Article

School–universitypartnerships and physicaleducation teachereducation studentlearning: A fruitfuldivision of labour?

Fiona ChambersUniversity College Cork, Ireland

Kathleen ArmourUniversity of Birmingham, UK

AbstractTikunoff, Ward & Lazar (1980) argue that parity or ‘equality of status’ (p.12) is one of themost important ingredients of successful collaboration. During the placement of students onteaching practice (TP), therefore, it can be argued that school and university personnel shouldbe equal partners if the collaboration is to be effective. This paper reports one set of datafrom a study of Irish physical education teacher education (PETE) students and considers theimpact of ineffective school–university partnerships on their professional learning during TP.The study employed a range of qualitative research methods centred on one umbrella casestudy and five individual case studies. Data were analysed using a systematic grounded theoryprocess and findings indicated a perceived lack of parity between schools and the university.This resulted in PETE students developing in an unsupported and often isolated manner. Theimplications for career-long professional learning are considered.

Keywordsschool–university collaboration, initial teacher training

Corresponding author:

Fiona Chambers, School of Education, University College Cork, 1-2 Lucan Place, Western Rd., Cork, Ireland

Email: f.chambers@ucc.ie

European Physical Education Review18(2) 159–181ª The Author(s) 2012Reprints and permission:sagepub.co.uk/journalsPermissions.navDOI: 10.1177/1356336X12440023epe.sagepub.com

Introduction

Effective Initial Teacher Education (ITE) programmes are defined by a range of key characteristics

one of which, it is argued, is the value they place on the strength of school-university partnerships

(Darling-Hammond, 2006b:305).

A plethora of international research has identified ways in which school and university

personnel should, ideally, work together (Behets and Vergauwen, 2006; Brouwer and Kor-

thagen, 2005; Cochran-Smith, 2005; Darling-Hammond, 2006a, 2006b; Darling-Hammond

and Bransford, 2005; Graber, 1989; Hynes-Dussel, 1999; McCullick, 2001; O’Sullivan, 2003;

Youens and McCarthy, 2007). It has been argued that effective collaboration between relevant

school and university personnel enables ITE programmes to deliver shared, logical programmes

of teacher education (Hardy, 1999; McIntyre et al., 1996). In particular, teaching practice (TP)

has been identified as a pivotal aspect of collaboration, with the school becoming the key work-

site for the school–university partnership. According to Behets and Vergauwen (2006: 407): ‘The

school . . . constitutes the rich environment where prospective teachers (PT) will learn a great deal

of their job’. McIntyre et al. (1996) outline how the placement of student teachers in schools is

crucial in teacher preparation and how frequently it is based on convenience rather than on any

consideration of what might provide a quality learning experience. Behets and Vergauwen (2006)

suggest that:

The ecology of the school setting - pupils, physical environment, curriculum and community - is a

major influence on prospective teachers development and all too frequently this influence is not pos-

itive (pp.407-408).

The purpose of this paper is to explore the issue of school–university partnerships in supporting

student learning during TP. Drawing on case study research conducted on one physical education

teacher education (PETE) programme in Ireland, the paper reports data on the effectiveness of a

school–university partnership from the different perspectives of those engaged in it. The paper is

organised into five sections:

Theoretical background and research context

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 mean-

ingfully 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

160 European Physical Education Review 18(2)

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 Qualifica-

tions’. 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 qualifica-

tions, and large and small universities. The study found that these seven ITE programmes pro-

duced 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 spe-

cific interest to this research, comment on the quality of clinical experiences (TP) in an ITE pro-

gramme. 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

Chambers and Armour 161

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 strug-

gle 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 clin-

ical 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 uni-

versity 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 teach-

ers 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).

162 European Physical Education Review 18(2)

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 com-

pletes 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 typi-

cally 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 pro-

cess 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 Edu-

cational 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 Associ-

ation 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

Chambers and Armour 163

newly qualified teachers in their first years in the profession. To date, however, the Irish Gov-

ernment 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-primary1 teachers belonging to a teacher

union (p.16). The report describes how teacher unions since their inception have been highly influ-

ential 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 exami-

nations 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 per-

mission 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 Uni-

versity. 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 indepen-

dently, thus offering a unique multi-layered perspective on critical learning incidents. A detailed

account of the methodology now follows.

Methodology

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 par-

ticipate in the research. Five female PETE students volunteered to take part in this study: Aoife,

164 European Physical Education Review 18(2)

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.

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:

� one open profile questionnaire issued to each of the PETE students and each of the five CTs;

� recording key events through participant observation (e.g. recording of key occurrences during

induction week and a PETE student, PETE student CT and UT post-lesson conference);

� focus groups (one comprising all five PETE students and one consisting of three UTs);

� collection of artefacts (e.g. PETE student assignments on ‘Teaching Metaphor’ (to capture

PETE student’s views on the role of the teacher); Student Knowledge Questions (to understand

the types of knowledge that a PETE student thinks he/she might need);

� in-depth interviews (PETE students and CTs were interviewed on three occasions with each

interview lasting one hour; one UT was interviewed; each of the five SPs were interviewed for

one hour); and

� reflective journal writing (an aide memoir for the researcher, which was completed throughout

the data collection process).

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.

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 Killnaton2 Barbara John Claire Mr Cotter Girls town Byron’s Way Ballytown3 Carol Michael Claire Mr O’Brien Mixed rural Tree Tops Oceantown4 Dara Anita Liz Mr Clancy Mixed town Mountain View Riverdale5 Edel Joan Claire Mr Noonan Mixed rural Bayview Valleytown

Chambers and Armour 165

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 cate-

gories, 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 col-

lected 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).

Level three: developing themes (selective coding). In this step, themes are formed by relating

clusters of data to each other (Pidgeon and Henwood, 2004). The researcher began to determine

which categories were dominant in the data. This was done by viewing the data categories

and determining which category encompassed the most data from the perspectives of all parti-

cipants. As a result of this process, a theme was developed entitled school–university support for

mentee learning.

