MAR 02178 Paper presented at AARE, Brisbane December 1-5, 2002.

Kay Martinez & Gail Mackay

James Cook University

Townsville 4811.

Critical reflection persists as a widely advocated technique to bridge the theories-practices divide for teacher development. However, it is our experience that when teachers engage in critical reflection, the focus is often limited to intuitive responses or technicalities. Seldom is the focus on theoretical concepts of teaching and learning, and seldom are learners and learning outcomes at the center of teachers' considerations. Effective critical reflection is even more difficult for preservice teachers who are often overwhelmed by high-stake appraisal and by the wide range of knowledge and skills demanded by the exigencies of teaching.

In order to structure preservice teachers' critical reflections, a series of strategies for inclusion in the final year professional experience program were developed in collaboration with school-based teacher educators. This built on earlier research that redirected the focus of practicum supervision from exclusive consideration of developing teacher competence, to include a focus on classroom learners and their learning outcomes. In a classical critical reflection cycle, preservice teachers were required to collect data on learners and their evaluation of learning, and use those data to inform their own subsequent teaching practices. This paper is a report on research investigating participants' perceptions of the effectiveness of this structured learner-focussed process of critical reflection.

James Cook University (JCU) in Townsville is a regional university and the sole provider of teacher education in North Queensland. Central to the philosophy of the School of Education has been a commitment to developing life-long critically reflective practitioners who themselves are committed to creating a more socially just world. It is beyond the scope of this paper to enter the details of the huge literature on critical reflection, but in general terms, the School of Education has been influenced by the long tradition of work on teacher reflection (e.g., Dewey, 1910; Schon, 1987; Van Manen, 1977), with a general understanding of reflection as described by Ghaye and Ghaye (1998, p.2) as: "Looking back and making sense of practice, learning from this and using this learning to affect your future action. It is about making sense of your professional life". Pajak (2000) suggests three levels of reflective practice in supervision - the technical, conceptual and moral-ethical. The JCU model has aimed at the moral/ethical level, with its focus on justice, equity and critical connections between "the professional self and the institutional, social and political forces that impinge on teaching." Our understanding of the critical component of critical reflection has again been influenced by a diverse tradition of theorists including Habermas (1970), Giroux and McLaren (1987), Brookfield (1995), and Zeichner and Tabachnick (1991). Smyth's work in Australia has been especially influential, and we have frequently used his four-step procedure for teachers to critically evaluate their own classroom practices: describe, inform, confront and reconstruct (Smyth 1991, p.122). Smyth's (1998) definition of critical as it relates to critical learning communities succinctly captures much of our endeavours in professional experience:

The embeddedness of JCU in the local education community is characterised by a clear mutual dependence between schools providing JCU with students and professional experience placements, and JCU providing schools with graduate teachers. Each year, JCU Townsville places around 1200 preservice teachers in about 300 schools. As in many other university locations, this has led to close working relationships between schools and the university, particularly in professional experience where the two institutional worlds are bridged by preservice teachers themselves. A Professional Experience Advisory Committee has operated for over a decade and is responsible for developing curriculum and assessment for professional experience, as well as advising on general directions of School of Education programs.

Close integration of the university-based and school-based components is also fundamental to the overall programs at JCU, along with explicit connections between theory and practice in all settings. The challenge of linking theory and practice is well documented in the literature on teacher education, and is also central in current national and international professional policy documents. In Australia, the national guidelines for preservice teacher education published by the Australian Council of Deans (1998) and the Queensland Board of Teacher Registration state guidelines (2002) established requirements for preservice programs to teach the expanding knowledge bases about teaching, to offer opportunities for practical experiences to implement that knowledge, and to reflect on its consequences. The Ramsey review into teacher education in New South Wales (2001) places professional experience at the centre of preservice teacher education programs, and also calls for the integration of theoretical and practical knowledges. Similar insistence on the construction and connecting of theoretical and practical knowledge bases occurs in almost all sets of professional standards for teachers that are proliferating nationally and internationally (eg, Australian Teaching Council, 1996; National Board for Professional Teaching Standards, 1994; Ontario College of Teachers, 1999).

Many of these official documents on professional experience also position professional experience as a significant developmental phase in the life-long learning continuum of teachers' professional development, and this developmental aspect constitutes a further principle of the JCU professional experience program. Steffy, Wolfe, Pasch and Enz (2000) present a six-phase model of teacher career growth, and argue that the initial phase - the novice teacher phase which includes preservice field experience - is crucial, but frequently marked by "inadequate development of critical-reflection skills" (p.34). In the Steffy et al model, the process of reflection and renewal is the central, critical aspect. They conceptualise reflection as personal constructivism, with teachers engaging in purposeful construction of meaning and knowledge for themselves in a process which "relates thought and action" and "connects present knowledge and skills to a vision for a desired future" (p.10). Such views linking developmental and constructivist aspects of professional experience learning are consonant with the JCU intended model, and are echoed in the work of Zeppeda (2000), who calls for the extension of concepts of constructivism to supervisory practices. She argues that preservice teachers will learn best when their beliefs, theories and perceptions are challenged through conversations and experiences, allowing the learner "to reinforce theories of practice and/or create new practices" (Zeppeda, 2000, p.95).

