Building teacher capability through school/ university partnerships

Building Teacher Capability throughSchool/University Partnerships

Tina A DoePaul O'Neill

David Lynch

VOLUME 6

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF KNOWLEDGE, CULTURE AND CHANGE MANAGEMENT http://www.Management-Journal.com First published in 2006 in Melbourne, Australia by Common Ground Publishing Pty Ltd www.CommonGroundPublishing.com. © 2006 (this paper), the author(s) © 2006 (selection and editorial matter) Common Ground Authors are responsible for the accuracy of citations, quotations, diagrams, tables and maps. All rights reserved. Apart from fair use for the purposes of study, research, criticism or review as permitted under the Copyright Act (Australia), no part of this work may be reproduced without written permission from the publisher. For permissions and other inquiries, please contact <[email protected]>. ISSN: 1447-9524 (print), 1447-9575 (online) Publisher Site: http://www.Management-Journal.com The INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF KNOWLEDGE, CULTURE AND CHANGE MANAGEMENT is a peer refereed journal. Full papers submitted for publication are refereed by Associate Editors through anonymous referee processes. Typeset in Common Ground Markup Language using CGCreator multichannel typesetting system http://www.CommonGroundSoftware.com.

Building Teacher Capability through School/University PartnershipsTeacher Education Partnerships

Tina A Doe, CHarles DArwin University, AustraliaPaul O'Neill, Central Queensland University, AustraliaDavid Lynch, Central Queensland University, Australia

Abstract: More specifically the paper is about the Professional learning Project: a workplace learning initiative. The projecthas been operating at Central Queensland University, through a formal partnership with Sunshine Coast State schools,since 2004. The project impetus is to bridge the theory practice divide in teacher education through a valid partnershipmodel, between a university and an industry employer, that develops the capabilities of current and future teachers. Theproject is the vehicle through which a common classroom language is developed to facilitate shared understanding for theundergraduate and their teacher mentor. The project aim is to develop teacher capability, current and future, through afocus on expert pedagogy. The Professional Learning Project is an action learning professional development product thatbridges the theory practice divide.

Keywords: Pedagogical Capability, Teacher Education, Instructional Design Frameworks, University School Partnerships,Theory Practice Divide

Introduction

THIS PAPER IS about an innovative projectthat has been designed to enhance the capab-ilities of undergraduate teaching students(future teachers) and their mentor classroom

teachers (current teachers). More specifically thepaper is about the Professional Learning Project(PLP); a workplace learning initiative. The projecthas been operating at Central Queensland University(CQU), through a formal partnership with SunshineCoast State schools, since 2004.The Professional Learning Project has its origins

in the Bachelor of Learning Management program(BLM), which is touted as a new age teacher educa-tion program developed at Central Queensland Uni-versity to prepare future teachers for work in a fastemerging knowledge and creativity-based economy(Lynch and Smith, 2005). The BLM is a significantdeparture from the conventional Bachelor of Educa-tion as this paper will later reveal.To explore the Professional Learning Project,

discussion in this paper travels through four sections.In the first section the Bachelor of LearningManage-ment program is briefly discussed for points of refer-ence. This discussion is followed by a brief overviewof research findings into the Bachelor of LearningManagement program which provided the impetusfor the Professional Learning Project’s development.In the third section the Professional Learning Project,its rationale and value are explained in terms of itsoperational modes. Finally, the last section concludes

by describing emerging research which indicates theProfessional Learning Project is contributing to thecapabilities of both current and future teachers. Weturn first to an overview of the BLM program.

The Bachelor of Learning Management(BLM) ProgramThe CQU BLM is a four year pre-service teachereducation degree secured in concepts drawn fromthe ‘Knowledge Economy’. In the context of theLiterature Review that informed this paper, capabilityfocused on a futures orientation: the capability toengineer an alternate teaching and schooling future,complementary to the ‘organisations’s’ (school orschooling system) current position.Stephenson (1999) and Lynch (2005) both emphas-

is that this goes beyond recognition that the worldis continually changing to encompassing a new setof pedagogical capabilities that embody such person-al characteristics as courage, planned risk taking,imagination, intuition and creativity (Darling-Ham-mond, 2000; Hargreaves, 2003;Marzano et al, 2000;Shaffer, 2004). Course titles reflect this body of lit-erature to indicate key degree elements includingLearningManagement, Futures, Networks and Part-nerships, e-Learning Manager, Entrepreneurial Pro-fessional, Essential Professional Knowledge (thecore is Dimensions of Learning) and Portal Task,amongst others in the development of a futures ori-entation in undergraduates.