Level four: testing the themes. In this phase, theory was inducted through interpretation of data. In

order to ensure that presentation of data were transparent, the researcher used memberchecking

(Lincoln and Guba, 1985) through crystallisation (Richardson, 2000), that is, looking at the data

Table 2. Level one: derivation of open codes (PETE student, Barbara, Focus Group Interview, 29 March2007).

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 . . . itwasn’t too bad. After the lesson, like she grilled Laurabecause she wanted . . . and because the class werereally well behaved and she wanted to know how I dealtwith behaviour problems. Laura just goes, well to behonest, I would be disgusted and . . . and very upset ifBarbara 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 herperformance? Is she on Barbara’s team and againstClaire (UT)? Why is she behaving in this way? Is this alegacy of her own initial teacher training?

It appears as if the PETE student and CT are on oneside or ‘team’ and the university tutor was on the other.

166 European Physical Education Review 18(2)

from the viewpoint of a number of participants. This was done by interrogating what each parti-

cipant had said about the theme identified. The process led to a succinct group of themes and sub-

themes in relation to ‘the school–university relationship’:

Theme 1: parity in the UT–CT relationship;

Theme 2: parity in the school and university relationship:

Sub-theme 2a: SPs believed that the school is the primary site for PETE student learning;

Sub-theme 2b: universities appeared not to value the school contribution to TP;

Sub-theme 2c: the perception that the university appeared not to acknowledge or value the role

of the SP in TP.

Level five: interrelating the explanations. Because the themes were grounded in extensive crystallised

data (Richardson, 2000), the themes became explanations of the data (Harry et al., 2005). In drawing

final conclusions, the researcher discovered that, ultimately, one key factor appeared to have a strong

impact on PETE students’ professional learning during TP: the school–university relationship.

Level six: delineating the theory. Glaser and Strauss (1967) determined that there are two types of

theory: formal and substantive. Formal theory is that which can pertain to a wide range of topics.

Substantive theory implies that the theory only applies to the situation being studied. In this case,

‘parity of esteem within the school–university partnership’ is considered to be substantive theory.

All data gathered, that is, open profile questionnaires, recording key events through participant

observation, focus groups, collection of artefacts, in-depth interviews and reflective journal writ-

ing, were analysed using this six-level process. In the next section, data will be reported and dis-

cussed under two themes and three sub-themes, which include crystallised data from interview

questionnaires and focus groups.

Limitations of the study

Limitations of the study fall under three key headings:

1. generalisability;

2. reliability and validity;

3. researcher objectivity.

Generalisability. In the post-graduate programme, there were 17 PETE students: 15 females and 2

males. When the researcher made a presentation to students about the proposed research in August

2006, five female PETE students volunteered to take part in this study. Given the ratio of females

to males, and the fact that a representative sample (in a qualitative sense) was not being sought, this

sample of five female PETE students was deemed to be acceptable. It might have enhanced this

study, however, to include the views of at least one male PETE student.

Merriam (1998) questioned the generalisability of outcomes from a single case to a larger pop-

ulation. It is acknowledged in this study that small qualitative studies are not generalisable in the

more accepted sense; however, it is also argued that studies such as this have laudable qualities

(Myers, 2000). In this study of Irish PETE students, the generalisability of the research does not

emanate from how representative the sample might be, but from the way in which the experiences are

likely to be appropriate to other groups in related contexts. It can be argued that the strength of the

Chambers and Armour 167

qualitative approach employed in this study is the depth of exploration and description, which

produces a vivid and detailed understanding of the idiosyncrasies of the situation under investigation.

Reliability and validity. It has been argued by Kirk and Miller (1986) that reliability in research is

attained in two ways:

a. the study is reported in a detailed and accessible manner so that it may be replicated;

b. the results of the study are reported in a transparent way in terms of theoretically meaningful

variables.

The researchers have addressed each of these demands in reporting this study.

In order to ensure reliability, the research procedure for this study has been documented in a

detailed and clear manner (Minichiello et al., 1995). In theory, the research could be replicated,

although there are clear challenges in seeking precise replication in studies of this nature. In addition,

in order to ensure rigour in this research, there was an imperative to work with the reality of each case

as it presented itself and thus to use data collection methods that suited the situation (Yin, 1994).

Researcher positioning. In this study, one of the researchers had the status of both insider and outsider

(Minichiello et al., 1995: 182) because she:

a. had been a PETE student;

b. was supervised by untrained mentors/CTs during TP;

c. had acted as an untrained mentor/CT to PETE students for 11 years;

d. had acted as an untrained UT assessing PETE students on TP.

In all of these roles, the impact of lack of training of key personnel to support PETE student

learning on TP concerned the researcher, FCC, who decided to investigate this issue. Taking account

of the researcher’s knowledge of the context and her familiarity with the language of TP, it was

difficult for the researcher to remain ‘objective’ in a traditional sense during the study. Therefore, in

order to mediate for bias in the study, (a) the researcher engaged in reflexivity or ‘explicit, self-aware

analysis of their own [researcher] role’ (Finlay, 2002: 531) and (b) the second author acted as a

critical friend throughout ensuring that, for example, data analysis was systematic and transparent.

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.

a. In qualitative studies the participants are selected purposefully because they will be particu-

larly informative about the topic (Cresswell, 2002). In this study, all 17 PETE students in the

post-graduate programme were offered the opportunity to take part in this study and five of

these volunteered.

b. To obtain ethical and informed consent from the participants, the researcher must describe the

research purpose and procedures, report foreseeable risks and expected benefits, offer to

168 European Physical Education Review 18(2)

answer questions regarding the procedures, and explain clearly that participation is voluntary

and that participants have the right to discontinue at any time (Anderson and Arsenault, 2000).

This protocol was followed with all participants in this study.

