Paper presented at the British Educational Research Association Annual Conference, Institute of Education, University of London, 5-8 September 2007

Unpacking a Pedagogy of ‘Partnership’ in Initial Teacher Education inIreland

Bernadette Ní Áingléis

St. Patrick’s College

Drumcondra

Dublin 9

Ireland

Email:

Tel: +353 87 91 77845

Unpacking a Pedagogy of ‘Partnership’ in Initial Teacher Education in Ireland

Abstract

The school-based dimension of teacher education programmes necessarily involves collaboration with schools. However, the nature and extent of that collaboration is variable and highly complex. This paper presents the findings of a small-scale qualitative design experiment into the experience of student teachers on teaching practice as they work in partnership with mentor teachers and the school community. Partnership comprises both the arrangements and the processes afoot in the collaboration. The affective in learning to teach emerges as significant as do relationships and relational agency. The experience of being observed by mentor teachers and observing teachers at work are found to be the two most valuable aspects of partnership with schools in teaching practice. Student teachers’ perceptions of being supported on many fronts made teaching practice more learning-oriented, more enjoyable, and much less stressful. Student teachers do not wish schools to have the sole summative role in teaching practice assessment processes. Notions of space, power, and agencydominate this discourse with implications for learning and teaching. The research context is learning to teach (primary), and the country context is Éire.

Introduction

There is a certain mystique about the notion of ‘partnership’ which seems to defy genuine efforts to grasp it. It is also probably fair to say that ‘partnership’ is one of ‘those vanilla-flavored ideas to which we commonly nod our heads in unthinking approval’ (Goodlad, 2004:37). In Ireland[1], a partnership approach has been discernible in most things educational since the early nineties. In particular, a partners-in-education orientation has been pivotal in the design of the primary curriculum, and in the most significant of quality assurance measures; whole school evaluation. More recently, a collaborative approach has been highlighted as the preferred orientation in the context of initial teacher education (ITE) (Department of Education and Science, 2006a, 2006b). What is not so clear, however, is the ‘why?’ and the ‘how?’ of partnership in ITE in Ireland, and specifically in the context of learning to teach. These two questions formed the basis of a small-scale, two-year (2005-2007) exploratory action research study into the nature of partnership in learning to teach.

This paper sets out to give a flavour of some of the findings from the student teachers’ perspective in that research; a schools-ITE College[2] partnership project involving ten primary schools, nineteen final year BEd students and an ITE College team. The research context is teaching practice, the school-based dimension of the BEd programme in one ITE College, Ireland. In what follows, use of the word ‘student/s’ should be understood as ‘student teacher/s’, and ‘supervisors’ as the ITE College tutors who supervise teaching practice and who are sometimes known by students as ‘inspectors’. Student names have been changed in the narrative to protect identity of participants with initials being used in direct quotations.

A brief overview of what the literature says about schools-university partnerships is offered as a background context for this Paper with a particular spotlight on ITE in Ireland.

Schools-University Partnerships in the Literature

Research into schools-university partnerships is not new. Various constellations of partnerships in ITE have been on the radar since 1980s in England (Booth et al 1990). Hagger and McIntyre (2006: 16) describe the historical relationship between schools and universities in ITE in England, from the nineteenth century through to the present day, as:

‘as a kind of political ping-pong, with moves back and forward between predominantly school-based and higher education-based ITE, each with its characteristic strengths and weaknesses’.

Furlong et al (2000) outline a range of ideal typologies of partnerships; from the ‘complementary’ model to the ‘HEI-led’ model, and somewhere in between lies the more desirable ‘collaborative’ model where ‘teachers are seen as having an equally legitimate but perhaps a different body of professional knowledge from those in higher education’ (Furlong et al 2000:80). In Ireland, for various reasons, the ‘complementary’ model of partnership with schools has been the dominant model (McWilliams et al 2004; Cannon, 2004), where ‘the university provides the theory, the school provides the practice, and the student teacher provides the setting to bring them together’ (Wideen et al 1998:132). Many schools-university partnerships may indeed fall somewhere along the continuum from HEI-driven models to complementary models to the more schools-with university endeavours.