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF KNOWLEDGE, CULTURE AND CHANGE MANAGEMENT,VOLUME 6, 2006

http://www.Management-Journal.com, ISSN 1447-9524 (print), 1447-9575 (online)© Common Ground, Tina A Doe, Paul O'Neill, David Lynch, All Rights Reserved, Permissions: [email protected]

The BLM program is built on the premise ofLearning Management: a knowledge age construct1that brings together the essential elements of thescience of learning so they have direct bearing onthe learning design strategies of teachers and in turnthe learning outcomes of learners (Lynch and Smith,2005). The BLM’s rationale depends entirely oncollaboration between professional partners withdifferent but equal expertise: what the BLM de-velopers call a ‘business-to-business’ (B-2-B) modeland which is referred to as the ‘BLM partnership’(Lynch and Smith, 2005).The agreed goal for the BLM program (rationale)

is to graduate learning managers (new age school-teachers) who have a demonstrated capability toachieve learning outcomes in all students, and whoare equipped for, and disposed to, playing a leader-ship role in taking the education sector 5–10 yearsinto the future. This profile is termed a ‘FuturesOrientation’ (Lynch, 2004). At the time of writing,the predominant work place context for graduates ofthe BLMwill be that of a school: a reflection of howthe educationmarket is constructed in Australia circa2006. With this in mind the developers of the BLMwere mindful to include a series of specific studyunits that prepared graduates for the current school-ing paradigm. This ensures they have the ‘look andfeel’ of current teachers and so, are immediatelyemployable (Lynch and Smith, 2005).The notion of being workplace ready, yet with a

futures orientation is what the developers of the BLMprogram believe are the capabilities needed ofgraduate teachers for today’s schools and the BLMprogram has been constructed according to thismantra (Lynch and Smith, 2005). There are over1000 students enrolled in the degree at sites inMackay, Rockhampton, Emerald, Gladstone,Bundaberg and Noosa. The first BLM graduatesentered the workforce in 2003, following a compuls-ory ‘internship’ (Lynch and Smith, 2005).The notion of collaboration with the teaching in-

dustry (schools and other learning sites) is a funda-mental aspect of the BLM program’s developmentand operation. Apart from the warm professionalfeelings invoked by terms such as ‘partnership’ whenreferring to teacher educators and school folk (the‘cucumber sandwiches and tea’ syndrome), the fu-tures-orientation and disposition that the BLM seeksto produce in its graduates, is also aimed at increas-ing the capability of the education system to deliverthe goals set out in Australian government policiessuch as Education Queensland’s QSE 2010 (Depart-ment of Education, 2001). A major requirement of

the partnership arrangement then is not only collab-oration and joint decision-making, but also a commit-ment to the vision and outcomes of the BLM bylecturers, teachers, casual lecturing staff, schools andsystems (Lynch and Smith, 2005). A series of formalagreements, signed by parties concerned, capturesuch a commitment.What used to be called ‘the practicum’ in CQU’s

previous BEd program is outsourced to a series ofaccredited Teaching Schools2 where school-based‘learning managers’ (a senior teacher based in theschool and employed by the University) work incollaboration with University academics to developdiffering workplace capabilities in their neophytecharges. Each BLM student’s in-school ‘LearningManager’ provides a range of services to BLM stu-dents while in a teaching school, such as; ‘just-in-time’ learning to contextualize and strengthen ‘on-campus work’, and individualised attention throughcoaching and mentoring. The Learning Manager isassisted by a team of classroom practitioners whoact as ‘in-class supervisors’ (known as in-classmentors) for specific skill development (Lynch andSmith, 2005).There is a major difficulty with this model and

indeed with all professional education (nursing, so-cial work etc) models that rely on fieldwork inputsprovided by people who are not themselves part ofthe on-campus coterie of staff. That is, teacher edu-cation resists the mere imitation of what schools andteachers do, yet, like art, it depends on the world itmocks for its performances, resources and its stage.The BLM then, aims to be a driving force for educa-tional and social change, and therefore must betransgressive in principle. The B-2-B relationship ispremised on both the importance of ‘real-life’ prac-tice and performance for neophyte learningmanagers(student teachers in the BLM program), but that isnot the program’s only purpose: it seeks also to af-fect, in general, conceptions of teacher education,and social trends in education and training, and inparticular, the individual performances of currentschoolteachers, of their organizations and, unsurpris-ingly, of the BLM student (Lynch and Smith, 2005).In short, there must be a tailored ‘process’, to

reach preferred states such as ‘the future’, expressedas a new way of aligning curriculum, pedagogy andassessment in schools as an effect of teacher/learningmanagement practices in a partnership context. The‘pay off’ for BLMpartners (including the university),is that themechanism for change is tied to the respect-ive workforces that must transform practices in waysthat conventional teacher education supervision

1 Learning Management is a 21 st century ‘knowledge economy’ construct with a practical focus on the teaching professional as the facil-itator of learning, in contrast to the industrial age premise of the teacher as the holder of all knowledge.2 Admission to Teaching School status requires school staff to commit to the principles of the BLM program and its tenets and to engagein professional development organised to facilitate the operations of the teaching school concept.