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.

a. Four out of five of the PETE students began to view the researcher as a facilitator in the TP

process, a person to whom they could express their grievances and worries. This allowed the

researcher to excavate deep into the data generated by these PETE students and understand

their TP experience in a more situated manner. However, it was very important that the

researcher maintained confidentiality on more sensitive issues and only reported data that

PETE students were happy to disclose.

b. All the participants asked the researcher for advice on PCK during TP. This further reinforced

data suggested that PETE students were unsupported in their learning on TP and that they for-

aged for PCK from any source available. At times the researcher had to take up the role of

mentor instead of researcher. This dual role was difficult to maintain at times. It did show,

however, that the researcher had built up trust with the PETE students and thus all interviews

were open and transparent. It also indicated that the PETE students respected the researcher

and regarded her as an expert in PE PCK in light of her work as a PE teacher and UT, although

not this course.

c. SPs used the interview as an opportunity to make political points by highlighting complaints

about the exclusion of schools from meaningful involvement in the TP process. The researcher

had to ensure to check with the SPs that all of the data collected could be reported in this study.

One SP asked that the Dictaphone was switched off during part of the interview and spoke ‘off

the record’. The researcher did not report this data.

d. When presenting the interim findings to the participant tutors and other interested parties, one

of the participants described how shocked she was at the results reported, feeling that despite her

best efforts, her role as a TP coordinator had not been as effective as she had hoped. This was

clearly a sensitive issue for both the tutor and the researcher. Nonetheless, the tutors were keen to

learn from student perceptions of the TP learning process.

Findings

Theme 1: parity in the UT–CT relationship?

Tikunoff et al. (1980) cite parity as one of the most important ingredients of successful colla-

boration. 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

Chambers and Armour 169

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:

Example one: case study – Dara. In this example, Liz (UT) came to observe Dara’s (PETE student)

class. Liz (UT) felt from the outset that Anita (CT) and Dara (PETE student) had a defensive

attitude to her presence in the school. It was clear to Liz (UT) that they had primed the pupils to

behave prior to the lesson.

Well, I thought that they had been told that beforehand. By God, and everybody including the Principal

had told them that there are people coming to watch and you have to be good and they had all white

t-shirts on and they were all good (UT, Liz, Interview Tutor, 4 December 2006).

After this particular class, Liz (UT) was unhappy with Dara’s (PETE student) performance, and

thought that Dara was more interested in the pupils having fun than learning anything specific.

After a very one-sided conversation, Anita (CT) was invited to give her feedback on Dara’s per-

formance. Liz (UT)was astonished that Anita (CT) thought the lesson ‘was great’ and had ‘nothing

negative’ to say about Dara’s lesson and was not ‘interrogating the purpose of Dara’s aims’ in the

lesson plan, in order to support her learning (UT, Liz, Interview Tutor, 4 December 2006). Liz

(UT) did not challenge what the CT or the PETE student said in these post-lesson discussions

as she was ‘used to saying well ok; I’ll leave you there because people [PETE students and CTs]

get aggressive’ (UT, Liz, Interview Tutor, 4 December 2006). Liz (UT) was unphased by Anita’s

(CT) defensive response, as she had found this type of reaction from CTs to be the norm in post-

lesson debriefings. Liz (UT) was used ‘to backing down’ (UT, Liz, Interview Tutor, 4 December

2006). Clearly, in this example the UT was seen as a kind of adversary, in the face of which the CT

needed to defend the PETE student’s position.

Example two: case study – Barbara. Directly after a lesson had been observed, Barbara commented

that she felt that the ‘lesson didn’t go too great, like, but . . . it wasn’t too bad’ (PETE student,

Barbara, Focus Group Interview, 29 March 2007). Claire (UT) met with Laura (CT) and Barbara

170 European Physical Education Review 18(2)

after the class and interrogated Laura after the lesson to establish if the lesson was of Barbara’s

normal standard:

Like, she grilled Laura, because the class were really well behaved and she wanted to know how I dealt

with behaviour problems (PETE student Focus Group Interview, 29 March 2007).

Sensing that Claire was unsure of Barbara’s performance, Laura vehemently defended Barbara’s

teaching:

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. (PETE student, Barbara, Focus Group Interview, 29 March 2007)

Because Laura had shielded her from Claire’s comments, Barbara thought that her CTs were

‘brilliant . . . like, do you know? They wouldn’t put you down though. So, like, they were bril-

liant . . . like, do you know’ (PETE student, Barbara, Focus Group Interview, 29 March 2007). It

appeared as if the PETE student and CT were on one side and the UT was on the other.

Interestingly, in spite of this interaction, Claire (UT) was trying to foster a strong, equal working

relationship with CTs:

So, in terms of the co-operating teachers, building up a sense of trust with them that, we are actually all

in this together and level the playing field (UT, Claire, Tutor Focus Group, January 2007).

In Claire’s (UT) opinion, CT–UT partnership in assessment was the only viable option, because

the current unilateral mechanism was ‘neither credible nor robust’ (UT, Claire, Tutor Focus Group,

17 January 2007).

Example three: case study – Aoife. Louise (CT) stayed for half of the lesson and met Noelle (UT)

afterwards. She noted that the critique was ‘never shown to her’ (CT, Louise, Interview 3, 13

February 2007). Louise (CT) felt excluded from the assessment process. Interestingly, Noelle (UT)

stated that she would value the involvement of the CT in grading the PETE student’s TP per-

formance. She explained that this was because CTs saw the PETE student teaching every day and

could, therefore, give a full picture of PETE student progress on TP as:

I can never know how entirely honest they (PETE students) are being. I mean I get to see essentially,

you know, a snapshot of the day or the two days that I go and what I see in the . . . the folder (UT,

Noelle, Tutor Focus Group, 17 January 2007).

Example 4: Case Study: Barbara

John (CT) found it frustrating that in his experience, the UT never had time to talk to him or the

PETE student and was always rushing to the next visit: ‘‘like the inspector [university tutor] comes

here . . . saying, I have to be in Riverdale’’ (CT, John, Interview 3, February 12th 2007). He had

been asked:

Well, how is she getting on? That was the question. You know, the answer, the stock answer was ‘very

well’, you know what I mean? But, nothing, like, as detailed as to actually, sit down and talk one on one

(CT, John, Interview 3, February 12th 2007).

