Teaching Learning Consortium - Rationale and Development

Louise Sutherland, Susan Northcott, and Jude Butcher

with the assistance of

Margie Beck, Michael Bezzina, Marie Butcher, Bob Carbines, Peter Gahan,

Cathy Hickey, Peter Howard, Pat Jennings, Kristin Johnston, Aengus

Kavanagh, Jan Long, John McDonnell, Pat Malone, Ann Mills, Marea

Nicholson, Clare Palmer, Natalie Mayr, Sophie Ryan, Tom Silverton, Tom

Thorpe and Glen Trefoni - (all members of the TLC Task force 1996)

and with thanks to all participants in the Teaching Learning

Consortium, 1997, who helped the vision become a reality

Paper presented at the Australian Association for Research in Education

Annual Conference, Brisbane, December 2, 1997

Introduction

The Teaching Learning Consortium emerged as the fruit of many days of

discussion and planning by representatives from school principals,

Catholic Education Office staff, university students and staff and

union representatives. There was an underlying commitment from all to

develop a form of field based learning which responded to the needs of

the different stakeholders. The conceptualisation and shaping of the

Consortium emerged from the discussions among the stakeholder groups.

From this discussion critical issues emerged which were pivotal to the

overall structure and implementation of the Consortium. At each of

these points the stakeholders needed to look beyond their own

particular needs to consider, as a total set, the needs of every group

that would be involved in the project. From these discussions the

participants gained a deeper appreciation and understanding of this

being a truly collaborative project.

This paper presents both the theoretical rationale for key elements of

the Teaching Learning Consortium and the history of the development of

the final model which was adopted. The commitment of all participants

in the planning stage of the Consortium to enhance the learning of all

people involved in the project was central to its success.

Rationale

In recent years there have been increases in expectation of the roles

schools and teachers should play in education (Burrow, 1997). As

teachers' responsibilities become broader and more diverse, and their

accountability increases, there has also been increases in the pressure

to appraise and refine the education teachers are given in their

pre-service years, and, indeed, their induction into the teaching

profession (Williams, 1995; McFadden and Hastings, 1997).

Concurrent with this reappraisal of teacher training have been calls to

increase practitioner involvement in pre-service teacher training and

developments in learning theory which recognise that the activity in

which knowledge is developed and deployed, is an integral part of what

is learned (Brown, J.S., Collins, A. & Duguid, S. 1989). From this

theoretical framework, one mechanism to enhance the training of

pre-service teachers is a collaborative partnership between the

university and schools. A range of these partnerships programs have

been devised in the area of pre-service teacher education

(Campbell-Evans, 1993; Ducharme and Ducharme, 1993; Christenson,

Eldredge, Ibom and Thomas, 1996; Hasting, McFadden, Dunshea, Rae and

Foley, 1996; Johnston, Duvernoy, McGill and Fressola Will, 1996;

Kirschner, Dickinson, and Blosser, 1996). While these partnerships

differ in their organisation and implementation they share many common

objectives.

Firstly, is the desire to improve pre-service teacher education by more

effectively utilising the wealth of experience and expertise available

within the community of practising teachers. Learning to teach

involves far more than just acquiring the declarative knowledge of a

particular subject area or a sets of classroom management techniques.

Classrooms are complex and dynamic social situations, so pre-service

teachers need to develop the skills and strategies which work

effectively in these environments. Such skills and strategies are

evident in the behaviour and insights of communities of practising

teachers. Without understanding the culture of classrooms, it is not

possible to appropriately use pedagogical techniques.

Secondly, all parties should benefit from their participation in the

program. In their discussion of the program at New York's Colgate

University, Johnston, et al., (1996) placed particular emphasis on the

professional development that must occur for all the participants if

the relationship to be successful and to be conducted on a long-term

basis. All teachers - pre-service teachers, classroom teachers and

university staff - are regarded as part of a mutually beneficial

learning community. For the participants in the EPIC program in

Columbus, (Kirschner et al., 1996) the transformation of existing

cooperative relationships into a formally defined collaborative

structure certainly presented new challenges, but it also opened up new

opportunities for professional development. The comments by one of the

participating classroom teachers highlight the anticipated advantages

for the participants in the EPIC program.

