SOLII97.169

Collaboration in Planning the Practicum*

Izabel Soliman

Department of Education Studies

University of New England

Armidale, NSW 2351

isoliman@metz.une.edu.au

Paper presented at the Annual Conference of the Australian Association

for Research in Education, 30 November - 4 December, 1997,

Brisbane, Queensland.

* The project reported in this paper was supported by a

research grant from the University of New England.

Abstract

This paper deals with the issues of power and ownership in the degree

of collaboration achieved in a project involving a group of university

and school-based teacher educators and students, formed to consider how

the school-based practicum component of a course leading to a Graduate

Diploma in Education might be improved.

The factors which lead to achieving only partial collaboration are

anlaysed using the lens of a literature review on collaboration in

education and a theory of cultural politics. Cultural politics

suggests that collaboration could be a discourse for the

transformation of institutional culture in universities and schools in

order to attain the reported benefits unavailable by means of current

structures and practices .

Based on this analysis and the perceptions of the project participants,

implications are derived for what needs to be done to further develop

collaborative work in educational institutions.

Introduction

This paper is in two parts: the first part is the framework for the

second and includes a critical review of the literature on

collaboration in education and on the theory of cultural politics. The

literature suggests that schools and universities are still perceived

as culturally different although there is some evidence of similarities

too. The literature indicates that the differences are, in theory,

considered essential for collaboration which may lead to beneficial

outcomes. It is also apparent that in practice, the differences (and

similarities) may give rise to barriers and to various difficulties in

collaboration. The processes involved in deconstructing the barriers

and negotiating the difficulties may be regarded as "cultural politics"

which is argued in this section to be a useful theoretical framework

for analysing interactive program planning between schools and

universities. The first part of the paper ends with the proposition

that collaboration may be regarded as a discourse for individual and

cultural change in educational institutions.

The second part of the paper is concerned with the use of this

framework for examining the issues of power and ownership in the degree

of collaboration achieved in a project concerned with planning a new

practicum. The project was conducted at the University of New England

(UNE) and was designed to bring together a group of school and

university based teacher educators in order to plan a new program,

based on their combined knowledge and expertise, for the school

experience component of the course leading to the Graduate Diploma in

Education (GDE). The achievement of partial collaboration is

interpreted in terms of persistence of cultural differences; unequal

control of the project, constraints on the time and support devoted to

the project, distorted communication and lack of parity of esteem. The

paper ends with a summary of the implications derived for conducting

more effective collaborative work.

Background of the Project

The project was initiated by three tertiary staff members in teacher

education, who comprised the research team and are experienced school

teachers and supervisors of practice teaching. The planning group

included six additional university-based staff teaching in the GDE

program, which is available to students at the UNE after an

undergraduate degree, and qualifies them to teach in either primary or

secondary schools.

The group also included five primary and nine secondary school teachers

from the Armidale area state and independent schools, experienced in

the supervision of the practicum, and nominated by their principals;

two student representatives to ensure a student voice in the group; and

an administrative assistant from the School Experience Office as an

observer. In total, 25 individuals comprised the planning group. The

project was innovative for the New England district where such

collaboration had not been previously investigated in any systematic

way.

The schools in the Armidale district were targeted for involvement in

the project, since any changes in the practicum, as a result of the

project, would be trialled in these schools.

Focus on the Practicum and Upon Collaboration

The stated purpose of forming the group was to improve the learning

outcomes for student teachers in schools during the practicum. The

focus on the practicum was decided for a number of reasons. There had

been no review of the practicum since 1989 when the Armidale College of

Advanced Education (ACAE) and the UNE amalgamated. Prior to that, each

institution had been in charge of its own field experience program, the

ACAE for primary and the UNE for secondary school teachers. After

amalgamation, the two programs were united under one director. Some

staff who were previously only teaching in the primary program were now

also working in the secondary. With the appointment of a new Director

of School Experience, in 1996, the time seemed right to take a fresh

look at the school experience program.

Since 1988, the funds for the practicum were considerably reduced, with

the effect that resources were not available to fund regular visits by

university teaching staff to schools during the practicum, as had been

previously the case. Contact with students on practicum and with

supervising teachers was therefore diminished. Participation in this

project provided an opportunity for increased contact and discussion

with teachers.

Lastly, a focus on the practicum was perceived as an incentive for a

review of the relevance of its content and structure to current

thinking, developments and research in teacher education, such as the

National Competency Framework for Beginning Teaching developed under

the National Project on the Quality of Teaching and Learning (NPQTL,

1996).

The research team's desire to implement a collaborative approach was

based on a recognition of the practicum as a point of convergence of

the interests of both school and university based teacher educators.

Input from teachers in schools had not been previously sought. Members

of the research team also appreciated the potential benefits as well as

the obstacles in the way of effective inter-instituttional

collaboration. The Armidale location for the project was seen to be an

appropriate research site for further study of the collaborative

process, its facilitators and constraints, with the potential for

yielding valuable insights on the requirements for effective

collaborative work in a context where it had not been previously tried

and investigated .

The group met for half a day on four different occasions, over a period

of five months. Data on participants' perceptions were collected by

means of open-ended questionnaires at the beginning and at the end of

the project. The members of the research team observed and documented

the events of the first meeting and subsequently an observer attended

each meeting and recorded her observations. Two separate focus group

discussions were organised and externally facilitated at the last

meeting. One group included the primary and secondary teachers and the

other the tertiary staff and students. These discussions were

audiotaped and transcribed for analysis.

Members of the research team also kept reflective journals of their

observations, reactions and impressions of the social dynamics and

politics of the planning process, the degree of collaboration achieved

and of the roles of the various participants.

