), with researchers reporting that it is the quality of the experience that is important and not the quantity (McIntyre et al., 1996). While the length of PETE TP varies across programmes, the elements typically inherent in the TP experience comprise the initial opportunity for the PETE student to observe expert teachers teaching, followed by teaching parts of lessons, which progresses to the teaching of full lessons (Behets and Vergauwen, 2006). The CT (mentor) is a constant presence during TP, supporting the preparation, delivery of and reflection on lessons. The reflective element of TP is still widely considered to be a pivotal aspect that prepares PETE students for the unknown in their classrooms (Tsangaridou and Siedentop, 1995). In a recent policy document on the future of teacher education in Ireland, the Teaching Council of Ireland (2011b) recognised the most recent research on best practice in ITE, listing the following as key processes in ITE: teaching learning and assessment models, engagement of students with the programme, tutors, teachers and peers, personal and social development, attitudes and values and professional dispositions, life-long learning and reflective processes (pp.22-23). The next section outlines a detailed account of the current milieu in TP in Ireland.

The context for the research

ITE in Ireland takes place within university and school settings employing two models of ITE: concurrent and consecutive. In the consecutive model, the student attains a Bachelor’s degree in chosen subjects over a three- or four-year term and completes a further one- or two-year post-graduate teacher education qualification. Within the concurrent model, the student teacher completes a four-year Bachelor’s degree programme where university tuition and school-based TP (clinical practice) are combined. All disciplines, with the exception of PE, Materials Technology (Wood), Metalwork, Home Economics and Science use a consecutive model. PETE students typically engage in a concurrent four-year degree programme using a ‘block TP model’ (Coolahan, 2003), where students are placed in schools for blocks of time that accumulate over the period of the degree. A typical pattern of TP through a four-year programme might include individual practice in years one and four, with dyads of students working together in a school in year two. Universities retain control over students during their in-school experiences; for example, in placement, guidance, supervision and assessment. Schools are requested by the university to co-operate with the TP process on a voluntary basis. The drawbacks of this system are twofold: teachers (known as CTs) are not trained as mentors in schools and the school mentor or School Principal has no official role in student assessment. It is argued, therefore, that wide variations exist within school cultures and in the support and advice offered by schools to student teachers on TP (Coady, 2010; McWilliams et al., 2006: 73).

ITE in Ireland is tentatively embracing the notion of formalised mentoring through (a) the University College Cork Telemachus Mentor Training Programme for PE teachers and (b) The Lucent Science Teacher's Initiative and (c) The University of Limerick Masters of Arts in Educational Mentoring and (d) the Dublin City University Cooperating PE Teachers programme. Mentoring at the Induction Phase of teacher learning is also being advocated at both national policy and practice level through the National Induction Programme (NIP). This programme is supported by the Teacher Education Section in the Department of Education and Skills (DES), the Association for Secondary School Teachers of Ireland (ASTI), the Teachers Union of Ireland (TUI), the Education Centres and the partner schools. The NIP is facilitated by trained mentors who support newly qualified teachers in their first years in the profession. To date, however, the Irish Government has not made a strong commitment to mentoring in ITE by developing a formal, nationwide policy. The Government’s position is perhaps influenced by the teacher unions, who have vetoed the introduction of formal mentoring in ITE. According to the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) report ‘Improving School Leadership’ (2007), teachers in Ireland are highly unionised, with 91% of post-primary ¹ teachers belonging to a teacher union (p.16). The report describes how teacher unions since their inception have been highly influential in Irish education, as they have both negotiated on behalf of their members in relation to pay and conditions and have been pivotal in discussions regarding curriculum development and examinations and the new Teaching Council.

The teaching unions have argued consistently that if teachers are to become formalised as mentors, they should be offered additional remuneration or ‘time in lieu’ for their mentoring duties. As a result, a rather ad hoc situation remains, where the choice of whether to engage and train as a mentor is left largely to the individual teacher. The decision is also dependent on gaining permission from an individual School Principal, because teachers must be given time in their schools to mentor students and released from teaching duties to engage in mentor training, for example, in the Telemachus Mentor Training programme. The ad hoc mentor system described has resulted in a dual system in Ireland, with formal and informal mentoring operating side by side in ITE. The majority of ITE programmes subscribe to informal mentoring, where CTs support student teacher learning during TP, but are untrained and unpaid to do so (McWilliams et al., 2006). It was anticipated that investigating student learning in this context could shed light on broader issues of student learning in school-based settings.