"The teachers saw this relationship as mutually beneficial to the

university and to themselves. It provided the university with

placements for pre-service teachers where they would see theory being

put into practice, and it enhanced our professional development by

helping us reflect on our teaching. " (Kirschner et al, 1996, p206)

Reflection by all participants is critical if they are to obtain the

maximium benefits from their participation in the consortium. Boud

(1993) indicates there are two situations in which participants should

engage in these reflective processes. First, "reflection in action"

where there is limited opportunity for the participants to step aside

from the action so that the person that engaged in learning by

observing what is happening within themselves and the milieu. Second,

"reflection in action" where after the class, there is time for more

considered reflection which is based on observations and recall of the

relevant conceptual knowlege. This later reflection allows

participants to consolidate and integrate their theoretical knowledge

with classroom experiences. Boud (1993) suggests that in preparing the

students for this type of experiential learning they need to be made

aware of the affective and cognitive processes which may influence

their ability to learn in the situation.

Mentoring is one of the processes which assist teachers to reflect on

and learn from their experiences in these collaborative partnerships.

While the support and direction by the teachers will have obvious

positive benefits for the professional development of the student

teachers, there is evidence that teachers may also benefit from their

roles as mentors. The need to discuss their actions in a particular

situation assists classroom teachers to reflect on their actions.

Secondly, in all effective mentorships at times the students will be

able to share insights and perspectives with their classroom teacher.

The personal and professional benefits of mentoring for the mentor and

mentee have been widely acknowledged but the structuring and resourcing

of the mentoring program need to be closely examined for these benefits

are to occur (Long, 1997).

Finally a common characteristic is a commitment on the part of the

participants to true collaboration among equals. Illustrating this is

the significant role practising teachers played in the planning and

delivery of the program for students in the Graduate Diploma of

Education program at Charles Sturt University (Hastings et al., 1996).

While these researchers recommended that the complementary nature of

the roles in the collaboration is recognised and integrated into the

planning of the program, Campbell-Evan (1993) emphasised this

integration should be instituted at the beginning of the program.

Issues

Examination of the reports of these partnership programs also reveal a

number of vital issues which must be addressed if a collaborative

pre-service teacher education program is to succeed.

Of primary importance is the need to expend time and effort in the

planning stages of a new partnership program. During this planning

period the aims of the program should be clarified, as it cannot be

assumed that all participants have the same goals at the outset, and,

if the initiative is to prove successful, a clearly stated set of

objectives must be negotiated. If the institutions have similar

philosophies towards, education and teaching then Kirschner et al

(1996) suggest this negotiation may be easier as the participants'

shared beliefs and values, which assist them to identify mutual

interests and set common goals.

Secondly, distinct and unambiguous statements of the structure,

content, methodology and roles of participants in the partnership

program should be determined at its inception. While acknowledging the

difficulties associated with this process, Campbell-Evans (1993)

indicated that the development of some degree of shared meaning and

understanding was fundamental to the development of the Teaching

Partnership program in Alberta, Canada. Time spent meeting and

reconciling the organisational requirements of the faculty, the school

district and the professional associations provides the participants

feel a sense of ownership and shared responsibility which characterise

genuine partnerships (Woodward and Sinclair-Gaffey 1995).

The careful choice of schools, and of practising teachers within those

schools, is the third issue which needs to be considered in planning

and implementation of a effective consortium. Reports (Field, 1992;

Williams, 1995; Baker and Sealey, 1997) suggest the schools and

especially the participating teachers are the critical components which

determine the success of the program.

While negotiation may clarify the aims, structure and content of the

program it is more difficult to develop a clear conception of the role

of the classroom teachers. Unlike their role in the practicum, in

partnership programs classroom teachers need to be more pro-active,

working with university staff to assist the pre-service teachers

integrate theory and practice. Young (1993) emphasises the complexity

of this role suggesting that teachers and university advisers need to

complement each other as they facilitate the development of the student

teachers.

While many collaborative approaches to teacher education initially

assume that cooperating classroom teachers would automatically adapt to

the changes in their role expectations, Baker et al., (1996) found that

this was not the case. As teachers were not clear about their roles

there was a need to develop and implement professional development

programs aimed at assisting them to adjust. Kirschner et al., (1996)

reported that, as well as university staff working with teachers to

prepare them for their new roles, the teachers were also invited to

provide input to assist the university staff in planning improvements

for the program, thereby showing the mutual respect that the

participants had for the expertise and experience of each sector. Such

interactions can only serve to strengthen partnership programs.