As part of the working partnership with schools, and in keeping with our commitment to social justice, we have also focussed on the pedagogy of professional experience in our efforts to revise the model of preservice supervision. We have worked with local school-based teacher educators to redirect the supervisory gaze from a single focus on the developing teacher competence of the preservice teachers, to include a focus on all learners, their learning outcomes and their responses to different teaching strategies and learning experiences (Martinez, Hamlin & Rigano, 2000). Our concern about the widening pool of schools involved in the program, and our difficulties in reaching all teacher supervisors has alerted us to the problems of very varied professional experiences across sites and between teachers in one site. In an effort to address these wide variations in prac experiences, working parties of school and university-based teacher educators developed a series of structured activities for professional experience that might 'guarantee' more preservice teachers engaging in the sorts of activities that would help them develop as critically reflective practitioners with a focus on learners' outcomes. Supervision workshops have been conducted at the university and in a range of school clusters around our region. Like most universities, we have also undergone several major reviews and reconstructions of our program, the most recent having commenced four years ago and so the current 2002 final year students are now completing the first four year cycle of this new program.

Gail Mackay worked for many years in the Education Queensland system, as classroom teacher, secondary school principal and as regional director. For the past few years, Gail has worked at JCU coordinating a second year core subject in Managing Learning and Teaching. Kay Martinez was a secondary teacher, joint appointee of JCU and Education Queensland, coordinates a final year subject Constructing Secondary Teaching and Curriculum, and was recently director of professional experience for eight years. We both visit preservice teachers during their professional experience in schools. Our joint experience has alerted us to many gaps between the rhetoric of the intended professional experience and the realities of practice for participants.

It has been our experience that many teachers at all stages of their career have a very narrow view of "critical reflection". The process described in the literature mentioned above as intellectual inquiry, systematic observation and rigorous analysis in terms of social and learning outcomes for all learners often materialises as a perfunctory " How did that go?" or "What did I like about that?" and "What would I change if I did it again?" Our intended notions of cycles of critical reflection are also at odds with frequent reports from preservice teachers of minimal collection of data about teaching, snatched passing conversations with teacher supervisors, and little follow-up. Day's (1999) work pointed to the impact of wider issues such as the prevailing ethos of schools, on reflective practices. He argued that traditional cultures of classroom teaching and of schools actually militate against reflective practices, with teachers' practicality ethic taking precedence over "the kinds of critical discourse promoted by academics as being essential to the developing professional" (p.224). In a similar vein, Sirotnik (1991, cited in Goodlad, 1994, p.109) described the culture of schools as "an ethic of action and meeting immediate needs", in contrast with the university's "ethic of inquiry". Adding to these concerns about institutional differences, is the widely documented evidence of current intensification and deprofessionalisation of teachers' work, especially risky in an era marked by public accountability measured against external standards for teachers and students (e.g., Apple, 2001; Hargreaves, 1994; and Smyth, 2001). Persuading teacher supervisors and preservice teachers to focus on critical reflection at this time in history is clearly a challenge.

We were also aware that while the preservice phase is crucially formative in teacher development, a range of contextual characteristics can lead to professional experience being anything but a positive occasion for learning to be a critically reflective teacher. With its high-stake assessment in final phase, professional experience can be experienced by preservice teachers as a highly regulatory set of discourses and values such as school work and assessment programs, normative criteria, and supervising teachers' habituated routines (St Maurice, 1987; Waite, 1995; Martinez, 1998; and Zeichner, 1996).

Our ideals about integration of university-based and school-based knowledge integration were also jolted by some teacher supervisors' complaints that preservice teachers seemed to lack knowledge of learner diversity and teaching strategies, even though we knew we were teaching these elements at the university. It was clear that the hard work of the representative committees at university often fell away in broader school arenas. The wide diversity and geographical spread of the 300 schools involved in professional experience meant that it was hardly surprising that preservice teachers' experiences of professional experience were extremely varied. We also knew about the patchiness with which we as university-based teacher educators established opportunities for preservice teachers to critically explore the knowledge they had gained from professional experience; nor are we consistent in providing opportunities for them to demonstrate those knowledges, or make explicit the connections among fragments of knowledge constructed in multiple sites. The ground-breaking works of university researchers like Zeichner (1994) and Cochran-Smith and Lytle (1993) have paved the way for recognition and valuing of teachers' research and knowledge about their own work. We support the position taken by Cochran-Smith and Lytle (1993, p.62) that this is not just an add-on to the knowledge base for teaching; rather, it represents a major change to "a different theory of knowledge" which would "redefine the notion of knowledge for teaching and alter the locus of the knowledge base". In our work as university-based teachers educators, we make explicit our respect for experience-based learning of preservice teachers and experienced teachers, supporting Cochran-Smith and Lytle's position:

We are not seeking to privilege university course work in any way; rather we are seeking to help preservice teachers integrate diverse knowledge chips into a cohesive mosaic of a professional knowledge base to guide their future teacher development and practice. We would like preservice teachers to see the relationship between universities and schools, along with the relationships between theoretical and practical knowledges, as characterised by mutuality and cooperation, not by conflict and contestation. Our fears are that often the two world divide between university and schools still exists for many participants, and many preservice teachers are failing to make links among knowledge components.

Final year professional experience at JCU consists of three phases: one week at the start of the school year; a two-week block in May; and a 5 week block in August. For the purposes of this paper, our focus is on two of the structured professional experience activities (See Appendix A for extracts from the Professional Experience Handbook). The first required the preservice teachers to compile a Learner Profile which documented characteristics such as gender, ability, special disabilities, special interests, prior achievements. The second activity investigated was one that required preservice teachers to choose from a range of six evaluation forms to collect information from classroom learners during the second phase of the professional experience (May), about their learning-teaching preferences. Preservice teachers were to incorporate that learner feedback into the planning for their teaching in Phase 3 (August).

Questionnaires were distributed to all final year preservice teachers early in September after their return to university from final phase of professional experience. From 68 secondary preservice teachers, we gathered 49 completed forms; from 110 primary preservice teachers we gathered 53 completed forms. We mailed questionnaires, with reply-paid return envelopes, to all teachers of final year preservice teachers, and received only 23 completed forms. (Administrative delays in mailing out teacher questionnaires and confusion about return dates may have accounted for such poor response rates.) The questionnaire consisted of two parts. Section A comprised structured response items asking respondents to assess the degree of difficulty and helpfulness of the structured professional experience activities. Section B asked preservice teachers to reflect on what they had learnt during the professional experience from completing the structured activities. They were asked to comment specifically on what they had learnt about teaching in general, about learners and about themselves as teachers, and to list which particular activities had been most helpful for each of those three areas of learning. Teacher respondents were asked to evaluate the structured activities in terms of their helpfulness to preservice teachers. Extracts from the questionnaires relevant to this paper are included as Appendix B.

Preservice teachers and teacher supervisors were asked to volunteer to participate in focus group interviews. From the preservice teachers who volunteered, we selected two groups of six primary and six secondary who had completed their professional experience in a variety of school settings- state, non-state, small and large. We also included preservice teachers who had reported to us very positive professional experiences, and some who had been unhappy with it. We tape recorded hour-long, semi-structured interviews with both groups, and analysed the interview transcripts for recurring themes. At the time of writing this paper, we have not yet conducted the teacher interview.

The structured activities were found to be helpful by both novice and experienced supervising teachers:

• I found the booklet very helpful, being a first-time prac teacher - very useful and clear.
• Using this handbook made having a final year student a pleasure to have in the classroom. I had always hated the final report and felt I hadn't done enough, but by using the new handbook, it was so much easier.

However, one teacher was highly critical of the prac handbook and of university generally:

Of the 102 preservice teachers who responded, 22 made no response at all to Section B, and 18 of the responses showed no connection to the professional experience activities. Twelve respondents reported that the structured activities had been of no use at all, one indicating that s/he had been "basically too busy to worry about completing prac booklet. No need to revisit third year activities". One preservice teacher judged the activities "too ephemeral"; another stated that the activities "were a little tedious during last phase prac"; and this sentiment was echoed by another who found the activities "too structured. Just discussing is better and easier." This view was repeated by another preservice teacher who said that: "Most of what I learnt about teaching came from natural conversations and interactions with the teacher". One preservice teacher thought that the activities through everyday practice in primary schools, arguing, "teachers use checklists and anecdotal notes. They do not fill in forms". A primary teacher reflected this sentiment: "I saw some of the activities as a bit of a distraction from the actual teaching/feedback cycle that practising teachers and students normally engage in". On the other hand, another teacher commented that the problem lay, not with the activities, but with the quality of the preservice teacher's completion of them.