Day’s (2007) research focuses on the features and consequences of different partnership models of change; externally-designed partnerships, internally-designed partnerships, equal partnerships. Many typologies of partnership have incorporated teacher professional development (Callahan and Martin, 2007; Clark, 1998) while others have been primarily research-oriented as is the case in the Schools-University Partnership in Educational Research (SUPER) project (McLaughlin et al 2006). In England, it would seem that schools-university partnerships have given rise to heated turf wars between the ‘professionalizers’ and the ‘deregulators’ (O’Hear, 1988) with radically different ideologies of pedagogy and professional knowledge on either side. It is striking to note that most ITE courses in England have doubled in the amount of school-based training; from around 60 days in the late 1970s to around 120 days by 2007. What is even more striking is that this swing towards ‘teacher education-in-schools’ was non-negotiable and centrally imposed with serious consequences for the morale and funding of ITEs. In England, the increased emphasis on school-based work in ITE has led in Wilkin’s (1999:2) view to ‘the marginalisation of independent thought, and indeed decision making, and therefore the separation of teacher training from the critical tradition of the university’. Others have been equally critical of the inherent downgrading of the relational ethics of teaching to sets of competences and standards (Cochran-Smith, 2006; Hargreaves, 1993; Tickle, 2000; Edwards et al 2002). Wilkin captures this reductionism model of ITE cogently:

‘Teacher training has become painting by numbers or rather learning to teach by numbers; and moreover, institutions are to be checked to see whether they are painting carefully and accurately within the lines’ (Wilkin, 1999:3).

In the US, shifting responsibility for teacher education onto schools has been seen as the curative strategy for failing standards in schools (Holmes Group, 1986, 1990). This shift is perceived as serving the dual purpose of improving standards both in public schools and in teacher preparation, what Goodlad (1990) called ‘simultaneous renewal’. There are others who claim that an increased role for schools in teacher education has greatly enhanced pedagogy and practice (Laughlin et al 2006), ‘a success story…and few would reverse the trend towards schools involvement’ (Moon,1998:34).

However, the findings in the two extensive Modes of Teacher Education (MOTE) surveys (Furlong et al 2000) cannot easily be dismissed; beginning teachers fall short on critical thinking skills and innovative practice.

In the Irish context, the dominant preoccupation of newly qualified teachers surveyed is with the planning and preparation for Diploma[3] and specifically in terms of lesson notes and schemes of work required for induction (Department of Education and Science, 2006b). Other studies indicate that student teachers are largely preoccupied with curriculum-delivery and meeting prescribed standards (Edwards, 1998; Yandell and Turvey, 2007) at the expense of developing those dispositions which we know are at the heart of teaching; relating and caring.

If one of the generally accepted goals of ITE is the development of a thinking-teacher with a capacity to respond appropriately to change, or what Feiman-Nemser (2001) called ‘an inquiry stance’, how well does the school-based experience in ITE in Ireland measure up to this goal? How is ‘partnership with schools’ experienced by student teachers during a school-based experience? What helps student teachers learn best while on teaching practice and what switches them off? A brief overview of the ITE context in Ireland might be helpful at this point before proceeding with an outline of the research conducted.