Fourthly, while classroom teachers role is expanded in these new

programs, it is important that the university's contribution to teacher

education is maintained. The students still need to develop their

pedagogical knowledge. Further to maintain the professional status of

teaching it is important that universities continue to maintain their

significant role in teacher education. Emphasising this position

Field (1992) cited one of England's Directors of the Post Graduate

Certificate in Education

"We must be careful not to collaborate in the process of

de-professionalising teacher education. We must make sure that the

university input continues to be seen as valuable and important. "

(Field, 1992, p37)

Finally, a smoother transition and implementation of the program is

more likely when university staff support its introduction. While

partnership programs in Canada and Australia have been effectively

implemented, there was wide spread criticism accompanying similar

changes in teacher education in the United Kingdom. These proposed

changes to teacher eduction were implemented in the wake of vociferous

criticisms of the way higher education institutions had been managing

teacher education. One issue which underlined the university staff’s

concern was the complex area of funding. The resources available in

any system of teacher education are finite, and the allocation of those

resources to universities and schools is a problem requiring lengthy

consultation and consideration. If implementation of programs result in

the transfer of resources to schools and the accompanying loss of jobs

in the universities, then this is likely to reduced university staff’s

support for the collaborative partnership. At the same time, "

high-quality school-based training cannot be provided cheaply"

(Williams 1995, p15). Thus, if such school-based training is perceived

to be worthwhile and beneficial to the educational community, then

adequate resourcing is essential.

Development of the Teaching Learning Consortium

The Teaching Learning Consortium was an acknowledgement by the

university, of the changing needs of the teaching profession and,

consequently, the changing needs of pre-service teachers. The

Consortium, developed from the stated mission and goals of the Faculty

of Education and Catholic Education Office, Parramatta, was conceived

as providing a structured arrangement to facilitate learning in a

field- based setting.

In its initial conception the main aims of the Teaching Learning

Consortium were:

To assist student teachers in their professional development and

learning through the formal and informal integration of theory and

practice in the field.

To provide a collaborative context which enhances the learning of all

involved: pupils, students, and school and university staff.

To assist the university implement the mission and goals of the Faculty

of Education which include

* promote excellence in education and scholarship,

* advance knowledge and practice in the field of education through

teaching and research

* offer to the educational and general community specialist services,

professional consultancy and educational advice.

Reflecting Kirschner et al. (1996) concern, this is an important

statement in that it shows the Teaching Learning Consortium as growing

naturally from the mission of Australian Catholic University's Faculty

of Education.

The fourth and final part of the rationale emphasises the role which

the committee envisaged the Teaching Learning Consortium would play in

achieving the goals which the Diocese of Parramatta has for its

schools. These goals relate to the needs of school students to be

challenged to achieve their full potential, for staff to experience an

environment which promotes growth, and wherein a true partnership with

parents, parishes and the wider community enables each schools to

fulfil its mission. The intention, at this stage, was that the Teaching

Learning Consortium would play a positive role in the achievement of

the goals of the participating schools, adding a new dimension to the

curriculum.

It is significant that the Teaching Learning Consortium evolved from a

strong and visionary statement of purpose, incorporating a real concern

for the benefits for all participants which, the Task Force

anticipated, would emanate from it. It also recognises the potential

for professional development to influence directions in education.

Burrow (1997, vii) refers to the wide acceptance of "the concept of

professional development as fundamental to educational change." The

Task Force was clearly aware of this potential.

From its very inception, the Teaching Learning Consortium Task Force

devised a clear set of proposed outcomes, and these have shaped the

subsequent evolution of the program. As the nature of the rationale

statement would indicate, the anticipated outcomes, as explained in the

Discussion Paper, considered the requirements of all participants, and

foresaw benefits for all concerned.

For the pre-service teachers, it was proposed that the program would:

enhance their professional learning and development,

would increase their understanding and awareness of a range of school

and community contexts,

provide a better structure and sequence for their program of study, by

siting their learning in a realistic setting,

improve the induction of new teachers into the profession,

assist them in their understanding of the relationship between theory

and practice in an educational setting.

For the teachers in the participating schools, the program was expected

to:

provide opportunities for professional development and structured

reflection on their approach to teaching practice,

enhance their status as professionals within the teaching and wider

communities,

provide opportunities for them to develop additional skills through

their mentoring roles,

allow them to have direct input into teacher education,

allow them to access credit in degree programs.

For staff of the university it was anticipated that they would:

work directly with their students and the teachers in "real life"

contexts,

reflect upon their own educational practice and test theories against

actual implementation,

maintain or enhance their credibility with other members of the

educational community,

remain in touch with the realities of school life through renewing

contact with school environments,

be involved in the cutting edge of developments in teacher education

through participating in collaborative research projects.