Questionnaire Data

Analysis of the summary data from the structured section of the questionnaire indicates that preservice teachers found the learner profile easy to do with only 13% reporting it was very difficult or impossible. Not surprisingly, the area in which the largest percentage of preservice teachers indicated that this activity was helpful was in focussing more clearly on learners (80% helped a lot or a little). However, more than 60% also claimed that it helped a lot or a little in rethinking their teaching practices and in clarifying views about teaching and learning. A less decisive trend emerged regarding the links between university and prac with only about half of the students indicating that completing the learner profiles assisted them to make connections. A similar pattern can be seen in the teacher data although a larger percentage of the teachers saw this activity as helpful in the development of the working relationship between preservice teacher and supervisor. (See Appendix C.)

In the open-ended section of the questionnaire, 33 preservice teachers commented on learner profiles and their helpfulness in professional experience. The learner profiles alerted the preservice teacher to the centrality and diversity of the learners:

• Learners are a diverse bunch with many difficulties in the changing world;
• Teaching is basically all about the students, not the school or the system or other negative teachers. Sometimes the student's background has to be taken into account before you can even begin to teach;
• How can you teach if you don't have an understanding of the learners?

The preservice teachers used the learner profiles to shape their teaching practices:

• Learners respond positively when you show genuine interest through tailoring learning to their abilities, talent and gifts;
• The learner profile helped me learn how to use students' background experience to develop meaningful learning experiences;
• Learner profile was a useful tool to use when planning lessons to cater for the needs of all students; The learner profile made me research the class;
• Vast possible diversity of learners, varied responses to approaches and strategies;
• Learner profile - a bible for my planning.

A number of supervising teachers confirmed the value of the learner profile with one teacher commenting that: "The learner profile gained at the beginning of the prac year proved invaluable in many ways: awareness of particular learning needs; personalities that may either clash or combine; aware of abilities, likes, dislikes; what type of behaviour management strategies would be appropriate to this class. Handbook gave specific ideas and strategies to use." Supervising teachers also signalled that the quality of the learner profile was important, indicating that if the profile was superficial it was of limited use for reflection.

Preservice teachers also expressed some reservations about the learner profile. Some were concerned about the format provided, arguing that "the categories were a bit restricting". One preservice teacher claimed that "Week 1 was a bad time of the year to complete the learner profile", and another commented that the supervising teacher's limited understanding of all students' needs, race and abilities restricted the effectiveness of the learner profile".

Interview data revealed a number of discernible trends, some of which supported and extended the issues raised in the questionnaire data discussed above. Preservice teachers expressed uncertainty about their rights to access information on learners and, in some cases, this was exacerbated by perceived hesitancy on the part of their teacher supervisors to disclose such information. A further inhibiting factor was the timing stipulated in the prac handbook. During the first week of the school year, teacher supervisors are still coming to know their new learners and a trusting relationship with the preservice teacher has yet to develop: "Teachers really worried about sharing that sort of information about their learners. ... Like, you're a teacher and really nearly there but, at the same time, they kept worrying about how to trust you with the information." When asked if school records had been consulted, the response was "I didn't specifically ask for that information. When you're first in the school and you're brand new there and it's the first week and you've got all these things to discuss, that sort of information wasn't really clearly available".

Preservice teachers relied heavily on information from teacher supervisors and other teachers in the school, including the special needs teacher, but their reliance was neither uncritical nor exclusive. One complained that the early information offered by the teacher supervisor was mostly negative, focussing on 'trouble makers', leading her to construct her own questionnaire asking the learners for background information such as what languages they speak at home. Further discussion focussed on the type of information included in the learner profile. One commented that "a lot of it is behavioural", but this was balanced by comments such as: "Mine tended to be more balanced ... I think that if I write negatively about the children I might naturally just display negative feelings towards them". The type of information recorded on the profile led to a concern about possible misuse of the data: "I found it very difficult when it came time for people to want to have a look at the learner profile. I didn't want to show anyone because there were children's names there and I have got things written ... that I'd be very careful about anyone other than my teacher seeing". In general, preservice teachers proved to be very resourceful in gathering learner information. One developed an interest inventory; another capitalised on informal interactions with the supervising teacher, completing the learner profile at the Friday afternoon pub session; others relied heavily on their own observations of learners during their visits to the school, using both structured discussion and anecdotal records: "I learnt a lot from the kids too. I had class discussions and I had written down specific things that I wanted to find out about them and share and things like that. ... We talked about families, where they lived, what their parents did ... and that gave me a general idea".