Framework for the Analysis

Cultural Differences in Schools and Universities

Differences between the occupational cultures of schools and

universities are well documented. Brookhart and Loadman (1996) explain

these differences in terms of focus, tempo, rewards and power. They

claim that differences in focus are discerned in teachers having a

practical orientation with what works, or with "knowing how;" while in

university, educators having an interest in "knowing about", in

aspiring to build theories which need to be worked through. They

asssert that "What is important to know and to teach will be basic to

collaboration. If participants do not work through differences in

focus and reach some consensus, they will be operating with different

goals" (p.3).

Differences in the knowledge base with which the two groups operate are

also noted by Hargreaves (1996, p. 110) who observes that in the past,

not so much today, university based research knowledge was described as

generalised or context transcendent, codifiable, rational, public,

written, explicit, theoretical, problem oriented and propostional in

form; school-based knowledge was described as context-specific,

difficult to codify, moral and emotional as well as rational, oral,

tacit, practical, solution oriented, metaphorical, narrative and

story-based in form.

Differences in tempo are manifest in difficulties in finding time and

scheduling time in schools for collaborative work (Brookhart and

Loadman, 1996). Universities are perceived as providing faculty

members with more flexibility to schedule time although this is

debatable as work in universities is increasingly done to deadlines.

Work in schools is also perceived as more labour intensive than in

universities. Teachers' work is portrayed as dealing with more than

one activity at a time, more than one person, attending to both

instruction and management at once, action being more important than

reflection. Schedules constrain teachers to do certain activities at

certain times.

Rewards for teachers appear to be more intrinsic than extrinsic in the

sense of putting priority on "reaching, influencing, shaping, and

inspiring students" (Brookhart and Loadman, 1996, p.6). Reported job

satisfaction, even in the face of poor working conditions or low

salaries, is also an indicator of the value of instrinsic rewards in

teaching. Rewards for tertiary staff are perceived to be more

extrinsic, coming from publications, recognition in an academic field,

and advancement in academic rank (p.6), although this is also open to

question.

The intrinsic rewards of teaching, scholarship and research in

universities are being undermined by the power over individuals

exercised through evaluation of their input, ideas, performance and

production. People express fear of appearing stupid and incompetent in

a position and often feel intimidated by the expertise of others

(Johnston and Kerper, 1996, p.17). A colleague once compared

presenting a paper to one's peers as unsettling as appearing before

them in the nude.

Tertiary educators are perceived as more powerful in connection with

having their work published, in supervising and evaluating the work of

postgraduate students and in receiving grants (Brookhart and Loadman,

1996). In contrast, school-based educators appear to have less power

since they are frequently expected to operate within policies,

schedules and curricula, and with textbooks and students over which

they have no choice. The school culture seems to encourage teachers to

be present oriented, conservative, individualistic, avoiding long-term

planning and collaborative work, and focused on the classroom rather

than the school (Sparkes and Bloomer, 1993, p. 173).

The bipolar view of the culture of the two sectors could lead to the

assumption of cultural uniformity within each sector and a lack of

similarity between the two. There is evidence to indicate that this is

not the case. For example, differences among teachers and among the

schools in which they teach, and among the students they teach, may all

lead to differences in teaching culture (Feinman-Nemser and Floden,

1986, p. 507). There are schools where teachers plan together, team

teach, observe each other's teaching, mentor each other and engage in

action research (Little, 1990), although such collegiality may not be

the norm.

There are similarities between knowledges of the two sectors. For

example teachers possess theoretical knowledge from university

training, from professional development through in-service, and not

just practical knowledge; teachers' guiding images may also be acquired

through their teacher education courses; teachers also engage in

professional reading and in postgraduate studies; and some teachers can

effectively integrate university-based knowlege with their own

practical knowlege and apply it within their own context (Hargreaves

1996, pp. 109-111).

Some aspects of the institutional cultures are similar in a negative

sense in that neither may support collaborative work very strongly

within departments, across departments, schools or faculties and across

institutions. Collaboration runs counter to the norms of competition,

individual autonomy and hierarchical authority that pervade many

schools and universities (Oakes et al., 1986, p. 545).

Postgraduate study, as a rite of passage to academic life, is an

example of the isolated pursuit of knowledge to which many academics

are socialised. In both quantitative and qualitative research, the

dominant image of the researcher is that of the "Lone Ranger - the

researcher single-handedly faces the empirical world, going off alone

to return with the results" (Bogdan and Biklen cited in Wasser and

Bresler, 1996, p. 5).

The tempo of work in universities is also becoming similar to that of

schools with increasingly frequent demands for a quick response to

requests for data and feedback on various issues, which break into and

fragment the pace and routine of work and also preclude time for

thinking and deliberation. Increases in workloads reduce flexibility

in work schedules and constrain academics to meet university imposed

deadlines. The members of this research group had difficulty in

finding and schedulling time for collaborative work.

Overall, the continuing record of differences in the literature

suggests the persistence of cultural differences. The emphasis on

difference to the exclusion of similarities may, however, suggest an

interest in maintaining division and perhaps shoring up inequalities in

status and power over credentialing in teacher education.

Difference as Essential for Collaboration

Collaboration has been employed in a variety of settings for a variety

of purposes, frequently in pre-service teacher education (Brookhart

and Loadman, 1996). It is characterised by people working together for

a common purpose which they are not likely to achieve if they work

independently. In theory, collaboration is regarded as a process which

benefits from differences in perspectives and expertise (Johnston and

Kerper, 1996, p.14). Differences are seen to stimulate change and

development among the participants whereas similarities may encourage

competition in relation to who can do things better, or which is more

useful and relevant.

Differences may be complementary whereby collaboration is "the process

of shared creation: two or more individuals with complementary skills

interacting to create a shared understanding that none had previously

possessed or could have come to on their own" (Harradine, 1995, p.iv).