For the students in the participating schools, it was hoped that the

quality of their learning would be enhanced. Classroom time would be

more effectively utilised and individual needs more readily addressed

as a result of the presence of an additional teacher in the classroom.

For all those participating, it was intended that the Teaching Learning

Consortium would deepen the understanding of the roles to be played by

the university and the schools in the pre-service education of

teachers. Above all, the intention to create a genuine learning

community for all participants was a recurrent theme in the early

documentation of the program.

Once the rationale and expected outcomes of the Teaching Learning

Consortium had been determined, the most suitable structure for the

project had to be decided. The Task Force examined a variety of models

including one used at Charles Sturt University and another one used at

the University of Technology, Sydney. Based on the agreed rationale and

outcomes a number of different aspects of these models were

scrutinised. The criteria used in the selection process were; the

professional development and learning of the pre-service teachers, the

professional development of the school staff, the enhancement of

pupil’s learning and the opportunities each model provided for

research, reflective practice, and the effective integration of theory

and practice. The key factor underlining the evaluation of the models

was the relative emphasis on the roles, responsibilities and

professional development of each of the participants.

Eventually, the structure known as Model Four was selected as the focus

of this model was the professional development of school personnel,

university staff and pre-service teachers. It would involve inviting

carefully selected schools to become centres of professional

development for periods of two or three years. The University would

also provide the services of personnel with a high level of relevant

expertise to work on the project. Each member of the team from the

University would work with a cluster of schools, providing professional

development opportunities for both practising teachers and pre-service

teachers. The selected schools would provide on-site delivery of units

of work for pre-service teachers, and, where possible, a bank of

release time within the schools would be provided by the presence of

pre-service graduate or internship teachers.

The chosen model was seen to have the advantage of addressing the

fundamental nature of the relationship between the schools and

Australian Catholic University and capitalising on mutual needs. It was

perceived as having the potential to make significant contributions to

improvements in classroom practice both now and in the future.

As the Teaching Learning Consortium developed through the planning

stage, a statement of roles and responsibilities was devised, setting

out the anticipated part to be played by each group of stakeholders.

The academic staff of Australian Catholic University were to be

responsible for presenting material in those portions of the course

that would continue to be taught on the University campus. In addition,

they would work in consultation with school personnel in determining

course requirements and the focus of inquiry to be assumed by the

schools, and they would liaise with schools on an ongoing basis. The

University staff would also assume responsibility for the pastoral care

and support of the pre-service teachers, as well as monitoring and

assessing their performance. They would also provide structured

opportunities for reflection by pre-service teachers on their

experience, and provide opportunities for professional development of

teachers within or between schools.

For their part, the school personnel involved in the project would

provide the pre-service teachers with opportunities to engage with a

range of relevant school activities. It was expected that professional

development resources would be allocated, as appropriate, to the

support of the Teaching Learning Consortium initiative. The

co-ordinator at each school would liaise with the University staff

throughout the program, and would provide a point of connection and

communication between the participants and the remainder of the school

staff. Above all, school personnel would be expected to commit

themselves to reflection, inquiry and professional development with an

identified focus.

The roles and responsibilities of the pre-service teachers were also

defined. It was anticipated that they would complete a set of

structured learning activities, while attending both school and

University at the required times. The students would be expected to

participate in discussions of teaching and learning in the schools and

in the University. They would, also, take part in negotiated activities

to support the inquiry and professional development of the school

personnel.

The final stakeholder, the Catholic Education Office, was to liaise

with the staff of the University to monitor the pilot project. It would

give advice on the selection of the most appropriate schools. As the

program continued, the Catholic Education Office undertook to provide

for the involvement of relevant education officers.

The Teaching Learning Consortium would, it was proposed, operate as a

pilot project in 1997 in a selection of primary and secondary schools

in the Parramatta Diocese. The pre-service teachers who were selected

to take part in the Teaching Learning Consortium in 1997 were students

in the Graduate Diploma of Education (Secondary Education) and the

Bachelor of Education (Primary) programs.

An invitation to participate in the project was sent to each school in

the Parramatta Diocese. Additional encouragement was needed to involve

the required number of schools in the secondary arena, and these were

not finally determined until November, 1996. By contrast, there were

more primary schools willing to participate than were needed, and the

eventual selection was based on geographical proximity to each other,

to enable members of the University staff to spend adequate time at

each location.