Chambers and Armour 171

When asked whether he would like to be involved in the critique of the PETE student learning

John replied firmly: ‘‘I think I should be, yes’’ (CT, John, Interview 3, February 12th 2007).

To summarise, there is much evidence of open hostility between the CTs and UTs in this study,

which was witnessed by the PETE students. Having experienced this hostility, Claire (UT)

explained that perhaps CTs modelled the way in which they had been mentored on TP and the

hostility they, too, had witnessed:

Looked back at how . . . how it was done with them [CTs]. And so, if you like, they are trying to model

that behaviour (UT, Claire, Tutor Focus Group, January, 17th 2007).

The school princpals (SP) and deputy principals (DP) also had views.

Mr. Cotter (SP) had some comments to make about the range of tutors coming into the school to

assess PETE student learning. He noted that the:

Range and the diversity was just enormous [and he recommended that] tutors need a hell of a lot of

training, and opportunities for reflection. And also learning how to give feedback, because giving feed-

back is an extremely difficult thing to do (SP, Mr. Cotter, Interview Principal, February 12th 2007).

Mr. Cotter added that a Tutor needed to be ‘‘a very well developed person’’ (SP, Mr. Cotter,

Interview Principal, February 12th 2007). Mr. O’Brien (Deputy Principal) outlined how some of

the more junior UTs have little expertise: ‘‘I often think that they talk the talk, but I think the lack of

walk the walk is worrying’’ (DP, Mr. O’Brien, Interview Deputy Principal, February 16th 2007).

Mr. O’Brien said that this behaviour from inexperienced UTs was very different to the calibre of

senior tutors from the University:

The senior people that we have known from my time in the University, they would always spend a lot

of time talking to us about what was going on in the school (DP, Mr. O’Brien, Interview Deputy Prin-

cipal, February 16th 2007).

Mr. Clancy (SP) corroborated this describing senior Tutors from the University as being:

Top class and generally speaking very good, very approachable, very positive about the school and its

support, and love to get a feel for the person that they are . . . they are monitoring’’ (SP, Mr. Clancy,

Interview 3, February 16th 2007).

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.

172 European Physical Education Review 18(2)

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.

Sub-theme 2a: school principals believed that school is the primary site for PETE student learning. Similar

to the research by Behets and Vergauwen (2006), three SPs in this study believed that the school

should be the primary site for PETE student learning, and indeed was the superior learning site. Mr

Clancy viewed the school as central to ITE. Overall, he expressed how the school played a ‘pivotal

role in the education of the next generation of teachers’ (SP, Mr Clancy, Interview Principal, 16

February 2007). After all, Mr Clancy said:

Somebody has to provide for students and you know they need the experience, they need the facility of

doing it (SP, Mr Clancy, Interview Principal, 16 February 2007).

Mr Cotter commented that he liked the ‘notion of the school playing its part in professional

development or in the formation of the teachers of the future’ (SP, Mr Cotter, Interview Principal,

12 February2007). Mr Noonan (SP) asserted that school was the primary ITE site of student

learning not the university:

As, you learn more in what you do in the school, I am afraid, than you do in lectures and they [student

teachers] are not getting enough time in school. You have a big function to play in terms of mentoring

new teachers. You are trying to create, I suppose a body of teachers for the future, and for your own

context as well (SP, Mr Noonan, Interview Principal, 16 February 2007).

Sub-theme 2b: universities appeared not to value the school contribution to TP. There was also a feeling,

expressed by SPs, that universities did not value the school contribution to TP and might be

‘exploiting’ schools. For example, Mr Noonan (SP) asserted that the system was weighted in

favour of the university, and that the school was ‘quite peripheral to the whole affair’ (SP, Mr

Noonan, Interview Principal, 16 February 2007). As an example of this, Mr Noonan (SP) described

how the university controlled the placement of PETE students without consulting his school. In

fact, Mr Noonan contended that PETE students were assigned to schools on the basis of availability

rather than suitability and that there was ‘certain desperation . . . in getting people into places

whether they fit or don’t fit’ (SP, Mr Noonan, Interview Principal, 16 February 2007). Mr Clancy

(SP) concurred and described the university’s mechanism for placing PETE students in school as ‘a

little bit ad hoc . . . trial and error’ (SP, Mr Clancy, Interview Principal, 16 February 2007).

This finding supports McIntyre et al.’s (1996) study, which asserted that TP placement was

often based on convenience. This led to the situation which, as Mr Clancy (SP) reported, meant that

the university simply assumed the school would take a large number of PETE students. He felt the

school could not refuse such requests and said, ‘we are a soft touch’ (SP, Mr Kelly, Interview

Principal, 13 February 2007) because a number of these institutions are training former pupils from

Towerhill and ‘your hand is half twisted, I think, you know’ (SP, Mr Kelly, Interview Principal, 13

February 2007). Mr Kelly appeared to feel frustrated at being in this position:

Chambers and Armour 173

‘‘I think we are going to have to do something about it, because I can’t facilitate seven different

groups coming in all the time. It wouldn’t be good for the school even though the staff here are very

good I think at helping the students [teachers] (SP, Mr Kelly, Interview Principal, 13 February

2007)’’ Mr Clancy (SP) felt somewhat aggrieved, feeling that the support given by schools for

PETE student learning ‘was not to be assumed’ (SP, Mr Clancy, Interview, 16 February 2007).

Similarly, Mr Noonan (SP) asserted, ‘The university needs to get real in terms of who is serving

who’ (SP, Mr Noonan, Interview Principal, 16 February 2007).

In general, there was a feeling that the current situation was untenable.

Well . . . well I . . . I actually . . . you see, I suppose, none of us like to be taken for granted, either as indi-

viduals or institutions. And there is a question of money for value and value for money. And if . . . if

there was some remuneration it would also, perhaps, enable much more . . . how would I say . . . a much

more formal and worked out contract (SP, Mr Cotter, Interview Principal, 12 February 2007).

In essence, Mr. Cotter wanted an understanding between the university and the school where

there was ‘‘a bit of give and take’’ (SP, Mr. Cotter, Interview Principal, February 12th 2007).