INTERNATIONALJOURNALOFKNOWLEDGE,CULTUREANDCHANGEMANAGEMENT,VOLUME6

simply did not require. It is in this challenge that thePLP was born. Before turning to a more detaileddescription of the PLP, we first review research intothe BLM program, as background to the impetus forthe PLP.

What the Research says about the BLMProgramIn 2003 CQU graduated its first BLM cohort. A re-search study, using attitudinal surveys and semi-structured interviews, was conducted to ascertain thepreparedness of graduates from the BLM. Graduateattributes where comparedwith the defined outcomesof the BLM program and in turn contrasted with acohort of graduating BEd students (Lynch, 2004).The study revealed that an emphasis on workplace

readiness and futures orientation, the central tenetsof the BLM, when organised as a partnership withthe teaching industry, has the potential to generatenew capabilities in graduate teachers compared tothose of previous teacher education programs. Spe-cifically, the study found, that in the perception ofstudents and their in-school classroom teachermentors, the BLM program contributed more to thecapabilities of BLMgraduates than the previous BEdprogram (Lynch, 2004). Hence the BLMwas judgedby participants in the study, to equip the undergradu-ate teacher with a futures orientationThe study also found, that in-school classroom

teacher mentors of BLM students have a tendencyto implement teacher centred activities, which is ad-verse to the futures orientation of the BLMprogram,in classrooms with student teachers present. This hasthe effect of restricting the scope graduate studentshave to experience and explore ‘futures orientation’capabilities while in schools. By this we mean in-school classroom teacher mentors have a clear ideaabout what constitutes work ready capabilities forgraduates in the traditional teaching sense, but havefew insights into a ‘futures orientation’. Con-sequently in-school classroom teacher mentors onlyrecognized the importance of capabilities that allowthe graduate student to deal with increasing volumesof problems teachers face in classrooms today.Problems such as behaviour management issues andjuggling a crowded curriculum predominate (Lynch,2004).Despite this, BLM students are perceived by their

in-school classroom teacher mentors to be betterprepared for work in the future than are BEd stu-dents. In-school classroom teacher mentors furtheridentified BLM students as having new and differentrepertoires of pedagogical (‘teaching’) skills, but noin-school classroom teacher mentors identified theseas a ‘futures orientation’. It can be concluded thatdespite ‘futures orientation’ capabilities featuring in

the BLM program, BLM graduate students had littleopportunity to experience and explore futures orient-ation capabilities during their fieldwork experiencesbecause of the context of schools themselves (Lynch,2004).It can be argued then, that in-school classroom

teacher mentors alone are insufficient for the reposi-tioning of schools or the education system if a ‘fu-tures orientation’ is the policy vision of the educationsystem. The BLM developers took the strategic viewthat in-school classroom teacher mentors also haveto be capable with respect to the outcomes set by aBLM program. The challenge for the BLM partnerswas how to achieve this goal (Lynch, 2004). Whatwas required was an approach to professional devel-opment that would meet the learning needs of BLMstudents while also meeting the learning needs oftheir in-school classroom teacher mentors: soemerged the Professional Learning Project.

The Professional Learning Project (PLP)In this section, which outlines the ProfessionalLearning Project, three key project components arediscussed. These include partnership with a teachereducation faculty; theDimensions of Learning (DoL)framework (Marzano et al, 2001) as the basis for ashared ‘futures orientated’ professional language andapproach to pedagogy (theoretical framework); andPortal Tasks, which act as a vehicle for interactionbetween an undergraduate (future) teacher and amentor teacher (current) and their classroom students.Before discussing these components, we provide abrief overview of current research impacting theprofessional development and pedagogical expertiseof current teachers.Current professional development (PD) for

teachers falls in the category of Learning and Devel-opment, a phase in the evolution of PD for teachersas outlined byMcRae et al (2001). Their explanationfollows the previous identified phases of: training;in-service education and professional development.ALearning andDevelopment approach to profession-al development is about creating a learning culture,where teachers work collaboratively with variousothers in learning based projects. In these arrange-ments participants jointly make decisions about pri-orities, alignments and directions and modes of en-gagement.Initiatives such as the KidSmart Young Explorers

Project, where teachers examine their practicethrough a specific, yet collectively owned, pedago-gical lens, fall into this category. In this example,teachers are employing an action learning or actionresearch approach as a framework for their learnings(Education Queensland, 2005).