Working collaboratively with UTs at a University in Ireland, the research reported in this paper focused on PETE students’ professional learning on TP and on the ways in which the processes of TP guidance and supervision both constrained and enabled student learning. The timing of the research coincided with the introduction of a new one-year post-graduate programme at this University. This new structure presented an ideal opportunity to research Irish PETE students’ learning-in-action during a cyclical TP placement (Brouwer and Korthagen, 2005), which spanned seven months in one allocated school (three-week observation, one day per week for ten weeks and seven full weeks). The five PETE students at the centre of the research were graduates of another university (Brightwater), having studied for five years to obtain a primary degree in the area of Leisure. This was not a teaching certification degree, so the students entered the one-year post-graduate programme at this University to gain a PE teaching qualification. The research was designed to allow the views of each member of the learning partnership to be voiced independently, thus offering a unique multi-layered perspective on critical learning incidents. A detailed account of the methodology now follows.

Data collection

This study reported in this paper analysed one umbrella case (university and PETE students and the schools) encompassing five individual cases. The case studies were identified when the researcher was invited to attend the induction day of the teacher education programme and all seventeen students (fifteen females and two males) on the programme were offered an opportunity to participate in the research. Five female PETE students volunteered to take part in this study: Aoife, Barbara, Carol, Dara and Edel. The UT, CT and SP assigned to each PETE student on TP then became part of each case study, resulting in five individual case studies each comprising a tetrad of individuals (see Table 1). Within this framework, the phenomenon of how these PETE students experienced learning support from CTs, UTs and SPs during TP was studied over a seven-month period comprising a three-week observation period, one day per week for ten weeks and seven full weeks at one allocated school. Pseudonyms were used to protect the identity of the participants. The researcher would like to acknowledge that it was fortunate that this University was willing to be engaged in the research and to seek to learn from it.

OPEN IN VIEWER

Table 1.

Case study details, including number of years experience in respective roles.

	PETE student	CT	University tutor	School principal	School type	School	Town
1	Aoife	Louise	Noelle	Mr Kelly	Girls town	TowerHill	Killnaton
2	Barbara	John	Claire	Mr Cotter	Girls town	Byron’s Way	Ballytown
3	Carol	Michael	Claire	Mr O’Brien	Mixed rural	Tree Tops	Oceantown
4	Dara	Anita	Liz	Mr Clancy	Mixed town	Mountain View	Riverdale
5	Edel	Joan	Claire	Mr Noonan	Mixed rural	Bayview	Valleytown

In order to ensure the data were rich, a variety of data collection methods and approaches was used. The process of triangulation (Begley, 1996) allows the researcher ‘to determine how various actors in the situation view it’ (Strauss and Corbin, 1998: 44). Richardson (2000) extended this notion using the image of crystallisation. The specific approaches used in this study to engage in crystallisation within the case study framework comprised:

Data analysis

The data analysis method adopted was that advocated by Strauss and Corbin (1998), that is, grounded theory (GT), a method that spearheaded the ‘qualitative revolution’ (Charmaz, 2000: 509). GT is an inductive process of discovering theory from data (Pidgeon and Henwood, 2004), meaning that the qualitative researcher has ‘grounded their theory in data and validated their statements of relationship between concepts’ (Strauss and Corbin, 1998: 5). This process ensures that the researcher is confident about the conclusions he/she has reached and is convinced that they will withstand criticism from the target audience.

GT consists of a process of ‘constant comparison’ (Glaser and Strauss, 1967). There are three clear stages in this process, according to Strauss and Corbin (1990): open coding, axial coding and selective coding. Harry et al. (2005) extended this framework to a detailed six-level approach. The data analysis in this study used Harry et al.’s (2005) six stages as follows.

Level one and level two: derivation of open codes and conceptual categories (open and axial coding)

This involved the researcher labelling the concepts in each paragraph of data, by asking ‘what categories, concepts or labels do I need in order to account for what is of importance to me in this paragraph’ (Pidgeon and Henwood, 2004: 637). To do this a ‘table' for each source of data collected was created. A memo was written about each piece of data and then these fragments of data were colour-coded according to specific categories. An example of this process is shown in Table 2, indicating the process of conceptualising the data in one focus group. As was noted above, having identified key codes and related memos for one of the case studies using a Microsoft Word Package, the researcher then utilised the data analysis software package ATLAS.ti to analyse all five case studies. This was done to ensure that the coding and memo-writing stages were rigorous and robust and to begin to abstract meaning from the data (Pidgeon and Henwood, 2004).