Mr Clancy (SP) advocated a different partnership between school and university on TP.

He described a ‘programme of support, mutual support up to and including financial

support’ between school and university (SP, Mr Clancy, Interview, 16 February 2007). Simi-

larly, Mr Cotter (SP) advocated that universities should remunerate schools to co-ordinate and

mentor PETE students instead of the current arrangement, about which he felt increasingly

unhappy; as he commented: ‘money was a way of indicating that you value something’ (SP,

Mr Cotter, Interview Principal, 12 February 2007). Fundamentally, Mr. Cotter (SP) wanted

an arrangement between the university and the school where there was acknowledgement of

the ‘‘huge amount of work [that] isn’t acknowledged’’ (SP, Mr. Cotter, Interview Principal,

February 12th 2007).

Sub-theme 2c: the perception that the University appeared not to acknowledge or value the role ofthe school principal in TP. Further to the above concerns, there were also issues regarding

the way in which universities valued the views of SPs. Certainly, one SP, Mr Noonan, felt

that the university largely ignored SPs. With regard to assessment of TP, Mr Noonan stated that

there was no mechanism in place for SP feedback: ‘the (university) tutor was certainly not

querying the Principal you know . . . no proper structure where the Principal really has an

opportunity to evaluate them’ (SP, Mr Noonan, Interview Principal, 16 February 2007). With

regard to PETE student assessment, Mr Clancy advocated SP involvement saying: ‘he would

feel well entitled to comment on her [Dara’s] progress’. He continued: ‘You know, I certainly

feel that my comments, in so far as I would be able to offer them, should have weighting’ (SP,

Mr Clancy, Interview Principal, 16 February 2007). When he spoke of the relationship between

the school and the University, Mr Cotter reported that the school felt undervalued in

the process:

That actually we . . . we have accommodated a huge number of students from the University over the

years and there is a lot of work in it for the principal. Because first of all, you know, you have to deal

with the university placement office, then you have to meet the student and find out the subjects, etc.,

etc. And then you have to go and meet the teachers, and you have to negotiate with them try to identify

the classes that would be least problematic and co-ordinate all of that. So there is actually a huge

174 European Physical Education Review 18(2)

amount of work. It isn’t acknowledged. It is just expected, it is. And I do think that there should be

some acknowledgement of the work that the Principal puts in (SP, Mr Cotter, Interview Principal,

12 February 2007).

Mr Noonan saw the SPs as having a central role in ITE and said ‘It’s as much important as looking

after the kids in a lot of ways’ (SP, Mr Noonan, Interview Principal, 16 February 2007). Within

ITE, the school provided the PETE student with a realistic view of both schooling and teaching.

The SP was often very well placed to give an insight into the running of a school, through

university-based lectures and TP tutorials, but this resource was currently not being used by the

university:

But, I wonder in teacher education, is there any involvement of Principals at all, or administrators of

schools, do they have any inputs? (SP, Mr Noonan, Interview Principal, 16 February 2007).

One UT, Noelle, acknowledged that the university was currently ignoring the potentially

powerful role of the SP in TP and believed that the voice of the SP must be included in the

assessment process in addition to the CT and UT:

I just wonder if we should be doing more work . . . well we talk about co-operating teachers all the

time. But is the principal the actual . . . the gatekeeper for that? (UT, Noelle, Tutor Focus Group,

17 January 2007).

Discussion

The PETE students in this study appeared to feel that they were lacking support from school and

university-based teacher educators during their TP experience. Zeichner and Tabachnik (1981)

argued that the impact of university-based teacher education was often ‘washed out’ by school

experiences and the absence of learning support evidenced in this study helps to explain why. Simi-

larly, Veenman (1984) coined the term ‘reality shock’ to represent the ways in which PETE stu-

dents on TP rapidly forgot university-based preparation when surviving the reality of the

classroom. Research of this nature resulted in a review of North-American research on teacher edu-

cation by the American Educational Research Association (AERA) Panel on Research and Teacher

Education (Cochran-Smith and Zeichner, 2005), who contended there was no convincing evidence

that teacher education really makes a difference. This is a view shared by Neville et al. (2005a),

who described clinical experiences in education as ‘limited, disconnected from university course-

work, and inconsistent’ (p.13). Such findings may be partly explained by the quality of the school–

university partnership in ITE (Darling-Hammond, 2006a).

According to Callahan and Martin (2007), since the 1980s there has been an increasing

emphasis on school–university partnerships as a stronghold of teacher education programmes. The

etymology of the term partnership, in the commercial sense, was first mooted circa 1700, pointing

to a shared ownership of an entity (Wordnet, 2008). Today, the term ‘partnership’ has grown to

encompass other meanings, one of which describes it as a:

Cooperative relationship between people or groups who agree to share responsibility for achieving

some specific goal (Wordnet, 2008).

Chambers and Armour 175

It is this definition that, in theory, underpins the notion of school–university partnerships,

although as the evidence from this research illustrates, the reality for students can be variable,

perhaps because of the nature of these partnerships.

Partnerships in education can be defined in a range of ways; for example, in terms of their

interaction preferences or their goals (Day, 1998; Teitel, 1999). With regard to ‘interaction pre-

ferences’, Day identifies three types of interaction: ideology (the search for like minds); gen-

erativity (the search to produce new knowledge); or capacity building (the search to create change

through sustained interaction). Alternatively, Teitel suggests that school–university partnerships

may be defined by four key goals: (a) improvement of student [pupil] learning; (b) preparation of

educators; (c) professional development of educators; (d) research and inquiry into improving

practice. These four goals place adult learning at the centre of the school–university partnership

(Sandholtz, 2002) and it is instructive to compare the experience of the Irish PETE students in this

research with these models. In particular, there was little evidence of either capacity building in

school–university partnerships or a shared goal of professional development for all parties.

As outlined earlier on p.14, Graham’s (1988) argument suggests that in successful collabora-

tion, partners move to appreciate each others input, which in this case can lead to parity of esteem

between the school and the university. Progressing toward such equality is often steeped with

mistrust and mutual disrespect.