TINA A DOE, PAUL O'NEILL, DAVID LYNCH

Previous models, and specifically the content ofProfessional Development activities (McRae et. al.2001), were often rejected by teachers. Guskey &Huberman (1995) suggest this occurred becauseprofessional development strategies were often; im-posed ‘from above’; were encountered in the contextof multiple, contradictory, and over-whelming innov-ations; excluded teachers from design teams; werepackaged off-site (meaning out of context) or oc-curred as a one-off workshop without follow-up. Insummation, professional development did not fit thelearning needs, nor the logistics of busy teachersworking in a world of constant change.Hawley and Valli (1999) add that there is an

emerging consensus among educational researchers,professional development specialists and key policymakers on how to increase the knowledge and skillsof teachers in the context of their contemporary workenvironment. This consensus argues for collegially-based learning opportunities that are linked to solvingauthentic problems around student achievement andactual student performance. In this approach thereis a strong emphasis on the connection betweenteacher learning and student learning. In this context,the Professional Learning Project provides a collegi-al, real-life learning experience for current and futureteachers.The Professional Learning Project draws together

a number of stakeholders: the school community;the mentor; the students and the university educationfaculty as a ‘community of practice’ focused on thedesign and delivery of pedagogical strategies thataim to achieve learning outcomes in all learners inthe school. In this business to business (B2B) rela-tionship, mutual needs and opportunities create pos-sible benefits for all partners (Stephenson, 1999).Wenger & Lave (2003) describes this concept of apartnership as a ‘community of practice’.Woodwardand Hall (2002) refer to it as ‘collegial learning’. Inboth definitions it is the learning that occurs as aresult of collaborative teamwork that is important.In these arrangements participants construct and seekto develop a deeper understanding of a phenomenonmore so than they would have otherwise achievedby themselves.Essentially the PLP is justified by Lynch (2004),

who concludes that futures orientated capabilitymustbe accomplished in the profession (school basedteacher mentors of BLM students) if students of theprofession are to develop such capabilities. Logicallyfor there to be seamless transition in an educationalprecinct, where pedagogical knowledge is shared bycurrent and future teachers, both the teacher mentorand the undergraduate must understand the instruc-tional design framework used in the school basedexperience. The PLP is about supporting a com-munity of practice (Wenger & Lave, 2003) to embed

a common pedagogical framework in theDimensionsof Learning.The PLP concept was developed in response to

research by Lynch (2004) who argued that all parti-cipants in the BLM program must be engaged inlearning about the BLM and its key theoretical un-derpinnings if the desired outcome: a meshing of theprogram’s rhetoric with the reality of every dayclassroom activity, was to be achieved. Pragmaticallythe PLP grew out of a concern that BLM in-schoolmentors (BLM learning managers and classroomteacher mentors) were ill informed and ill preparedfor the key role they had to play in supporting andextending the learning of BLM students. This wasparticularly evident given the BLM seeks to create‘Learning Managers’ (a knowledge worker) insteadof a ‘better teacher’. With these findings in mind,the PLP aims to ensure in-school mentors are ‘BLMcapable’: not just understanding the agenda, but alsoable to deliver on it. This is where the communitiesof practice (Wenger and Lave, 2004) arrangementcomes into play.Despite the many attempts between universities

and schools to develop stronger links (Eifler, Potthoffet al, 2004; Darling-Hammond, 1994; Goodlad, 1993;Kluth and Straut, 2003; Moore, 2003; Bacon-Woodard, 2001; Woodward and Hall, 2003), manyso called partnerships focus mostly on the practiceteaching arrangements: the structure, the policiesand the supervision conditions, rather than on thelearning that embodies preparing teachers while on‘prac’ (Baxter, 2003).Further, practicum arrangements tend to focus on

the teaching student ‘fitting in’ for a period of weeks(Ingvarson et al, 2004). To do this the teaching stu-dent mimics the practices of their mentor teacherrather than the mentor identifying and promoting thespecific elements that underpin the notion of qualityteaching and as articulated in the teaching student’son-campus program. As a result the question ‘whatworks in classroom instruction’ for teaching students,becomes victim to the well documented ‘theory–practice’ divide and teaching students having tonaively develop their own ‘pedagogies’ once gradu-ated (Smith, 2000).In summary then, the PLP is a Learning and De-