McIntyre (1991, p.128), reporting on the model of teacher education

developed between Oxford University and Oxfordshire schools, describes

the division of expertise underpinning the model. The school-based

educators provide "contextualised perspectives which complement and

challenge the more abstract perspectives which university staff can

offer." They focus upon issues of practicality, organisational and

resource constraints, problems of time and expertise, and upon

situational knowledge of specific contexts, resources, organisational

procedures, syllabuses, examination requirements and on the individual

pupils they teach.

The university-based educators are perceived to be best placed to offer

"a wide knowledge of differing practices, thorough understanding of

relevant theoretical and research literature, considered analyses of

assumptions and values implicit in different practices, and skills in

relating different kinds of knowledge and concerns" (p. 127). McIntyre

advises university staff to resist the pressure and the temptation to

emphasise practical concerns and criteria in their work since "There is

no lack of people in schools who are just as able, and much better

placed to discuss teaching in ways which reflect practical classroom

perspectives" (p.127). This advice is made in the context of a model

which includes nearly a year-long internship in schools, and thus

provides extended opportunity for the students to gain practical

experience.

School and university-based educators, when working together, are

perceived to possess "more energy, more ideas and more creative

potential than they have working seperately," according to Brookhart

and Loadman (1996, p. 1) .

Collaboration is seen to integrate "the functions of advancing

knowledge and improving practice while simultaneously bringing

colleagues from schools and universities into new working relationships

which stimulate reflection" (Pine and Keane, 1989).

Hargreaves (1996, p. 111) regards collaborative research between

schools and universities

as a way of bridging theoretical knowledge and practical concerns in

education, as a way of empowering teachers to be democratic

participants and not merely objects of research, and as a way of

guarding the educational rights ot teachers not to be exploited and

demeaned by the ways in which researchers represent them.

He refers to collaboration in terms of border crossing, after Giroux,

who observed that "It is on the borders of our work, where we can

explore different cultures and assumptions, that the most interesting

and innovative things can be achieved" (in Hargreaves, 1996, p.119)

In the context of disillusionment with the top down "research,

development and dissemination" model of curriculum development in the

1970s, which made teachers passive and sometimes unwilling implementors

of externally developed projects, collaborative research was regarded

as opening up better possibilities for "creating and disseminating

really useful research and bringing about educational change"

(Hargreaves, 1996, p.106).

In the United States, Tikunoff and Ward (1983) piloted the Interactive

Research and Development on Teaching model for educational research in

the United States which helped to define collaborative research and

put the emphasis on the teachers, while in the UK, Stenhouse (1975) was

influential in promoting the idea of the teachers as researchers of

their own practice and collaborative action research.

Benefits of collaboration

There are many reported benefits associated with collaboration in

various educational settings. Research on collaboration among teachers

in schools (Peters et al., 1996) shows that the establishment of

collaborative teams had a positive effect on teachers' sense of support

and security, and for 90% of the teachers involved, collaboration

removed the sense of isolation they had experienced, which has been a

well documented aspect of teaching culture. Collaboration involved

working closely with colleagues in various tasks and was perceived as

providing more opportunities for learning from each other and

heightening teachers' understanding of teaching/learning processes. It

also led to more effective pooling of teachers's expertise and

strengths. This appeared to be the case for both experienced and

inexperienced teachers. Collaboration was deemed essential for

improving teaching practice particularly when it was undertaken by the

whole school staff rather than by isolated individuals.

In another report on the work of teachers as part of the Innovative

Links Project, Hattam et al. (1996) also regard collaboration as an

antidote to privatism and individualism that besets teachers' work.

Collaboration was seen to allow for more flexibility in use of time for

planning and for professional development; and knowledge about

curriculum, pedagogy and evaluation was exchanged and shared.

Experimentation was also encouraged.

Collaboration was seen as a way of learning from each other and as

fostering "alternative perspectives which confront the normative ways

teachers talk and think about teaching and learning" through

questioning assumptions, beliefs, values, conventional practices and

ideals and the interests being served (Smyth in Hattam et al., 1996, p.

47). Thus collaboration could lead to change.

Collaboration between schools and universities "serves to inform theory

as well as practice. The complexity of real school settings and the

multiplicity of perspectives of practitioners and students can be

neither ignored nor analyzed simplistically when they are and integral

part of the theory-making process" (Oakes et al., 1986, p. 546.)

On collaborative research between universities and schools, Hargreaves

(1996, p.117) maintains that "It is these ongoing relationships and

activities" that straddle university and school divides "at the

interpersonal and institutional levels, that hold out the best promise

for improving and extending the professional knowledge of all educators

over time".

Collaboration also seems to encourage a sense of togetherness, of

community of shared purposes, a mutual valuing of involvement of

stakeholders, and deeper levels of reflection (Petherick and Smith in

Hattam et al., 1996,p. 28).

Collaborative institutions are regarded as open within and open to the

outside and more connected with their environments. According to

Fullan and Hargreaves (1992) they have a "spiritual vitality" that

enables them to take into account societal needs and disseminate what

they have to offer other teachers and schools (in Sparkes and Bloomer,

1993, p.184).

Collaboration is regarded as the appropriate strategy for

professionals working across different agencies in education,

particularly in the context of the model of the full-service school.

The full-service school is one where teachers and school leaders engage

with health and welfare professionals, social workers, legal and and

law enforcement personnel, who may also be physically located in the

school site or near by. Collaboration is this context is "intended to

provide a more holistic, comprehensive and effective set of responses

to children whose problems tend to be complex and multifaceted" (White

and Wehlage, 1995, p.23).

The notion of the full-service school arose from a realisation that

there were overlapping issues, policies and practices and also gaps in

the provision of services for children and families deemed to be at

risk in life as well as in schooling. Collaboration is regarded as the

strategy for avoiding fragmentation, duplication and inefficiency of

service provision; for co-ordinating services and filling identified

gaps in service provision; enabling service providers to see young

people in a holistic way and to co-ordinate services accordingly; and

to improve outcomes, services and service delivery (Stokes and Tyler,

1997).