Initial Teacher Education in Ireland

The teacher education landscape in Ireland is quite unique in many respects. The legendary autonomy of Irish teachers has been documented elsewhere (OECD, 1991). Entry to the profession is highly competitive with the brightest and the best gaining entry at undergraduate level. Attrition rates are negligible and Irish teachers have ‘enjoyed an esteem and status scarcely paralleled in any other European country’ (Byrne, 2000:6). Teacher unions have been very successful in driving reform and leveraging change throughout the system, most recently in the area of teacher induction (Department of Education and Science, 2006b). Teachers are in the majority on the recently established Teaching Council of Ireland. There is no agency in Ireland comparable to the Teacher Training Agency (now the Teacher Development Agency) in England. Unlike near neighbours, Northern Ireland, teacher education in Ireland is not governed by a prescribed spine of competences or standards (McWilliams et al 2006; Moran et al 1999). However, each ITE has its own quality assurance measures and procedures which demand the highest of standards of graduating students. There are no inter-institutional league tables but the Inspectorate does monitor standards albeit in a relatively light-touch manner. With a developing culture of publication in the Inspectorate and increased calls for accountability, ITE is coming under increasing scrutiny (Department of Education and Science, 2005a, 2005b, 2006a). The latter report claimed than one-third of student teachers were not up to the mark and that greater emphasis should be placed on the practical aspects of teaching. The report gave rise to heated debate in ITE circles predominantly (Irish Times, 21/02/2007; Irish Independent, 20/02/2007).

In the context of partnership and teaching practice, the relationship between ITE institutions and primary schools is largely informal and voluntary. ITE Colleges are heavily reliant on the goodwill of schools to accommodate student teachers on teaching practice. To a large extent, ‘partnership’ in the ITE context connotes the logistical arrangements which ITE institutions make with schools in order to facilitate the school-based dimension of ITE programmes. Most schools offer placements but this is changing, for many and varied reasons. ITE partnerships with schools have no statutory basis and no monies transfer form ITE Colleges to schools for placements received or for school-based mentoring. Class teachers are not involved formally in the evaluation of student teachers. Historically, there has always been a strong sense of commitment in the profession to supporting the professional development of student teachers (Coolahan, 2003).

Collaboration with schools has been largely of the ‘complementary’ type (Furlong et al 2000) although change in this area was recommended in the seminal Kellaghan Report (Government of Ireland, 2002a), Preparing Teachers for the 21st Century, a report compiled to drive reform in teacher education in Ireland. The Kellaghan Report (Government of Ireland, 2002a:163) recommended that ‘schools and teachers should have greater and more formal involvement in teaching practice’. Furthermore, a radical rethink of school-based experiences for student teachers was recommended ‘in which students’ conceptions of teaching are explored’ (Government of Ireland, 2002:161). The key recommendations of the Kellaghan Report for a restructuring of ITE have not been carried through at system level. It is therefore timely to take teaching practice by the ‘scruff of the neck’, and unpack its underlying conceptualisations of teacher learning, professional knowledge, and pedagogy. It is timely also in the context of the remit of the new Teaching Council of Ireland.

‘Partnership’ can sometimes refer to the arrangements which facilitate collaboration or to the actual activities which take place during a partnership process. In this paper, ‘partnership’ should be understood as an amalgam of the arrangements for and the processes afoot in collaborative endeavour between the ITE institution in question and the ten primary schools. It is a conceptualisation which Brisard et al (2005) used in their comprehensive review of ITE/schools partnerships, commissioned by the General Teaching Council Scotland. The research conducted for this paper was strongly influenced by the socio-cultural work of Vygotksy (1978) and by the work of Lave and Wenger (1991) on ‘communities of practice’. The latter authors claim that “learning is a process that takes place in a participative framework, not in an individual mind” (Lave and Wenger, 1991:14). However, Wenger’s (1998) work around the notion of a community of practice makes it clear that learning-in-the-social does not exclude learning-in-the-head (Cobb, 1994). Vygotsky (1978) claimed that learning is a social interaction (the intermental plane) before it is in internalised (intramental plane) by the learner. The research undertaken proceeded on the understanding that a more formal role for schools in teaching practice would provide richer and deeper teaching and learning experiences for student teachers.