The interview data also revealed that preservice teachers saw the importance of the cumulative nature of the learner profile: "The learner profile isn't a static thing that you do at the beginning of the year ... you need to keep adding to the information in the general learner profile as you get to know the kids." They emphasised the need to revisit and review information in the learner profile in the light of further evidence: "It was good to have one especially as the year went on to keep up to date ... There's a couple of fathers in Timor. We kept an eye on how their coming and going impacted on their children". One preservice teacher built on the early profile developed from his discussions with the supervising teacher and his own observations through "going around and catching up with other teachers who have already had those kids and see them differently." Another indicated that she came not to trust entirely the initial information from the supervising teacher. Her own classroom interactions with a learner, coupled with discussions with the special needs teacher, revealed that one of the learners was dyslexic. This new insight led to her planning specifically for this student's needs and for the productive use of the support teacher.

Preservice teachers offered other examples of the ways they had used information from the learner profiles to tailor their teaching practices for individual students. For example, one preservice teacher individualised the assessment mode:

Primary preservice teachers in particular, talked about using individual student information from the learner profile in decisions about grouping: "I made anecdotal notes to do with social behaviour so that I could see who worked well with who and who worked well in groups and who didn't work well in groups." In another classroom: "There was a debate about silverchair and I couldn't group certain male members of the class together because of their beliefs about silverchair and whether or not it was the best musical group".

In addition to using the learner profile to individualise their practice, preservice teachers commented on the potential for the profile to alert them to the different groups within their class. One preservice teacher recalled his shock when the visiting university lecturer asked him how he was responding to the gender imbalance in his Senior Maths class where only two of the students were female. He regretted not having that whole picture focus in his learner profile and commented that his focus on individual learners had rendered invisible the gender imbalance. Once alerted to the class gender profile, he was sensitive to the implications for practice and reflected on his earlier "subconscious assumptions like using footy examples instead of more inclusive topics like pop culture or netball".

This example prompted general discussion about the impact of preservice teacher learning at university. Some were able to make explicit links between their university learning and their practical experience. Some talked about practical examples such as using I messages in behaviour management and scaffolding their planning. Others discussed more conceptual issues:

• The distinction between inferences and observations was really important. It was one of the first things that I learnt in Managing Learning and Teaching;
• Before we started getting an idea about inclusion, I would just naturally assume that integration was the same thing ... and that I would do the right thing by making kids conform to the culture of the class whereas it is important to recognise where they are at and make that part of the class as well;
• There was a time when I thought that talking in class is the wrong thing to do but substantive conversations brings in more higher order thinking.

Some preservice teachers discussed how they had called on their knowledge of learning theory to adapt their practice for different groups while others outlined how they had applied their understanding of problem-based learning in their classroom. One preservice teacher had also reversed the university to school link. To construct her learner profile she had asked students to write a brief anecdote about their life at school. One student's story of his sexuality became the springboard for a university-based group problem-based learning seminar assessment.

However, many of the preservice teachers experienced difficulty in making conscious links between theory and practice, including this account:

Others claimed that university study just helped them to "put a name to my practices", "more or less confirmation of what you've already been doing".

In summary across all data sources, preservice teachers in particular supported the effectiveness of the learner profile in focussing their teaching practices around learners, despite some misgivings about the mechanics of its development. Preservice teachers were less certain of the degree to which it helped them make explicit links between theory and practice. Preservice teachers interviewed were unanimous in their determination to use cumulative learner profiles to help them tailor their teaching practices to individuals and groups of learners in their future teaching careers. Teachers mirrored these positions; and additionally, more of them rated the learner profile as helpful in developing positive supervisory relationships.

Questionnaire Data

Analysis of the summary data from the structured section of the questionnaire indicates that preservice teachers found the learner feedback easy to collect, with only 4% reporting it was very difficult or impossible to do so. Similarly, only 10% experienced considerable difficulty in incorporating learner feedback in their planning. The areas in which the largest percentage of students found gathering and incorporating learner feedback helpful was in rethinking their teaching practices and focussing more clearly on learners (70%). Although 64% of preservice teachers found that incorporating learner feedback in their planning helped clarify their views about teaching and learning, only 21% found this activity helpful in making links between university and prac, with less than two percent indicating that it helped a lot. Most supervising teachers did not find the learner feedback activities difficult to administer but their responses regarding the helpfulness of the activities were ambivalent. (See Appendix C).

In the open-ended comments section of the questionnaire, thirty-four preservice teachers commented on the learner feedback activity and its helpfulness. Preservice teachers commented on the use of learner feedback to engage in critical reflection cycles:

• Learner feedback sheets were extremely helpful and great to reflect on lessons with;
• I found the learner feedback valuable as it helped me to adapt future lessons of the unit to more effectively engage the students;
• Learner feedback was important to direct future planning.

The learner feedback offered very specific information and some surprises for at least one preservice teacher. "The majority of students enjoyed concrete activities and variation in their lessons. What surprised me was that students enjoyed quizzes and anything group-oriented".