Although there are evidently many reported benefits of collaboration

the process may also have negative outcomes if the collaborating group

puts too much pressure on deviating individuals to conform to the

group's decisions, or to compromise a strongly held value or principle.

Barriers to collaboration

If collaboration is such a good idea, why is it so hard to do? - is

the question posed by White and Wehlage (1995) who deal with the

problems and difficulties of inter-agency collaboration. The answer is

that "The contradictions between the collaborative paradigm and the

'real' world are powerful enough to seriously impair the efforts of

even enthusiastic and well- intentioned collaborators" (Oakes et al.,

1986, 545).

Differences may become barriers to collaboration when they are

perceived as inequalities, or as deficiencies and limitations, or where

participants undervalue each other's contributions or where they

distrust each other, or perceive each other in stereotypical ways.

Collaboration will also be problematic where participants feel exluded,

marginalised or exploited, or where participation is not motivating,

beneficial or in some way rewarding to the members of the group

As Brookhart and Loadman (1996, p.6) observe:

Until members ... learn to appreciate what is rewarding and motivating

to other collaborators and until they build more reward into their

projects, collaboration will remain difficult. ... Educators will be

more motivated to stay with projects if rewards are understood. ...

institutional relationships cannot be transformed into true and lasting

collaboration unless participants resolve conflicting expectations

about what success means, for teachers, teacher educators, and

researchers.

Hargreaves (1996, p.105) maintains that different perceptions of what

is useful knowlege currently divide the knowlege and discourse of

universities from that of schools and create a barrier between

university and school-based researchers. He claims that "The

differences are also political. The two fields make different claims

about who own, define, and act as gatekeepers of what is to count as

professionally worthwhile knowledge. They compete over who has the

status and the right to define such knowlege".

Collaborative work seems to depend on a diverse range of skills and

attitudes which are not necessarily attributes of teacher educators,

such as the formation of an effective working group, sustained dialogue

over time, the development of trust in the group members, the ability

to tolerate ambiguity and sustained moments of misunderstanding,

differences in point of view, and willingness to continue the

discussion even when it makes one uncomfortable (Wasser and Bresler,

1996, pp.10-11).

Collaboration may be resisted because it can obviously unsettle taken

for granted assumptions and ways of behaving and challenge the

discourses underpinning habitual practices. An example of this is the

change involved in schools where teachers have attempted to implement

collaborative practices. Anxiety about the change may arise because

they may be at different points in understanding, valuing and coping

with the change process. Tensions may also arise from a perceived loss

of individual autonomy, which is culturally valued, and pressure toward

conformity and 'groupthink' (Peters et al., 1996).

In schools, the ethic of privatism that McTaggart (1989, p. 347)

discusses still seems to be a significant part of teaching culture and

is a disincentive to collaboration. McTaggart argues that the ethic

of privatism includes a "moral commitment to keep ideas about teaching

private, except under very special conditions." This form of behaviour

may be understood as arising from the conditions in which teachers

work, the school culture, and as a defense mechanism protecting

teachers from the insecurities and contradictions they experience. It

may also be understood as "compromise between teacher values,

ideologies and the press of school structure" (Gitlin 1987, p.107)

which reinforces a classroom centred rather than a whole school focus.

The classroom with its closed doors is a form of sanctuary from the

stresses and strains of changing social attitudes towards teachers, a

deteriorating public image, a demand for greater accountability and

assessment of performance. In the classroom, teachers feel in control

and with the doors closed, they can "work out tentative solutions to

the problems that confront them without fear of being questioned"

(Bullough 1987 in Sparkes and Bloomer, 1993, p. 174).

Collaboration can be threatening in this cultural context because it

may expose these solutions to public scrutiny and challenge teachers to

justify them. This may require

the development of a new discourse that will, on the one hand, capture

the complexities of teaching, while on the other hand, assist rather

than alienate outsiders' understanding. It may also require that

teachers 'return to first principles' of their practice and examine

their work very closely (Sparkes and Bloomer, 1993, p. 186).

All these are challenging tasks. Disclosing one's work publicly and

giving others access to criticism can be a threatening experience even

with the friendliest peers (Hattam et al., 1996, p. 40) which can lead

to feelings of anxiety, vulnerability and insecurity.

Anxiety about the change from privatism to collaboration can also be

explained in terms of power and ownership. Collaboration may be

regarded as a diminution of individual power but an increase in the

collective power of the group. By sharing power with the group the

group becomes stronger but this may not be sufficient compensation for

the loss of individual power.

Collaboration as Cultural Politics

Even where differences are not a barrier, collaboration involves a

process of negotiation, of coming to a mutual agreement or consensus

around an issue. Negotiation involves communication, understanding

each other's perspectives, willingness to make some compromises, being

persuaded by the power of argument or by the status of the participants

(which may be perceived to add weight to their point of view).

The concept of Òcultural politics," from the field of poststructuralist

theory and cultural studies (Jordan and Weedon, 1995) encourages

analysis of collaboration between school and universities as a

cross-cultural process, and its understanding as an activity involving

relations of power.

Culture, according to Jordan and Weedon is "a dimension of all

institutions - economic, social and political" (p.8). Their work

encourages analysis of culture as a set of material practices which

constitute meanings, values, subjectivities and identities, or the

unconscious and conscious dimensions of the self. Cultural

institutions govern their members by constituting them as particular

types of subjects - e.g. a student or a teacher - by means of

discourses, which include various forms of social organisation and

social practices, forms of knowledge, and linguistic and other symbolic

ways of constituting meaning of the world (p.14).