velopment program for mentor teachers, universityacademics and BLM students. It is framed in an ac-tion learning model where participants focus on aprescribed learning task and each participant (theundergraduate, the mentor teacher; and the univer-sity) having an ‘equal, yet different’ part to play. Inthis arrangement the mentor teacher provides ment-orship for a student teacher; the BLM student attendsthe classroom for an extended period of time; whileUniversity academics provide the theoretical under-


pinnings for professional learning and the focal ac-tion learning task (Portal Task).In the PLP model the placement of the BLM stu-

dent in a school with a series of specific professionallearning tasks to complete is the catalyst for the col-legial action learning that occurs. The universityprovides access to research and professional learningpackages for in-service teachers (drawn from theDimensions of Learning research). The schoolprovides the structural elements to support the sta-ging of the action learning task.To engage parties to the PLP community of prac-

tice, a learning goal, one of mutual benefit, has to beestablished. Because schools and teachers are focusedon maximising the learning gains of their learners,the question of what promotes this is an ongoing fo-cus for teachers and university academics alike. Forthe PLP this became an obvious and pragmatic focus.The next step was to decide what would embodysuch learning. This task fell to the university academ-ics, who used their research prowess to uncover ap-propriate material. This material came in the formof the Dimensions of Learning.The McREL group, as a result of research (Marz-

ano, 1998) into instructional practices, developed aframework for instructional design known as theDimensions of Learning (DoL). This framework isa compendium of pedagogical approaches, that theirresearch indicates, enables consistent learning gainsto be made in learners (Marzano et al, 2000). Thisclaim made by McREL reflects the large body offurther research donewith teachers and learners usingthe framework.The learning about the DoL framework can be

used as a mechanism to ‘audit’ teaching practice andas such was determined to ‘fit nicely’ with the goalof the PLP. The stakeholders involved in the PLP,decided to adopt it as the framework to formulate acommon language for reference, design, discussion,reflection and analysis of current practices. Under-graduate (future) teachers and their classroomteacher mentors (current teachers) were thus able toaudit their use of pedagogical strategies using acommon language through a shared instructionaldesign framework.In the context of the BLM partnership DoL has

created a “one pedagogy” approach (Nelson, 2005)which is used to align curriculum, pedagogy and as-sessment for classroom teachers and BLM students.The challenge for the BLM partners was how to en-gage university academics, mentor teachers and theirstudents to learnings about DoL. The solution lay inthe concept of Portal Tasks and the professionalconversations and formal learnings they encourage.BLM ‘Portal Tasks’ are the core theoretical and

practical mechanisms that make a conceptual andpractical ‘break’ from the conventional 4 year

teacher education programs of the past. The constructof ‘performativity’ offers the theoretical link between‘theory’ and ‘practice’, the hoary chestnut of thevoluminous literature about the failure of teachereducation to make contact with ‘reality’ (Lynch andSmith, 2005).In the practical sense, the Portal Task compels,

and ensures, that there are direct and meaningfullinks between classroom teacher mentors, the lectur-ers’ teaching courses in the University and the stu-dent teacher. The lack of these essential elements iswhat has been identified as ‘the theory/practice gap’in teacher education (Korthagen & Wubbles, 2001;Lynch and Smith, 2005; OECD, 2005; McRae et al,2000).In the PLP context, Portal Tasks are developed

around the DoL framework and become the catalystfor a series of professional learnings that studentteachers, university staff and mentor classroomteachers engage in. The motivation to engage in sucha process comes from university academics wantingto enhance the capabilities of students; classroomteacher mentors wanting to enhance the learningoutcomes of their classroom learners; and in thestudent teacher wanting to learn ‘how’ to do it.The Portal Tasks are developed by the parties who

are to implement them (meaning they are site andcircumstance specific and owned by participants)and are structured to encourage each party to findout, to supply answers, to create knowledge and im-portantly to engage in learning new and differentthings that are significant to their respective profes-sional development. By this we mean a frameworkfor the development of Portal Tasks has been created.