Each school would determine a particular focus of inquiry, determined

according to the specific needs of that school. In each case, this

focus would be negotiated by school and University personnel. The

selection of the participants for the Consortium was a first step in

its implementation for 1997.

Conclusion

There is no doubt that partnership in pre-service teacher education has

enormous potential. At present, school-based programs are in the

earliest stages of development, and ongoing appraisal and improvement

must characterise any such program. Michael Bezzina (1997) believes

that the Teaching Learning Consortium pilot project has been a

significant learning experience, which can be applied to its

improvement in future years.

The words of McIntyre (1992 cited by Young, 1993, p33), accurately

reflect the position of the Teaching Learning Consortium : " We have

hardly begun to understand, far less develop, the elements of

successful school-based teacher education. "

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Brown, J.S., Collins, A. & Duguid, S. (1989). Situated cognition and

the culture of learning. Educational Researcher, 18(1), 32-42.

Baker, J. and Sealey, R. Challenge and Change : The Role of Classroom

Teachers in Partnership Programs. Paper presented at the Third National

Cross Faculty Practicum Conference, Adelaide, 29th January - 1st

February, 1997.

Boud D. (1993) Experience as the base for learning. Higher Education

Research and Development 12 (1) 33 -44

Burrow, S. (1997). Introduction. In King, R.J., Hill, D.M. and

Retallick, J.A. (Eds.) Exploring Professional Development in Education.

Wentworth Falls : Social Science Press.

Campbell-Evans, G. (1993). Partners in Teacher Education : A Programme

in Alberta. The Australian Journal of Teacher Education. 18(2) pp23-27.

Christenson, M., Eldredge, F., Ibom, K., Johnston, m. and Thomas, M.

(1996). Collaboration in Support of Change. Theory Into Practice. 35

(3) pp187-195.

Ducharme, M.K. and Ducharme, E.R. (1993). School-Based Teacher

Education in the United States : An Uneven Evolution. The Australian

Journal of Teacher Education. 18 (2) pp15-22.

Field, B. (1992) Partnerships in Teacher Education - School-Based

Teacher Education in the United Kingdom. The Journal of Teaching

Practice. 12 (2) pp 25-45.

Gilroy, P. (1993). Back to the Future : the De-Professionalisation of

Initial Teacher Education in England and Wales. The Australian Journal

of Teacher Education. Volume 18 (2) pp5-14.

Hastings, W., McFadden, M., Dunshea, G., Rae, J. and Foley, L. (1996).

Constructing Professionals. Mentoring and Tutoring. 4 (2) pp19-28.

Hinde McLeod, J. The Internship : Cultivating a Collaborative

Curriculum. Paper presented to the Australian Association for Research

in Education, 1995 Conference, Hobart, Tasmania, 26-30 November.

Johnston, D.K., Duvernoy, R., McGill, P. and Fressola Will, J. (1996).

Educating Teachers Together : Teachers as Learners, Talkers, and

Collaborators. Theory Into Practice. 35 (3) pp173-178.

Long, J. (1997) The Dark Side of Mentoring. The Australian Educational

Researcher. 24 (2) pp115-133.

Kirschner, B.W., Dickinson, R. and Blosser, C. (1996). From Cooperation

to Collaboration : The Changing Culture of a School/University

Partnership. Theory Into Practice. 35 (3) pp205-213.

Lave, J. (1988). Cognition in Practice: Mind, mathematics, and culture

in everyday life. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge

McFadden, M. and Hastings, W. (1997). Restructuring the Graduate

Diploma of Education (Secondary) : Case Study. In King, R.J., Hill,

D.M. and Retallick, J.A. (Eds.) Exploring Professional Development in

Education. Wentworth Falls : Social Science Press.

Teaching Learning Consortium documentation: Discussion Paper on Field

Based Offerings , Australian Catholic University and Catholic Education

Office, Parramatta. 16th April, 1996

Williams, E.A. (1995). An English Perspective on Change in Initial

Teacher Education. South Pacific Journal of Teacher Education. 23 (1)

pp 5-16.

Woodward, H. and Sinclair-Gaffey, C. A Case Study of School-University

Partnerships : Yesterday, Today, Tomorrow. Paper presented at the 25th

Australian Association for Research in Education Conference, Hobart,

Tasmania, 26th-30th November, 1995.

Young, W. (1993). School Experience : A Collaborative Partnership. The

Australian Journal of Teacher Education. 18 (2) pp28-33.