Jordan and Weedon (1995, p.11) claim that "everything in social and

cultural life is fundamentally to do with power. Power is at the

centre of cultural politics....all practices that have meaning -

involve relations of power. They subject us in the sense that they

offer us particular subject positions and modes of subjectivity" which

we can actively take up and "from which we can exercise power within a

particular social practice" or "we are subjected to the definitions of

others" (p.11).

The latter involves dominance of one group by another, and is partly

secured and reproduced through the practices and products of cultural

institutions like the educational system. The legitimation of

dominance - how inequality is made to appear logical and acceptable -

and the struggle to transform such relations, is the central concern of

cultural politics. In other words, "Cultural politics focus on

struggle over meanings, values, forms of subjectivity and identity"

(p.19).

Power may be brought into play in overt and covert ways to influence

the actions of others, for example when university staff evaluate

teachers' work, their progress and achievement in pre and in-service

education; when they recommend changes to practice based on research,

or train teachers to implement new programs.

Towards Transforming Subjectivities and Institutional Culture

In terms of poststructural theory, culture determines subjectivity -

but resistance to hegemonic practices may be strengthened through

exposure to and experience of oppositional discourses and by "changing

our subjectivity through positioning ourselves in an alternative

discourse which we produce together" (Holloway in Weedon, 1987, p.43).

Resistance to the "intellectual hegemony" of universities "to control

credentialed knowlege" which negates teachers' professional culture

(Elliot 1991, p.119) may come in the form of deliberately crossing

boundaries through collaborative activities.

Collaboration "has the potential for being both individually and

organisationally productive of change towards a more equitable culture

in the workplace" (Treleaven, 1995, p.179). Peters et al. (1996) found

that in schools which have restructured the organisation of work to

form collaborative teams, there is a reciprocal relationship between

the restructuring and changes in the school culture. In other words,

collaboration is significant because of its potential power to

transform subjectivities and in turn to transform institutional

culture.

While there is a need to deconstruct workplace culture and "to unsettle

dominant discourses" (Treleaven, 1995, p.179) which maintain and

reproduce existing culture, there is also need to reconstruct it.

Collaborative structures may provide a discourse for reconstructing

professional identities which will resist privatisation of teaching

practice, hierarchical structures, competition and the definition of

differences in patterns of work and in values as unequal and inferior

Jordan and Weedon repeatedly emphasize that "Cultural politics involve

a struggle over meaning - to fix meaning, to keep it fixed in the

interest of particular groups or redefine it or change it" (p. 545) and

a struggle for subjectivities. The power to define meanings and to

influence and change social relations is linked to the power to create,

to make visible and legitimate meaning and values and practices

oppositional to those which are inherent in much mainstream culture.

"It requires a basis from which to put dominant culture into question

and force transformations" (p. 556). The establishment of a

collaborative group where it did not previously exist, creates, makes

visible and legitimates a possible new social relation in an

institution. It provides an opportunity to redefine professional

identities, social practices and structures and their meanings and

value. This was attempted in the UNE project.

In summary, cultural politics leads to the analysis of collaborative

work as cross- cultural activity and to thinking of individual and

group behaviour in cultural terms. It also encourages analysis of

interactions in terms of how power is used in different forms to

advance the interests of an individual or a group, and analysis of

whose interests will be served by changes in practice and organisation.

Cultural politics encourages analysis of the success and failure of

collaborative work in terms of power relations and the search for the

conditions or traditions which bring these relations into play and for

the objectives of those who bring them into existence.

Power and Ownership in the UNE Project

The members of the planning group were willing and enthusiastic

participants in the deliberations concerned with planning a new program

for the practicum. The achievements of the group were considerable

given the time constraints, however, the process was perceived to be

only partly collaborative.

The achievements included the identification of perceived problems with

the practicum, the consideration of proposals for addressing these

problems, the development of a framework for revising and further

planning the practicum, the introduction of a trial of dispersed days

for the observation period, and substantial changes made to the School

Experience Handbook.

Other positive outcomes noted by the participants included:

¥ a greater understanding of GDE course and of the operation, politics

and culture of the University and of the structures against which both

groups were perceived to struggle;

¥ a feeling that the guidelines for supervising teachers had improved

and some change had been achieved for more effective teacher training;

a desire engendered to create a new new structure between university

and schools;

¥ sharing of ideas and learning that ground rules, common goals and

sincerity are essential to continue collaborative work;

¥ learned that building trust, collegiality takes time and commitment;

¥ affirmed value of working with school staff in developing the

program;

¥ recognised the importance of working together as equal partners to

bridge gap and reduce suspicion;

¥ learned new ways of thinking about stages of lifelong teacher

development;

¥ heightened awareness of issues and increased understanding of process

of "bridging the gap;"

¥ movement towards interconnectedness as a result of the experience;

¥ a stronger sense of agency, "at least now it would seem like we

might be able to help not only change the system but be part of an

ongoing system;" and

¥ making a valued input, "prior to these meetings we have never had

any chance to have any input and I think it has been a big plus."

As far as future involvement in trialling a revised practicum was

concerned, the majority of the participants from both groups expressed

a desire, eagerness, and enthusiasm for being involved and anticipated

enjoyment of the prospect. The words of one of the school-based

participants - "risk taking and change are two things that keep you

vibrant" - expressed a sentiment endorsed by the research team.

In spite of these achievements, members of both groups perceived the

project as more a meeting of minds and laying the groundwork for future

collaboration rather than being truly collaborative. Discussion of the

reasons for this outcome is presented in the following sections through

analysis of the events and the data gathered.

Persistence of Cultural Difference

A perception of difference and of distance and separation in the

current relationship between schools and the university was implied in

the participants' answer to the question of what should be the

relationship of schools and the university in connection with the

practicum. They responded in terms of wanting to form a relationship

which would "bring the two groups closer together", in which there was

"greater communication and awareness of others' roles" and which would

be, "interactive," "co-operative," "collaborative," "consultative,"

"continuous," "supportive," "strong and close," "constructive," "free"

and "comfortable."