The Professional Learning Project: EarlyResearch FindingsThe Taskforce on Teacher Quality and EducationalLeadership (Ingvarson et al, 2004), identifies teachereducation courses as needing to place strong emphas-is on areas that relate directly to effective teaching.We condense this to mean teaching that achieveslearning outcomes in learners. Ingvarson et al (2004)further recommend that pre-service teachers beplaced into classrooms quickly and with sustainedprograms. These need to be supported through pro-fessional development for all parties.Essentially current research concludes that new

and different teaching capabilitiesmust be recognisedin the education profession (current teachers / schoolbased teacher mentors) if undergraduate (future)teachers are to develop such capabilities (Lynch,2004). The teacher mentor role offers support for theBLM undergraduate and the PLP facilitates the useof shared instructional design frameworks (DoL)where each works as a co professional, learning in


the context of the workplace. Through the PLP, bothcurrent and future teachers receive PD that buildstheir expert pedagogy.In late 2005, after the project had been in operation

for two academic years, Doe (2005) conducted re-search into the PLP to determine whether projectparticipation improved workforce capability. Theparticipatory action learning of the classroom ment-ors is reflected by their completion of both a purpos-ive (pre PLP PD) and a post Likert Scale attitudinalsurvey. Further, the study used a series of semi-structured interviews with classroommentors, BLMstudents and university academics to establish aprofile on the perceived outcomes of the PLP to date.In this context, capability is defined as an all round

quality, an integration of knowledge, skills, personalqualities and understanding used appropriately andeffectively, not just in familiar and highly focussedspecialist contexts, but also in response to new andchanging circumstances (Stephenson, 1999). Thefundamental focus of the PLP is thus workforcecapability, specifically the learningmanager’s capab-ility to design pedagogical strategies that achievelearning outcomes in all learners.Early research findings tend to indicate that the

Professional Learning Project has become a catalystfor ‘futures orientated’ professional renewal by ex-perienced teachers, with participants typically statingthat they were initially involved in the project be-cause they “felt it was important to groom the nextgeneration of teachers” and “to do (this job well),given the challenges faced by teachers today”. Re-spondents then typically added “the notion of learn-ing together, with colleagues” and through the con-duit of the undergraduate teacher “on real things”and “using stuff that actually works in classrooms”,was the real motivator”.Respondents reported that as a result of the PLP

(and hosting a BLM student) they began to talk toeach other using terms and a language set associatedwith DoL and that it became easier to institute awhole-of-school approach to pedagogy as a result.By this wemean teachers appear to be using the DoLframework as ‘templates’ when conducting whole-of-school curriculum planning functions and thecommon language associated with DoL makes thistask easier (Doe, 2005).Research findings also tend to indicate that parties

did have differing degrees of engagement with thePLP, with the subsequent effect that those ‘schools’(as a group of teachers and BLM students) whereinvolvement was aligned with curriculum, pedagogyand assessment, tended to report greater gains withrespect to their individual professional development.Although the greatest number of responses describedthe value of the project in terms of the ‘commonlanguage’ that it facilitated in relation to pedagogy

and planning, more than half of all respondents alsoidentified improvements in networks and partnershipswith CQU was dependant on the level of commit-ment participants had to the project.As a result, the uptake of DoL, as a key pedagogic

framework in the school, and as a topic for profes-sional learning, appears to be directly correlated tothe interest and support provided by the school’sleadership. The higher the level of ‘top down’alignment and commitment to DoL as a school wideinstructional design and delivery framework, thehigher the reported gains by classroom mentors andtheir BLM students.In summary, mentor teachers and their BLM stu-

dents report being able to interact with the DoLframework as a constructive design tool for theirteaching work and to plan work for their portal tasksas a result of the PLP. In effect the PLP providedopportunity for both the undergraduate teacher andtheir mentor teacher to learn more, faster, and tobetter interact with the BLM program. Early conclu-sions tend to indicate that the PLP is reducing thetheory/practice divide and going a long way to ad-dressing BLM program deficiencies as outlinedearlier in this article. The school’s leadership appearscrucial to the success of such a project. Further re-search is required to test the effect that this projectis having on the performance of the BLM’s graduatesonce they are in the workforce.