Teachers confirmed preservice teachers' use of feedback from earlier phases of prac teaching to plan the final phase: "During the continuous prac mainly, the PST used learner feedback to reflect on lessons taught and how much the children learned, and how well they responded."

For a number of the preservice teachers, the learner feedback activity further reinforced the centrality and diversity of learners:

• The activities constantly reminded me that the focus is on the learners;
• I learnt to listen to my students, that students are all different, and that if I help them to feel empowered in the classroom, they respond by taking responsibility for their own learning.

Some preservice teachers also commented on the impact on the students of seeking their opinions: "The students felt valued and gave good feedback about topics and structure of lessons". Another commented: "Most students are pleasant to work with and are willing to learn if you show an interest in their learning".

The preservice teachers in the focus interviews further expanded these themes. Preservice teachers unanimously asserted the importance of seeking learner feedback evn though they had found the process "a bit scary". They claimed that it was "good to be criticised", that "I liked getting the negatives" and that "I wanted to know what I was doing wrong". One commented that:

They were surprised that learners approached giving feedback seriously, indicating that they thought learners felt "privileged" and "empowered" by the process. They expanded on ways in which incorporating learner feedback contributed to the development of a positive relationship with students:

• For me it was letting the kids realise that you actually value what they think;
• If you don't ask them they don't know that they care about what you think;
• They really love it if they think they are helping you with your school too.

The same enthusiasm for gathering learner feedback was not always displayed by supervising teachers. Only one preservice teacher reported that a supervising teacher had modelled the use of learner feedback, and that was at a departmental level. Some examples were offered of teachers' open disregard for the process: "My teacher said to me it was a waste of time and that she didn't think that she would gain anything out of it". In general, preservice teachers did not get much assistance in obtaining the feedback but, when the process was complete, some supervising teachers were interested in looking at the outcomes.

Preservice teachers worked through a series of problems in collecting meaningful learner feedback, such as worrying about how much to lead students. One preservice teacher emphasised that it was important to be honest with students: "I told them that this is not your performance at all". This was supported by another preservice teacher who found that "it took a bit of set up like to emphasis that this is helping me out". Many commented on the problem of finding a suitable format for the age group, particularly with very young children. Most relied on written feedback, using some combination of the formats provided in the prac handbook but others had developed their own methods: "I started the learner feedback really simple like, what were three things you liked about the lesson, what are three things you didn't like and what are your suggestions". Another preservice teacher had adapted the format to suit her Year 1 class but preferred to interview students individually, cautioning against relying solely on one-off written feedback:

She believed that although the interviews took considerable time in the first instance, there were additional benefits such as finding out more about the students and, eventually the students themselves initiated the feedback.

The specificity of the feedback also varied with the group. One primary preservice teacher was concerned that her students' feedback was not discerning: "I had students who when I asked what did you like about this lesson - 'everything'. And what didn't you like - 'nothing'". A secondary preservice teacher claimed age and ability impacted on the quality of the feedback:

Preservice teachers were also unsure of what to do with "silly comments". Some thought they should be disregarded: "I think you can discern who's who and sort of take some good notes from those ones instead of - and just, read over the other ones". Another thought that feedback should be voluntary, suggesting a letterbox where students could respond if they wanted to. Other preservice teachers disagreed:

• That's no good because you've got to look at the good and the bad. I mean, why are they writing silly comments. You know, like, because if they aren't prepared to give you feedback on what they've done, then they obviously haven't found it meaningful, you know;
• [If you use a suggestion box] there's a danger of not asking everybody, ... like there's a stigma around it, who goes up to put something in the box.

Despite these problems with gaining genuine feedback, preservice teachers greatly valued the student feedback. Some preservice teachers saw learner feedback as their lifeline in maintaining their confidence:

• I actually found some of the learner feedback my saving grace because I was getting a lot of negative stuff from people I shouldn't be getting negative stuff from and no positive stuff at all. The positive stuff came from the students and without it I would probably have given up;
• If the preservice teacher is having difficulty with their supervisor or if there are things not going right, positive feedback from students might get them back on track.

However, the most discussed use of the feedback was engagement in reflection, and resulting changes to practice. Many preservice teachers were surprised with the students' comments, finding out things they would never have imagined and adapting their own teaching practices accordingly:

• I was really, really taken back by one particular class. They said they were interested, the ratings were high for interested, motivated and challenged, engaged, comfortable and safe but value, - there were a lot below5 out of 10. And that really took me by surprise... what I came up with on my reflection was that it was because I didn't know names. I didn't know a lot of their names and um, I think the value thing came down to that, that I didn't know names. ...