Differences in current positions were also suggested in their written

expectations that the meetings would result in "closer co-operation and

collaboration;" "a better understanding of teachers' perspectives and

teachers' expectations of students;" "opportunity for teachers to make

a positive and lasting input to teacher education in the university;"

"a meeting of minds" and "breaking down of the boundary between them

and us."

When the meaning of collaboration was explored in small groups the

ideas of "bridging the gap between the university and schools" was also

raised, as well as the notion of a two-way process of sharing

information and knowledge, of joint ownership, compromise and trust.

One participant commented that the term was also used to mean "working

with the enemy," and if one takes the expression to mean working with

those whose interests are different from one's own group, rather than

betrayal of one's group, the meaning would not be too far removed from

the perceptions of others in the group.

At the fourth and last group meeting, when participants again reflected

upon the meaning of collaboration, as a result of their experiences in

the planning group, there were more comments which recalled some of the

earlier expressed differences in terms of:

¥ crossing boundaries

¥ exposing oneself to scrutiny

¥ taking risks

¥ achieving the right balance of academic involvement acceptable to

teachers

¥ not threatening or marginalising teachers.

Additional comments indicated a persistent view of differences in terms

of the faculty not perceived to be working closely enough with schools;

and a problem of each group not understanding fully what the other

group is doing.

Unequal Control of the Project

Inequality in the control of the project was linked to the perception

of cultural differences. Collaboration involves joint planning and

joint ownership of an educational project. In this project, the

initial planning did not include teachers and students. The initiative

to conduct the project came from three members of the research team.

The development of the application to the Faculty for funds to conduct

the project was also their initiative and did not include any input

from teachers or students. The planning of the content of the initial

questionnaire was similarly the work of only the research team which

also decided which schools to contact, however, an effort was made to

include a teacher from each of the Armidale schools which accept

students for the practicum.

Structures were not in place in the Faculty for easy access to the

views of teachers as regular consultation with the teaching profession

was not Faculty policy and practice. In retrospect, the lack of

teacher/student input in formulating the aim of the project and the

initial questionnaire was a disadvantage as this input could have

initiated a collaborative approach right from the beginning. The lack

of input signalled instead that control was with the university-based

teacher educators rather than shared.

Interest in the dual focus of the project was not equally shared by all

the participants since the university based staff had a greater vested

interest in the success of the students in the practicum and their

continuation in the program. Among the research team members, one

person had a greater interest in the improvements to the practicum,

while another was more interested in the process of collaboration. The

focus upon researching collaboration was a decision based on this

person's interest rather than a focus arising from the planning group

and did not seem to be shared by the participants, judging by the

disappointing lack of response to a questionnaire on the process. This

interest was, however, nearly superceeded by the urgency to achieve as

much revision of the practicum as possible, in readiness for students.

After the initial meeting it was evident this interest was also shared

by the school-based participants if not in the same degree, with some

differences in the aspects of the practicum of most concern (see

Bloomfield, 1997).

From the perspective of the research team, the meetings of the group

were collaboratively planned. For example, from the plenary session of

the first meeting it emerged that the group's orientation in planning

the practicum would be towards a competency based framework. This was

clearly the message from the whole planing group and formed the central

component of the agenda for the second meeting. Priorities for

discussion over the next three meetings were also identified at this

plenary as constraints upon planning, structure of the practicum,

knowledge base of the practicum, roles and relationships, assessment,

and differences between the primary and secondary practicums.

Ownership of the agenda was not, however, perceived to lie with the

whole group and the details of the agendas for individual meetings were

developed by the research team. The flow of information was one way,

from the research team to the rest. As one member of the school-based

group put it: "I kept feeling that every time I came back to a new

meeting that the direction changed again, suggesting a lack of clear

and shared focus for the meetings.

A mechanism for involving teachers in the process of agenda setting was

recommended for development, along with preparing minutes of meetings

rather than summaries, which were seen to more clearly communicate the

decisions made. The school-based participants also preferred the

development of an "action plan" following on from meetings. These

techniques were seen to better enable teachers involved in any meetings

to convey the decisions made to their colleagues in schools. This

action plan format indicated the teachers' desire for tangible results

and clear direction which was not well appreciated by the research

team. It was assumed that the summaries provided were appropriate

indicating perhaps a lack of sensitivity to teachers' expectations.

When commenting upon their experiences of the project, some

participants observed that interaction was "a difficult process due to

unequal responsibilities and different perspectives."

The meetings were all held in the university's Education building,

where rooms were available free of charge, (an important fact for the

research team), but a location readily identified by others as

university territory. A change of setting to a more neutral location

would not have communicated university ownership of the project.

As input into the deliberations, the research team also obtained and

sent out resource materials as background reading for the participants,

along with the summary of the previous meeting, on the assumption that

a common background of information would enhance collaboration. For

example, a member of the research team took the initiative to introduce

information on a developmental model for student learning within the

practicum (Furlong and Maynard, 1995) at the third meeting, as it was

felt that the model provided a useful framework for conceptualising the

development of competencies over time and of the appropriate roles of

supervisors. The group's attitude to this form of educative leadership

was difficult to determine, however, the literature suggests that

hierarchical leadership, or leaderships practised as management rather

than an educative process, has a negative effect on people's confidence

and willingness to discuss their work and their capacity to be self

reflective (Hattam et al., 1996, p.53).

In presenting only one framework rather than several for consideration,

the research team positioned itself as the experts, in the context of a

meeting where challenging the relevance or utility of the model was not

possible without previous knowledge of it. The introduction of this

expert knowledge may have contributed to the unequal power relations in

the project although there is some ambiguity about "expertise" in

collaborative groups. On the one hand, difference in expertise can

enhance the outcome of collaborative work but difference in expertise

can also disempower others if they do not feel that they too have an

area of expertise.