ConclusionThe Professional Learning Project has been identifiedin this paper by its potential to improve the teachingcapabilities of classrooms mentors and their BLMstudents and by association, the delivery of theteacher education ‘practicum’. The PLP’s collabor-ative and inclusive nature appears to build currentand future teacher capabilities. The marriage of the-ory to practice, using a focus on instructional designthrough DoL and the critical reflection and analysisachieved through a community of practice arrange-ment, seems to foster an environment that has thecapacity to nurture improvements in teaching capab-ilities and consequently classroom learner gains.The project’s next stage is its evolution as a

building block of the teaching school concept, wherethe professional development model it engages, de-termines the common language and shared instruc-tional design framework of the host classroom. Thisworkplace learning initiative, if designed as a validpartnership between a university and an industryemployer, can become the vehicle for interactionbetween an undergraduate teacher and theirclassroom teacher mentor.In this model, pedagogical knowledge is shared

by current and future teachers, placing emphasis on


instructional practices that achieve learning outcomesfor students in their classrooms (Korthagen &Wubbles, 2001). Transferability and sustainabilityin new and different contexts will be tested with theintroduction of the Professional Learning Project inremote Northern Territory locations. The success ofthe Professional Learning Project in this new context

to support the work of current and future teachers inthe teaching school experience, would provideevidence for its validity as a Teacher Educationpartnership that builds current and future capability,affecting mutually beneficial outcomes for eachpartner.

References

Bacon-Woodard, A. (2001). Factors that influence school university collaboration. Graduate School College of Education.Pennsylvania, Pennsylvania State University: 2005.

Baxter, A. (2003). Who teaches teachers to teach? Investigating the role of the classroom teacher in teacher education.NZARE/AARE Joint Conference, Hyatt Regency Hotel and University of Auckland, NZ., University of Wollon-gong.

Darling-Hammond, L. (2000). Teacher Quality and Student Achievement: a Review of State Policy Evidence, EducationPolicy Analysis Archives, January 2000, Vol 8, No1.

Department of Education (2001). Destination 2010 and Maps to get us There: The Draft Action Plan to ImplementQueensland State Education- 2010. Retrieved 03.07.2005. http://education.qld.gov.au/corpor-ate/qse2010/pdf/draft-action-2010.pdf .

Doe, T. (2005). Teacher Education Partnerships that Build Pedagogical Capability. Unpublished research report as partof Ed D. CQU.

Education Queensland. (2005). Smart Classrooms: A strategy for 2005 - 2007.Eifler,K., Potthoff,D.&Dinsmore,J. (2004) A bucket of eels: a tripartite approach to renewing a teacher education program.

Corwin Press, Inc.Goodlad, J. (1993). ‘School University Partnerships and partner schools.’ Educational Policy (7): 24-39.Guskey, T.R and Hubermam, M. (1995) Professional Development in Education: New Paradigms and Practices. Teachers

College Press, New York.Hargreaves, D.H. (2003). Education epidemic. Transforming secondary schools through innovation networks. London:

Demos.Hawley, WD&Valli, L (1999), ‘The Essentials of Effective Professional Development’, in Darling- Hammond, L & Sykes,

G (eds.) (1999), Teaching as the Learning Profession: Handbook of Policy and Practice, Jossey-Bass, San Fran-cisco.

Ingvarson, L; Kleinhenz, E. & Elliott, A. F. (2004). Pre-Service Teacher Education in Australia . ACER T&K ResearchProgram.

Kluth,P. & Straut,D. (2003) 'Do as we say and as we do' - Teaching modeling collaborative practices in the universityclassroom. Journal of Teacher Education, (2003) 54:228 - 240.

Korthagen,F. &Wubbles, T. (Ed.). 2001). Learning from Practice. Linking Practice and Theory: The Pedagogy of RealisticTeacher Education.Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Lynch, D.E. (2004). ‘A comparison of the Bachelor of Learning Management and the Bachelor of Education Programs inthe context of knowledge economy.’ Doctoral Thesis. Rockhampton: Central Queensland University.

Lynch, D. and Smith, R. (2005). ‘New Teacher Education for a NewAge: Bringing teachers, lecturers, employers and studentstogether in partnerships’. The International Journal of Knowledge, Culture and Change Management, Vol. 5.

Marzano, R. J. (1998). A Theory based meta-analysis of research on instruction, Mid-continent Research for Education andLearning.

Marzano, R. J. (2000). A new era of school reform: Going where the research takes us. Aurora, Colorado: Mid-ContinentalResearch for Education and Learning.

Marzano, R. J., Gaddy, B.B., Dean, C. (2000) What Works In Classroom Instruction. Aurora, CO: McREL. ht-tp://www.mcrel.org .

Marzano, R.J., Pickering, D. J. & Pollock, J. E. (2001). Classroom Instruction That Works: research-based strategies forincreasing student achievement. Alexandria, VA.: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.

McRae, D., Ainsworth, G., Groves, R., Rowland, Z. & Zbar, V. PD 2000 Australia. A National Mapping of School teacherProfessional Development.Canberra, ACT, Commonwealth Department of Education, Training and Youth Affairs.