As was noted earlier, Darling-Hammond (2006b) argues that effective ITE programmes possess

a range of key characteristics, one of which is to place value on the strength of the school–univer-

sity relationship in supporting PETE student learning. Here again, the contrast between Darling-

Hammond’s blueprint for effective practice and the findings from this Irish study is stark. Although

all parties (UT, SP, CT) were individually invested in teacher education, they appeared to compete

with each other for a pre-eminent role in the process, rather than collaborating around the central

task of enhancing PETE student learning. Tensions therefore existed at the interface between

school and university (Edwards and Mutton, 2007).

International research argues consistently that school and university personnel should under-

stand their respective roles in a shared, coherent programme of teacher education (Hardy, 1999;

Kiely, 2005; McIntyre et al., 1996). Indeed, Korthagen (2010) advocates ‘a pedagogy of teacher

education that combines fruitful practical experiences’ (p.104) and, as Behets and Vergauwen

(2006: 407-408) point out, TP is pivotal within this process. The findings from this Irish study,

however, support findings of previous international research and Irish research in the field (Coady,

2010) and, in addition, illustrate vividly the mechanics of the process of inhibited student learning

in dysfunctional school–university partnerships (Darling-Hammond, 2006a, 2006b; Hardy, 1999;

McIntyre et al., 1996).

Specifically, the findings of this study suggest that it was perceptions of a lack of parity within the

school–university relationship that led to problems in supporting PETE student learning. This left

students with the task of directing their own learning using any available source, including CTs, UTs,

books, the Internet or self-selected mentors. Although some of the students appeared to be adept at

this process, it could be argued that a training ‘system’, such as ITE, should be able to offer them

more.

Clandinin and Connelly (1995) highlighted the importance in professional learning of a

teacher’s ‘professional knowledge landscape’ and noted that is both ‘an intellectual and moral

landscape’ (p.5). It is in this context that we argue the findings of the Irish study are of particular

concern. There is no doubt that the professional knowledge landscape for these PETE students was

both intellectually and morally impoverished. Hager and Hodkinson (2009) point to the importance

176 European Physical Education Review 18(2)

of conceptualising learning as a process of learning across boundaries and, in a sense, this is

exactly the facility and philosophy that the system in this research lacked. The impact on the PETE

students was apparent: the impact on their future pupils, and on the next generation of PETE

students, can only be imagined.

Conclusion

This paper reports one set of data from a study of Irish PETE students and considers the impact of

what appeared to be dysfunctional school–university partnerships on their professional learning

during TP. The findings indicate a perceived lack of parity between schools and the university in

terms of the CTUT relationship. Specifically, the findings show that the TP grading process was

perceived to be unjust and somewhat unbalanced, with the UT placed in an omnipotent role.

Perhaps as a consequence of this imbalance, CTs tended to defend their PETE students in post-

lesson meetings with the UT. In addition, there were issues regarding the optimum site for PETE

learning, with SPs believing that the school is the primary site for PETE student learning, not the

university (SP, Mr Noonan, Interview, 16 February 2007). Universities did not appear to value

school contribution in TP, for example, Mr Clancy (SP) stated the support given by schools for

PETE student learning ‘was not to be assumed’ (SP, Mr Clancy, Interview, 16 February 2007) and

Mr Noonan (SP) asserting ‘The university needs to get real in terms of who is serving who’ (SP, Mr

Noonan, Interview Principal, 16 February 2007). It also seemed that the role of the SP in ITE was

not acknowledged or valued. This resulted in PETE students learning in an unsupported and often

isolated manner.

Based on the findings of this study, it can be argued that within ITE in Ireland, it would be

helpful if UTs and CTs were trained specifically to provide high-quality learning support for PETE

students during TP, and if the ‘system’ of ITE could be built upon concepts such as shared under-

standing of the responsibility of both schools and universities for PETE learning and capacity

building. This would pave the way for the development of genuine partnerships between CTs and

UTs, and between schools and universities, with all parties actively supporting PETE student learn-

ing on TP. In this way, the professional knowledge landscape (Clandinin and Connelly, 1995)

could look very different. Corroborating these findings, Coady (2010) in her recent study on

teacher education in Ireland concluded:

The impact that the school has on how student teachers develop must be more widely acknowledged

and teacher education must engage in respectful dialogue with schools to enable the development of

their role as partners in the TP process through (a) communication of the expectations of teacher edu-

cation providers during TP re role of the school, the co-operating teachers and the student teachers is

during the practicum placement (b) The relationship with schools should also be developed to enable

teacher educators to become more involved in the life cycle of teaching within schools in supporting

practising teachers in schools and provide an arena for teachers to truly consider and experience their

learning as a continuum (pp.322-323).

In 2011, the Teaching Council of Ireland launched a policy document on the Continuum of

Teacher Education across ITE, Induction and CPD. This may be the vital first step to recognising

the joint role of school and university in preparation of PETE students and finally following the

recommendation made in 1999 by two key reviews of teacher education in Ireland (at both primary

and post-primary level) that teacher education programmes need to have closer links with school

Chambers and Armour 177

personnel on TP to prepare teachers to deal with educational change (Harford, 2010; O’Donoghue

and Harford, 2010). The Teaching Council of Ireland is currently consulting with key stakeholders

regarding the practical implementation of changes to the Irish ITE system. They advocate:

‘New and innovative school placement models using a partnership approach’ which would comprise

‘host schools being communities of good professional practice’ (Teaching Council of Ireland, 2011a,

pp. 16-17). These new school placement models would (a) devolve greater responsibility to schools to

support student teacher learning e.g. mentoring (b) involve a whole school approach to student teacher

learning support (c) enhanced partnership between university tutor and cooperating teacher and (d)

CPD opportunities for cooperating teachers to help them engage in their role of supporting student

teacher learning (e) in-school learning opportunities for university tutors (ibid).