Constraints of Time and Support

There is a chronic shortage of time in the busy and often fragmented

days of school and university based teacher educators, which proved to

be a constraint upon collaboration in the project.

The time schedule for the project was closely linked to the time

available to the researchers for completing the project, the deadlines

set by the university for finalising print materials in relation to the

practicum, and to the amount of funding made available for covering

teachers' time release to attend meetings. The time available for the

project proved to be a constraint upon developing a detailed common

frame of reference for planning the practicum. The lack of

teacher/student involvement was more the result of time constraint to

meet the deadline for submitting an application for funding rather than

a conscious decision to exclude their input. In this respect, the

university's culture drove the project.

The amount of funds granted for the project did not allow sufficient

funded meeting times for the time necessary for deliberation upon

differences and similarities in philosophical positions on teacher

education. A list of assumptions in relation to the practicum held by

the research team and conveyed to the participants at the first meeting

was distributed at the second meeting in order to determine to what

extent the members of the group were thinking along similar lines. A

common frame of reference is expected to enhance collaboration.

However, only a limited time was available for discussing these, not

enough to determine to what extent assumptions were shared by all.

Similarly, time did not permit teasing out perceptions of differences

in meaning of the concepts of co-operation, consultation and

collaboration. Time also curtailed debating the proposed structures

for the practicum by the requirement to meet the deadline set by the

University for the publication of the Practice Teaching Handbook of

information, falling shortly after the second meeting. The proposal

of a developmental framework for the practicum was presented and

accepted at an extraordinary meeting with other members of the faculty

present, at a time when not all the members of the planning group could

attend. Information about this framework and its acceptance was

presented as part of the agenda at a subsequent meeting. These

procedures indicate the lack of a shared agenda and of group ownership

of the content and organisation of some of the meetings.

While work in small groups on the competency framework adopted by the

group for planning the practicum was collaborative, the time spent on

the task on deliberating and deciding which competencies were

appropriate for the practicum, as distinct from the whole Diploma

course, was constrained by the limited time available for the whole

project. The three members of the research team unilaterally decided

that due to time constraints, only three out of the seven categories of

competencies could be considered for analysis, and also unilaterally

selected the ones they thought most important: namely Teaching

Practice, Managing Student Behaviour and Reflecting and Evaluating.

Knowledge about the teachers' preferences was not sought.

The formation of the planning group was made possible by the research

team obtaining funds to enable the release of teachers from their

teaching duties for their participation during their working hours

rather than relying on their goodwill to participate after hours.

Financial support was not sought from the Department of School

Education (DSE) for the project. The availability of funds initiated

collaboration and demonstrated the Faculty's commitment and support for

the proposed collaborative work. However, payment for attendance also

brought forth individuals who were not strongly motivated to engage in

collaborative work on the practicum. This was reflected in their

attendance, in the qualtiy of their engagement with the project and

with the resource materials. The private agendas of individuals and

their degree of commitment to the project may have been more obvious,

if attendance had not been funded. For these reasons the participation

of the two groups was not on an equal footing, and the teacher's

participation could be interpreted as "contrived" to some extent.

The initial or pre-service professional education of teachers is

currently the responsibility of universities in NSW and thus of

university-based teacher educators. Teacher education is not a duty of

teachers and is not written into their job descriptions. Teacher's

interest and level of commitment to teacher education is therefore an

individual matter rather than a requirement of their work. Under these

circumstances, teacher education is not likely to have a high priority

in schools, and is likely to be marginal to the school's main purpose,

that of educating young people. The onus at present for developing

partnerships with schools therefore rests with the university. Changes

in this arrangement are necessary if collaboration is to be an ongoing

activity.

Distorted Communication

The planning group was formed with the intention of acknowledging

teachers' voices and providing opportunity for their expression. The

constraint of time and funds, allowing for only four meetings, and the

taks orientation of the planning meetings precluded the occurence of

"Real communication or dialogue," regarded as a central characteristic

of collaborative work, "enabling participants to gain a deeper level of

understanding of the constraints upon one another's practice" (Oakes et

al., 1986, p. 227). Time was not available for extended periods of

conversation, for defining terms and concepts clearly, for checking

understanding, for rephrasing and reshaping ideas, which occurs in

meaningful conversation (Brookhart and Loadman, 1996, p.8).

Time was not available for in depth communication which could develop

sensitivity to the cultural differences in the worlds of the two groups

and thus greater appreciation of the origin and significance of the

expectations conveyed. "Inside a cultural system, the construction of

meaning and frames of reference seem absolute. It is hard to transcend

boundaries, to see several perspectives simultanously and function as

bi-cultural" (Brookhart and Loadman, 1996, p. 2).

Trust, support and openess are perceived to be the heart of

collaborative relationships which cannot be mandated (Nias et al., 1989

in Sparkes and Bloomer, 1993, p. 176). Sufficient trust was not

established between the two groups over the four meetings, to enable

them speak frankly of their experiences of the project in a mixed group

of participants and therefore, the two groups met seperately and their

discussion taped with no identifiable names evident on the transcripts.

The students were in the university-based group.

The use of language that would encourage collaboration was both a

challenge and a constraint. The terms "teachers" and "academics"

seemed divisive and not descriptive enough of the shared task. The

research team therefore opted for the longer terms of school-based and

university or tertiary-based teacher educators, to promote the idea of

a common goal and similar interests, and similar professional

identities. This was a linguistic strategy to equalise status but

also an oppositional and transformative one, to redefine the roles of

the school-based participants.