Preservice teachers also recounted examples of how learner feedback had had a more dramatic impact, occasioning a complete rethink of their practice. A preservice teacher working with a Year 12 Biology class reported:

Another secondary preservice teacher recounted a similar total shift in pedagogy, and confronted the taken-for-granted pedagogy traditionally associated with mathematics:

Of significance for this research is that these preservice teachers appeared to be measuring the success of their own teaching in terms of the learners' understandings and achievement.

These preservice teachers who had made complete changes to their practice in response to learner feedback were more easily able to identify the links with university learning than those teachers who had only adapted their practice. The teacher of the Year 12 Biology class emphasised the critical role of theory: "If I didn't have any of those theories or any sort of direction I would have been lost. I wouldn't have known what I was doing. I mean, I might have just written all the notes on the board and gone, here you go. The classes would have still been boring". The 12 Maths B teacher commented that: "Constructivism is a big thing. I think students really do respond positively when you are able to give them something they can construct themselves, and that's based on their prior knowledges and stuff like that". These preservice teachers claimed that they did not pull their ideas for change 'out of the ether', but that "you consciously know that it's from university". One described the way she saw connections between theory and practice:

However, making links between theory and practice was not always easy for the preservice teachers: "I do say that university is a very different place from school in terms of theory. Like in schools the talk of theory is miles away".

As interviewers, we were extremely impressed that these preservice teachers, even though they struggled to articulate explicit and specific links back to university knowledge bases, were actively using the language of education - they had appropriated educational discourse. They were also quick to recommend ways in which university-based teacher educators could make links with professional experience more explicit. They suggested a number of strategies, such as assistance with analysis of learner feedback and, in general, making greater use of experiences on prac:

The same preservice teacher advocated that analysis of student feedback be incorporated into university assessment: "Obviously everyone can see how important the activities are once they have used them. But, it would be good to do some sort of um, analysis, I don't know about analysis but like a reflection on it, as assessment".

The above examples of links between learning on prac and at university came exclusively from secondary preservice teachers. Primary preservice teachers did not articulate any connections, even though the interviewers probed several times around the issue. One of the researchers of this project also teaches the final year secondary education studies subject, and allocated workshop opportunities for secondary preservice teachers to share, explore and critique their professional experience learning. The role of university-based teacher educators seems crucial, along with curriculum and assessment of university subjects.

First, we believe we can claim that structuring activities for professional experience has considerable potential. The activities themselves can be constructed to be worthwhile learning experiences, and to match desired outcomes of programs - in our case, we focussed on learner profile and learner feedback, reinforcing our own commitment to social justice and view of the centrality of learners to the teaching/learning process. These activities also offered helpful scaffolding for preservice teachers' critical reflections on past teaching, prompted clearer consideration of individual learners and groups of learners, and shaped their planning for future teaching of these learners. The activities also appeared to have created opportunities for preservice teachers to incorporate knowledge from university sources, such as ideas about gender inclusion, practical strategies such as cooperative group work and encouraging substantive conversations, and individualising assessment to take into account recognition of cultural difference. These explicit connections between university and school knowledges appear more likely to occur when university and school-based teacher educators support and facilitate the preservice teachers' learning as they struggle to build bridges between the two worlds in which they must engage and succeed. We also believe that such structured activities can make professional experience more equitable, with greater consistency across sites.

We acknowledge the pathway forward is not clear - structured professional activities alone are no panacea. University and school cultures and practices still differ greatly. For example, university practices such as subject outlines written months in advance allow little scope for the sorts of flexibility required for experience-based learning. Universities generally continue to devalue work in schools. Schools continue (rightly) to see classroom learners as their first responsibility, with their role as teacher educators a side-event, even for the most committed. Reduced budgets for education minimise opportunities for supervisory workshops and knowledge sharing. For preservice teachers knocking at the door of the teaching profession, the teacher supervisor's gaze is extremely powerful, with the final prac report never too far from view. For all participants, work intensification, pressures of external accountability and ever expanding curricula make it difficult to find time and energy needed for the important work of consultation that will be needed to bring about reform in professional experience. Variations will continue to exist among preservice teachers' professional experiences, as teacher supervisors and preservice teachers themselves choose to take up or reject the activities. We are reminded of an aspect of school-university partnerships raised by Kerper and Johnston (1997), but often overlooked. In their fascinating account of rethinking university and school-based teachers' roles in developing a professional development school, the authors argue that in fact, classroom teachers have "the ultimate power" in determining success of any project or innovation, because they "decide whether or not to use them in their classrooms" (p.68). Keeping this in mind, we recommend the inclusion of structured activities into the curriculum of professional experience, provided it is accompanied by research that allows for critical reflection on the ways those activities are taken up, implemented and experienced by all participants - preservice teachers, and school- and university-based teacher educators.