To close, Sir Ken Robinson (2010) describes the change in culture needed to change Ireland’s

current teacher education system, using the words of Abraham Lincoln (1862):

The dogmas of the quiet past are inadequate to the stormy present. The occasion is piled high with dif-

ficulty, and we must rise with the occasion. As our case is new, so we must think anew, and act anew.

We must disenthrall ourselves, and then we shall save our country.

In engaging in dialogue with key stakeholders on the future of teacher education in Ireland,

perhaps the Teaching Council is attempting to do just that.

Note

1. Also called second-level or secondary school level.

References

Amade-Escot C (2000) The contribution of two research programmes on teaching content: ‘‘Pedagogical con-

tent knowledge’’ and the ‘‘didactics of physical education’’. Journal of Teaching in Physical Education

20(1): 78–101.

Anderson G, Arsenault N (2000) Fundamentals of Educational Research. Bristol, PA: Falmer Press.

Barab SA, Duffy TM (2000) From practice fields to communities of practice. In: Jonassen DH, Land SM (eds)

Theoretical Foundations of Learning Environments. London: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Begley CM (1996) Triangulation of communication skills in qualitative research instruments. Journal of

Advanced Nursing 24(4): 688–693.

Behets D, Vergauwen L (2006) Learning to teach in the field. In: Kirk D, Macdonald D and O’Sullivan M

(eds) The Handbook of Physical Education. London: Sage.

Brouwer N, Korthagen F (2005) Can teacher education make a difference? American Educational Research

Journal 42(1): 153–224.

Callahan JL, Martin D (2007) The spectrum of school–university partnerships: A typology of organizational

learning systems. Teaching and Teacher Education 23(2): 136–145.

Charmaz K (2000) Grounded theory: Objectivist and subjectivist methods. In: Denzin NK, Lincoln YS (eds)

Handbook of Qualitative Research. London: Sage.

Clandinin DJ, Connelly FM (1995) Teachers’ Professional Knowledge Landscapes. New York: Teachers’

College Press.

Coady L (2010) Becoming a teacher: Students’ experiences and perceptions of their initial teacher education.

Doctor Of Philosophy, University Of Limerick, Ireland.

Cochran-Smith M (2005) 2005 presidential address the new teacher education: For better for worse. Educa-

tional Researcher, Educational Researcher 34(7): 3–17.

178 European Physical Education Review 18(2)

Cochran-Smith M, Zeichner KM (eds) (2005) Studying Teacher Education: The Report of the Panel on

Research and Teacher Education. Washington, DC: American Educational Research Association.

Coleman MM, Mitchell M (2000) Assessing observation focus and conference targets of cooperating teachers.

Journal of Teaching in Physical Education 20(1): 40–54.

Coolahan J (2003) Attracting, Developing and Retaining Effective Teachers: Country Background For Ireland.

Dublin: Department of Education & Science and the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Develop-

ment [OECD].

Cresswell JW (2002) Educational Research: Planning, Conducting, and Evaluating Quantitative and Quali-

tative Research. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Merrill-Prentice Hall.

Darling-Hammond L (2006a) Constructing 21st century teacher education. Journal of Teacher Education

57(3): 300–314.

Darling-Hammond L (2006b). Powerful Teacher Education: Lessons from Exemplary programmes. San Fran-

cisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Darling-Hammond L, Bransford J (2005) Preparing Teachers for a Changing World: What Teachers should

Learn and be able to do., San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

DAY, C. 1998. Re-thinking schooluniversity partnerships: A Swedish case study. Teaching and Teacher

Education, 14, 807–819.

Dictionary.Com (2007) Parity. http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/parity. (Accessed on 23rd March

2007).

Edwards A, Mutton T (2007) Looking forward: Rethinking Professional learning through partnership

arrangements in initial teacher education. Oxford Review of Education 33(4): 503–519.

European Commission (2010) Common European Principles for Teacher Competences and Qualifications.

Brussels, Belgium: European Commission, Directorate-General for Education and Culture.

Finlay L (2002) ‘‘Outing’’ the researcher: The provenance, process, and practice of reflexivity. Qualitative

Health Research 12(4): 531–545.

Furlong J, Barton L, Miles S, et al. (2000) Teacher Education In Transition: Reforming Professionalism?

Buckingham, Open University Press.

Garm N, Karlsen GE (2004) Teacher education reform in Europe: The case of Norway; Trends and tensions in

a global perspective. Teaching and Teacher Education 20(7): 731–744.

Glaser BG, Strauss A (1967) The Discovery of Grounded Theory: Strategies for Qualitative Research. Chicago,

IL: Aldine.

Graber KC (1989) Teaching tomorrows teachers: Professional preparation as an agent of socialisation. In:

Templin TJ, Schempp PG (eds) Socialization into Physical Education: Learning to Teacher. Dubuque,

IA: Brown & Benchmark.

Graham G (1988) Collaboration in PE: A lot like marriage. Journal of Teaching in Physical Education 7(7):

165–174.

Guillemin M, Gillam L (2004) Ethics, reflexivity, and ‘‘ethically important moments’’ in research. Qualita-

tive Inquiry 10(2): 261–280.

Hager P, Hodkinson P (2009) Moving beyond the metaphor of transfer of learning. British Educational

Research Journal 35(4): 619–638.

Hardy C (1999) Preservice teachers’ perceptions of learning to teach in a predominantly school-based teacher

education programme. Journal of Teaching in Physical Education 18(2): 175–198.

Harford J (2010) Teacher education policy in Ireland and the challenges of the twenty-first century. European

Journal of Teacher Education 33(4): 349–360.

Harry B, Sturges K and Klinger J (2005) Mapping the process: An exemplar of process and challenge in

grounded theory analysis. Educational Researcher 34(2): 3–13.

Hynes-Dusel JM (1999) Co-operating teachers perceptions about the student teaching experience. The Physical

Educator 56(4): 186–195.

Kiely E (2005) The mentoring phenomenon in educating pre-service science teachers through school-based

collaborative partnership. Doctor Of Philosophy, University Of Limerick, Ireland.

Chambers and Armour 179

Kinchin G (2009) From entry to completion: An examination of secondary physical education student teach-

ers expectations of initial teacher education across one PGCE course, 1–4 September, British Educational

Research Association, University of Manchester.