OPEN IN VIEWER

Table 2.

Level one: derivation of open codes (PETE student, Barbara, Focus Group Interview, 29 March 2007).

Transcript

Comment

Interviewer: How did your visit with Claire (UT) go? Barbara (PETE student): Claire (UT) came to one of my lessons and the lesson didn’t go too great like but…it wasn’t too bad. After the lesson, like she grilled Laura because she wanted…and because the class were really well behaved and she wanted to know how I dealt with behaviour problems. Laura just goes, well to be honest, I would be disgusted and…and very upset if Barbara doesn’t get a really good mark here and all this. Interviewer: How did you feel when she did this? Barbara: “‘brilliant…like, do you know? They wouldn’t put you down though. So like they were brilliant…like, do you know?”’

Is Laura (CT) defending Barbara regardless of her performance? Is she on Barbara’s team and against Claire (UT)? Why is she behaving in this way? Is this a legacy of her own initial teacher training? It appears as if the PETE student and CT are on one side or ‘team’ and the university tutor was on the other.

Limitations of the study

Limitations of the study fall under three key headings:

Ethics

A number of mechanisms were used to satisfy procedural ethics. Firstly, ethical approval for the study was sought from Loughborough University in the UK. This involved providing a detailed report outlining all research instruments and consent forms to be used. This report was ratified by the Research Ethics Committee at the University in July 2006. Secondly, with regard to selection of participants, there were two key issues to consider.

The ‘ethics in practice’ (Guillemin and Gillam, 2004: 261) element of this study had a number of implications. For example, the researcher discovered that the ethical process was indeed anything other than a fait accompli, but rather was a continuing process of negotiation with the participants, which became increasingly complex. To illustrate this point, four particular instances are outlined.

Theme 1: parity in the UT–CT relationship?

Tikunoff et al. (1980) cite parity as one of the most important ingredients of successful collaboration. A dictionary definition describes parity as ‘equality, as in amount, status or quantity’ (Dictionary.com, 2007). In this study, parity refers to ‘equality of status’ in relation to TP supervision, thus parity implies that during TP, school and university personnel would be regarded as equal partners in supporting student learning. This does not mean, however, that all members of the project need to have equal abilities. Indeed, an advantage of collaboration is the opportunity to capitalise on a range of expertise (Kiely, 2005). Data on the assessment of PETE student learning on TP highlight issues of concern about parity.

As was noted earlier, in Ireland, the UT is the only assessor of PETE student learning on TP. This is because, following teacher union directives on the matter, CTs will not assess or grade student teachers assigned to their schools (Kiely, 2005). The UT and CT sometimes have a post-lesson conference about PETE student progress, but TP grading is ultimately determined by the UT. One UT in particular, Noelle, felt that the current TP grading process was unjust and unilateral, with the UT placed in an omnipotent role with the CT regarded as largely passive in the process:

We [UT and CT] can have these conversations without prejudice to a grade, you know. But in reality, you know it’s not an even playing pitch. And I will make the call at the end of the day (UT, Noelle, Tutor Focus Group, 17 January 2007).

Given this structural issue, it was immediately apparent that there was a fundamental lack of parity between the UT and CT in relation to PETE student assessment. This situation gave rise to a number of hostile encounters (Trubowitz, 1986) between CTs and UTs. In these instances, CTs defended PETE student performance during the post-lesson conference in an effort, perhaps, to have an influence on the tutor’s assessment of PETE student learning:

Theme 2: parity in the school and university relationship?

According to Graham (1988), when collaboration occurs, the barriers between the university and the school often become less formidable with communication levels increasing.

Aloofness or a feeling of superiority is a facade that is easy to maintain at a distance, but when people work together successfully, facades disappear. And that is a positive, potential benefit of collaboration (p.168).

As was noted earlier, eventually, in effective collaboration, parties come to value each other’s contribution, which can lead to parity of esteem between the school and university. However, the journey towards such parity is precarious, often infused with suspicion and lack of mutual respect. According to Trubowitz (1986), when a school and university collaborate, there are eight key stages that must be traversed: (1) hostility and aggression; (2) lack of trust; (3) period of truce; (4) mixed approval; (5) acceptance; (6) regression; (7) renewal; and (8) continuing progress. Trubowitz (1986) argued that in some cases, the school and university fail to progress past the first two stages and certainly in this research there is evidence that all five schools remained in the first two stages of collaboration. There were a number of reasons for this and these are reported under three sub-themes.