The Research

As outlined earlier, the qualitative research involved an ITECollege, ten primary schools and nineteen final year BEd students. The project team comprised three ITE-based tutors and a retired principal teacher who had particular expertise in working with schools and student teachers. The schools selected were within a 50 km radius of the ITECollege and were invited to participate in the research project. Participation in the project was therefore voluntary. The school sample represented the various types and sizes of schools in the Irish education system. The student teacher sample was randomly selected from the full cohort of final year BEd students. Students selected were invited to participate with the right to withdraw at any point. A code of ethics for the conduct of the research was drafted in consultation with schools and students, and drew heavily on the BERA ethical guidelines. The aims of the research were three fold:

(i)To explore ways of involving schools more formally in teaching practice;

(ii)To develop class teachers’ mentoring approaches with student teachers conducive to developing competent, reflective practitioners;

(iii)To frame a pedagogy around partnership in learning to teach.

A mixed methodological approach was adopted in a constructivist grounded theory framework (Charmaz, 2005). Data collection techniques included questionnaires, participant research diaries, focus groups, and a researcher observational diary. Data analysis was undertaken by the constant comparative method (Strauss and Corbin, 1990) using NVivo7 software in data management, display, and interrogation. Data analysis centred around two keys themes; the constitution and dynamics of partnership, and its inevitable ‘talk-back’ to current processes and practices in ITE and in teaching practice particularly. Noffke’s (1997) tri-pronged conceptualisation of teacher professional development - the personal, the political, the professional – was useful in getting to the heart of participants’ experiences.

The partnership project comprised the following elements:

  • An Opening Seminar (For all project participants – students, schools, ITE persons)
  • Series of Professional Development Seminars (for principals and class teachers on working closely with student teachers)
  • Development of Support Materials in consultation with schools and students
  • Visits by the ITE team to Schools including meetings with the staff of each school
  • Participant Focus Groups (teachers, principals, students)
  • The ‘Wednesday Experience’ (School-based, for students)
  • The Wednesday Evening Student Peer Support Group (College-based)
  • A Closing Seminar (For all project participants).

The school-based ‘Wednesday Experience’ comprised opportunities for the student to experience class/school life beyond their own classroom e.g. opportunities to observe other teachers at work in the school, to work alongside them and to dialogue with them. There was an emphasis also on students participating in whole school activities and special events e.g. school jubilee celebrations, key liturgical celebrations. The ‘Wednesday Experience’ was organised at school level by the class teacher in consultation with the student, the principal, and colleagues in the school.

The Wednesday Evening Student Peer Support Group was formed by the students themselves in the project. The group met each Wednesday evening in College to talk about their experiences on teaching practice, to share ideas, and as a support for each other.

The new role of the class teacher in teaching practice comprised the following dimensions:

  • Structured observation of the student teaching each week
  • Feedback to / Dialogue with the student following lesson-observation
  • Report-writing (evaluation report) on the student’s progress each week (formative) and a final summative report
  • On-going Dialogue with ITE supervisors
  • Facilitating the ‘Wednesday Experience’ for the student.

Students’ Perceptions of the New Mentoring Role of Class Teachers

Students stated that the experience of working closely with the class teacher and other teachers in the school helped them in three key ways:

(i)To develop their teaching skills;

(ii)To increase their knowledge about approaches to working with pupils with special educational needs;

(iii)To experience a sense of being a ‘real’ teacher by being involved more in the routines and rhythms of class life and school life which in turn developed students’ sense of belonging to a school community.

Students did not emphasise that they learned how to reflect more about teaching and learning as a result of the mentoring approach of class teachers or college supervisors. However, this may corroborate the observations of Furlong et al (2000) that student teachers view both reflection-on-practice and reflection-in-practice (Schon, 1983) as more a common sense assessment of their day’s work rather than what actually takes place in mentoring interactions. It may also be the case that student teachers are so consumed by the ‘unforgiving complexity of teaching’ (Cochran-Smith, 2006:70) that survival concerns (Fuller, 1969) are prioritised and valued over learning metacognition.