Kirk J, Miller ML (1986) Reliability and Validity in Qualitative Research. London: Sage.

Korthagen FAJ (2010) Situated learning theory and the pedagogy of teacher education: Towards an integra-

tive view of teacher behavior and teacher learning. Teaching and Teacher Education 26(1): 98–106.

Lave J, Wenger E (1991) Situated Learning and Legitimate Peripheral Participation. Cambridge: Cambridge

University Press.

LEWIN, K. M. 2004. The Pre-Service Training of Teachers: Does it meet it’s objectives and how can it be

improved? Background paper for 2005 Education for All Global Monitoring Report: The Quality Impera-

tive. Paris, France: UNESCO.

Lincoln YS, Guba EG (1985) Naturalistic Inquiry. New York: Sage.

MAWER, M. 1996. Mentoring in Physical Education: Issues and insights, London: Falmer Press.

McCullick BA (2001) Practitioners perspectives on values, knowledge and skills needed by PETE partici-

pants. Journal of Teaching in Physical Education 21(1): 35–56.

McIntyre DJ, Byrd DM and Foxx SM (1996) Field and laboratory experiences. In: Sikula J, Buttery TJ and

Guyton E (eds) Handbook of Research on Teacher Education: A Project of the Association of Teacher

Educators. New York: Macmillan.

McWilliams S, Cannon P, Margaret Farrar M, et al (2006) Comparison and evaluation of aspects of teacher edu-

cation in Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland. European Journal of Teacher Education 29(1): 67–79.

Merriam SB (1998) Qualitative Research and Case Study Applications. San Francisco, CA: Jossey Bass.

Minichiello V, Aroni R, Timewell E, et al (1995) In-depth Interviewing. Melbourne, Australia: Longman.

Myers M (2000) Qualitative research and the generalizability question: Standing firm with proteus. The qualita-

tive report, 4. Available at: http://www.nova.edu/ssss/QR/QR4-3/myers.html. (accessed 10 February 2008).

Neville, K. S., Sherman, R. H. & Cohen, C. E. 2005. Preparing and Training Professionals: Comparing edu-

cation to six other fields. New York: The Finance Project. Available at: http://www.financeproject.org/

Publications/preparingprofessionals.pdf. Accessed on: 2nd April 2008.

O’Donoghue T, Harford J (2010) Troubling some generalisations on teacher education in the English-

speaking world: The case of the Republic of Ireland. South African Journal Of Education 30(1): 91–104.

Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) (2007) Improving school leadership.

Report.

O’Sullivan M (2003) Learning to teach physical education. In: Silverman SJ, Ennis C (eds) Student Learning

in Physical Education: Applying Research to Enhance Instruction. Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics.

Pidgeon N, Henwood K (2004) Grounded theory. In: Hardy M, Bryman A (eds) Handbook of Data Analysis.

London: Sage.

Richardson L (2000) Writing: A method of inquiry. In: Denzin NK, Lincoln YS (eds) Handbook of Qualita-

tive Research. 2nd ed. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Robinson K (director) (2010) Bring on the Education Revolution. UK: TED.

Sandholtz JH (2002) Inservice training or professional development: Contrasting opportunities in a school/

university partnership. Teaching and Teacher Education 18(7): 815–830.

Skilbeck M, Connell H (2003) Attracting, Developing and Retaining Teachers: Australian Country Back-

ground Report. Drysdale, Victoria: OECD.

Spendlove D, Howes A and Wake G (2010) Partnerships in pedagogy: Refocusing of classroom lenses.

European Journal of Teacher Education 33(1): 65–77.

Strauss A, Corbin J (1990) Basics of Qualitative Research: Grounded Theory Procedures and Techniques.

Newbury, CA: Sage.

Strauss A, Corbin J (1998) Basics of Qualitative Research: Techniques and Procedures for Developing

Grounded Theory. London: Sage.

180 European Physical Education Review 18(2)

Sutherland, L. M., Scanlon, L. A. & Sperring, A. 2005. New Directions in preparing professionals: examining

issues in engaging students in communities of practice through a school-university partnership. Teaching

and Teacher Education, 21, 79–92.

Teaching Council of Ireland (2011a) Initial Teacher Education: Criteria and Guidelines for Programme

Providers. Maynooth, Co. Kildare: Teaching Council of Ireland.

Teitel, L. 1999. Looking toward the future by understanding the past: The historical context of professional

development schools. Peabody Journal of Education, 74, 6–20.

Teaching Council of Ireland (2011b) Policy on the Continuum of Teacher Education. Maynooth: Teaching

Council of Ireland.

Tikunoff W, Ward B and Lazar C (1980) Partners: Teachers, researchers, trainer/developers—An Interactive

approach to teacher education in R& D. In: Hall G, Hord S and Brown G (eds) Exploring Issues in Teacher

Education: Questions for Future Research. Austin: TX: The University of Texas R&D Center for Teacher

Education.

Trubowitz S (1986) Stages in the development of school-college collaboration. Educational Leadership

43(5): 18–21.

Tsangaridou N, Siedentop D (1995) Reflective teaching: A literature review. Quest 47(2): 212–237.

Veenman S (1984) Perceived problems of beginning teachers. Review of Educational Research 54(2):

143–178.

Wordnet (2008) Partnership. Available at: http://wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn (Accessed 12 February

2008).

Yin RK (1994) Case Study Research: Design and Methods. London: Sage.

Youens B, McCarthy S (2007) Subject knowledge development by science student teachers: The role of

university tutors and school-based subject mentors. Research in Science & Technological Education

25(3): 293–306.

Zeichner K, Tabachnik BR (1981) Are the effects of university teacher education washed out by school

experiences? Journal of Teacher Education 32(1): 7–11.

Biographies

Fiona Chambers is a Senior Lecturer and the Director of Sports Studies and Physical Education in the School

of Education, University College Cork.

Kathleen Armour is Professor of Education and Sport at the University of Birmingham.

Chambers and Armour 181