Australian Council of Deans of Education (1998). Preparing a Profession: Report of the National Standards and Guidelines for Initial Teacher Education Project. Canberra: Australian Council of Deans of Education.

Australian Teaching Council (1996). National Competency Framework for Beginning Teaching. Canberra: Commonwealth of Australia.

Board of Teacher Registration (2002). Professional Standards for Graduates and Guidelines for Preservice Teacher Education Programs. Brisbane: Board of Teacher Registration.

Behar-Horenstein, L. (2000). Can the Modern View of Curriculum be Refined by Postmodern Criticism? In J. Glanz & L. Behar-Horenstein (eds). Paradigm Debates in Curriculum and Supervision. Westport, Connecticut: Bergin & Garvey.

Brookfield, S. (1995). Becoming a Critically Reflective Teacher. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Cochran-Smith, M. & Lytle, S. (1993). Inside/Outside: Teacher research and knowledge. Teachers College Press, Columbia University

Day, C. (1999). Researching Teaching Through Reflective Practice. In J. Loughran (ed) Researching Teaching: Methodologies and practices for understanding pedagogy. New York: Falmer Press.

Dewey, J. (1910). How We Think. New York: D.C. Heath

Ghaye, A. & Ghaye, K. (1998). Teaching and Learning Through Critically Reflective Practice. Lodon: David Fulton.

Giroux, H.A. & McLaren, P. (1987) Teacher Education as a Counterpublic Sphere: Radical pedagogy as a form of cultural politics, Philosophy and Social Criticism, 12 (1), pp.51-69.

Goodlad J. (1994). Educational Renewal: Better teachers, better schools. Jossey-Bass, San Francisco

Goodlad J. (1979). Curriculum Enquiry: The study of curriculum practice. New York: McGraw Hill.

Habermas, J. (1970) Towards a Rational Society. Boston: Beacon Press.

Hargreaves, A. (1994). Changing Teachers, Changing Times. Cassell, London

Kerper, R. & Johnston, M. (1997). Rethinking Our Roles. In M. Johnston (ed) Contradictions in Collaboration: New thinking on school/university partnerships. New York: Teachers College Press.

Martinez, K. (1998). Supervision in Preservice Teacher Education: Speaking the unspoken. International Journal of Leadership in Education, 1(3), pp. 279-296.

National Board for Professional Teaching Standards (1994). Standards. Detroit: NBPTS.

Ontario College of Teachers (1999) Standards of Practice for the Teaching Profession. Toronto: Ontario College of Teachers.

Pajak, E. (2000). Approaches to Clinical Supervision. (2^nd ed.) Norwood: Christopher-Gordon Publishers.

Ramsey, G. (2001). Review of Teacher Education. Sydney: New South Wales Department of Education.

St Maurice, H. (1987). Clinical Supervision and Power: Regimes of instructional management. In T.Popkewitz (ed) Critical Studies in Teacher Education. Philadelphia: Falmer Press.

Schon, D. (1987) Educating the Reflective Practitioner. San Francisco: Jossey Bass.

Smyth, J. (2001). Critical Politics of Teachers' Work. New York: Peter Lang.

Smyth, J. (1998). The School as a Critical Learning Community. In B.Down, C.Hogan & P.Swan (Eds). Reclaiming Professional Knowledge. Murdoch University W.A.: Centre for Curriculum and Professional Development.

Smyth, J. (1991). Teachers as Collaborative Learners. Buckingham: Open University Press.

Steffy, B., Wolfe, M., Pasch, S. & Enz, B. (2000). Life Cycle of the Career Teacher. Thousand Oaks: Kappa Delta Pi and Corwin Press.

Van Manen, M. (1977) Linking Ways of Knowing with Ways of Being Practical, Curriculum Inquiry, 6, pp.205-228.

Waite, D. (1995). Rethinking Instructional Supervision. Washington: Falmer Press.

Zeichner, K. (1996). Designing Educative Practicum Experiences for Prospective Teachers. In K. Zeichner, S. Melnick and M.L. Gomez (Eds) Currents of Reform in Preservice Teacher Education. New York: Teachers College Press.

Zeichner, K. M. (1994). Beyond the Divide of Teacher Research and Academic Research. Keynote address at the Annual Conference of the Australian Association for Research in Education, University of Newcastle

Zeichner, K.M. and Tabachnick, B.R. (1991). Reflections on Reflective Teaching in B.R. Tabachnick & K.M Zeichner. (eds) Issues and Practices in Inquiry-Oriented Teacher Education. Philadelphia: The Falmer Press.

Zeppeda, S. (2000). Supervisory Practices: Building a constructivist learning community for adults. In J. Glanz & L. Behar-Horenstein (eds). Paradigm Debates in Curriculum and Supervision. Westport, Connecticut: Bergin & Garvey.