Moore, R. (2003). "Re examining field experiences of preservice teachers." Journal of Teacher Education (2003) 54(1):31-42.

Nelson, B. (2005). Vision of a nation working as one. The Australian, p.2. 28.02.2005.OECD. (2005, January 24.25). International Colloquium on Business-Education Partnerships: Learning from the World

of Work, Dublin, Ireland.Schaffer,D.W., Squire K.R., Halverson, R. & Gee, J.P., Paper December. (2004). Video Games and the Future of Learning.

University of Wisconsin-Madison and Academic Advanced Distributed Learning Co-Laboratory.Smith, R. (2000). ‘The Future of Teacher Education: Principles and Prospects.’ Asia-Pacific Journal of Teacher Education

(2000): 28(1). pp.7-28.


Stephenson, J. (1999). Corporate capability: Implications for the style and direction of work-based learning. RetrievedOctober 9, 2003, from www1.lle.mdx.ac.uk/iclml.asp.

Wenger, E. & Lave, J. (2003). Communities of Practice. Retrieved 27th July, 2003 from the www: http://www.infed.org/bib-lio/communities_of_practice.htm .

Woodward, H. & Hall, C. (2003). Collegial Learning and Collective Capacities. New Zealand Association for Research inEducation (NZARE) and Association for Research in Education (AARE) Joint conference., Auckland, Universityof Western Sydney.

About the AuthorsAssociate Professor Tina A DoeThis paper explores how the theory – practice divide in a teacher preparation program can be challenged throughan innovationMr Paul O'NeillPaul began teaching as a high school teacher and has taught across secondary, primary, early childhood and inspecial education. His current teaching in the Bachelor of Learning Management program is in the area of ELearning and Entrepreneurialism. His research is exploring the pedagogical approaches teachers use to supportthe integration of Information and Communication Technologies (ICT) into teaching and learning. His currentresearch is developing case studies of teachers using a structured design framework to create ICT enrichedlearning environments.Professor David LynchCentral Queensland University, Australia


THE INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF KNOWLEDGE, CULTURE AND CHANGE MANAGEMENT EDITORS Mary Kalantzis, University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign, USA. Bill Cope, University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign, USA. EDITORIAL ADVISORY BOARD Verna Allee, Verna Allee Associates, California, USA. Zainal Ariffin, Universiti Sains Malaysia, Penang, Malaysia. Robert Brooks, Monash University, Melbourne, Australia. Bruce Cronin, University of Greenwich, UK. Rod Dilnutt, William Bethway and Associates, Melbourne, Australia. Judith Ellis, Enterprise Knowledge, Melbourne, Australia. Andrea Fried, Chemnitz University of Technology, Germany. David Gurteen, Gurteen Knowledge, UK. David Hakken, University of Indiana, Bloomington, Indiana, USA. Sabine Hoffmann, Macquarie University, Australia. Stavros Ioannides, Pantion University, Athens, Greece. Margaret Jackson, RMIT University, Melbourne, Australia. Paul James, RMIT University, Melbourne, Australia. Leslie Johnson, University of Greenwich, UK. Eleni Karantzola, University of the Aegean, Rhodes, Greece. Gerasimos Kouzelis, University of Athens, Greece. Krishan Kumar, University of Virginia, USA. Martyn Laycock, University of Greenwich and managingtransitions.net, UK. David Lyon, Queens University, Ontario, Canada. Bill Martin, RMIT University, Melbourne, Australia. Pumela Msweli-Mbanga, University of Kwazulu-Natal, South Africa. C Gita Sankaran, Southern Cross University, Australia. laudia Schmitz, Cenandu Learning Agency, Germany. Kirpal Singh, Singapore Management University, Singapore. Dave Snowden, Cynefin Centre for Organisational Complexity, UK. Chryssi Vitsilakis-Soroniatis, University of the Aegean, Rhodes, Greece. Please visit the Journal website at http://www.Management-Journal.com for further information:

- ABOUT the Journal including Scope and Concerns, Editors, Advisory Board and Associate Editors

- FOR AUTHORS including Publishing Policy, Submission Guidelines, Peer Review Process and Publishing Agreement

- JOURNAL PROFILE including Statistics/Citations and where the Journal is indexed/abstracted

SUBSCRIPTIONS The Journal offers individual and institutional subscriptions. For further information please visit http://ijm.cgpublisher.com/subscriptions.html. Inquiries can be directed to [email protected] INQUIRIES Email: [email protected]

Building teacher capability through school/ university partnerships

Documents

Transcript of Building teacher capability through school/ university partnerships