While the members of the planning group did learn more about each

other's expectations and beliefs and about the constraints in which

each group operated, it was not sufficient to eliminate some

misconceptions about what was happneing in the project. The

school-based people were somewhat disadvantaged by not knowing what

powers the planning group had to make decisions about the practicum,

and about how decisions about courses were made in the Faculty,

knowledge which the university participants possessed but had not

communicated clearly enough. The lack of understanding of the process

of decision making lead to the school-based group misconstruing the

behaviour of the tertiary people as indecisive and "uncertain about

what powers they had to make decisions," in relation to the practicum.

The process appeared to them much slower and seemed to involve more

deliberation at various levels than it did in schools. As one of the

participants commented "it seems to me to be a different culture if you

are talking about process." The tertiary participants were not

uncertain about their powers but constrained by the process of decision

making used in the Faculty.

Small group discussion at every session facilitated active

participation and interaction. For similar reasons, the agenda items

were posed in the form of questions as often as possible. Morning teas

were also provided to allow time for getting acquainted, for informal

social interaction and informal conversation. Social interaction on

these occasions was relaxing and contributed to a degree of social

cohesion.

Lack of Parity of Esteem

How can differences in expertise between two groups be harnessed so

that each provides the kind of knowledge it is best placed to provide?

This is a question addressed by many teacher educators concerned with

collaborative approaches.

There was a tendency among some of the participants to regard

differences as deficiencies. The school-based participants affirmed

the importance of first-hand knowledge of the current education system

for teacher education and emphasised their expertise and desire to make

an input into teacher education. They did not, however, express

"parity of esteem" for the knowledge and differing expertise of

university-based participants or recognition of their complementary and

equally valid "distinctive interests," emphasised by Grundy (1996,

p.12) as important to the successful development of professional

partnerships. Instead of parity of esteem, they assumed that the

university participants had been too long away from schools and thus

were out of touch with the realities of contemporary schooling which

should be remedied by visiting classrooms. One of the school based

participants suggested that collaboration should change the way

"university folk look at the whole process of teaching," while another

expressed the view that tertiary staff knew very little about the

school system which was perceived to determine "what the kids learn

when they are in school" and therefore the tertiary people "have to be

brought up to speed on what the system is actually out there".

Alternatively, the issue of educating students to analyse current

practice in addition to training student teachers to fit into the

system, a concern of the tertiary staff, was not discussed.

The university participants were thus judged to be the 'other' and

deficient in what was considered important knowledge. This opinion

seemed to be based more on the views and the performance of student

teachers rather than on demonstrated first-hand knowledge of the

qualifications and experience of the university-based group, and of the

content of their teaching units, and seemed to devalue their knowledge.

Time did not permit a clear development of how school visits would

improve what the university participants were best placed to provide.

Some competition over who is to define professionally worthwhile

knowledge occurred in the project. Teachers asserted the importance of

their gatekeeping status with regard to the assessment of practice

teaching, the screening device for maintenance of standards in entry

to the profession. The faculty had withdrawn from assessment of the

practicum for financial reasons and not educational ones. The emphasis

on the supremacy of the practicum, as the decisive test of competence

for teaching, undervalued the equally important academic component of

the program.

Additionally, difficulties with the performance of some student

teachers was attributed by a school-based participant to the faculty

accepting students having low Tertiary Entrance Rank (TER) score, which

was a misconception because TER scores did not apply to students in

the GDE course. Nevertheless the comment was interpreted as a slur on

the university's status.

Some teachers perceived the possibility of mutual professional

development through exchanges of staff as a form of collaboration,

however, more emphasis was placed upon the desirability of tertiary

teacher educators learning more about the current schooling system than

upon somehow ensuring reciprocal learning.

There were only a few remarks made by the school-based educators to

suggest that some of them were interested to learn from tertiary

colleagues about their research, teaching and scholarship. Easy access

to information about the interests and activities of Faculty staff was,

however, not available to teachers.

What seemed implicit in teachers' views was the primacy of practical,

contextual knowledge in teacher education over the knowledge that

tertiary colleagues could offer. The residual impression was one of

devaluing the contribution of tertiary colleagues. As a result, a

feeling of anger and disappointment was expressed by some of the

university participants at the impression that teachers perceived their

work irrelevant and of little value, on the basis of meagre knowledge.

Grundy's comment in relation to professional research partnerships is

relevant here as she notes that: "To gloss over the differential

expertise of the researching partners is to call into question the very

nature of and rationale for the partnership" (p. 11). It is important

that each party in the collaborative effort recognises and appreciates

that the others have something valuable and complementary to offer for

the education of teachers.

Implications for Conducting Effective Collaborative Work

This project, although modest in scope, does provide some valuable

lessons about processes for collaborative work in teacher education, in

a context where there is a strong perception of difference and division

in the work of school and university-based teacher educators.

The goals of the collaborative venture need to be clealy articulated so

that everyone involved is able to perceive the significance and the

relevance of his or her unique input. This does not mean that the

goalposts cannot be moved if the group decides that emergent goals, as

a result of the group's deliberation, should have priority.

Equal attention should be paid to both the content and the process

dimensions of collaborative work. It would be ideal if two people

could monitor a group's work, one for progress in deliberations over

content and the other for development in the process, so that neither

is neglected. The two monitors could confer regularly and report back

to the group on its progress and thus encourage the collaborative group

to be critically reflective of its own work.

The process needs to provide opportunity for everyone's input to be

equally considered in guiding the content of the work, to ensure the

development of shared ownership and responsibility as well as

commitment to the work, and parity of esteem. No group's contribution

should be assigned superior status. Collaborative work provides an

opportunity to examine what areas of school and university-based work

overlap and what areas deviate; what areas are complementary and what

areas can be redefined.

Given that collaboration frequently falters on communication, rather

than assume mutual understanding and consensus in collaborative work,

an effort is needed on behalf of all the partcipants to communicate

without jargon, openly, sincerely and truthfully, without implying

unfounded expertise or authority (Gilbert and Dewar, 1995, pp.13-14).

Much time needs to be devoted to the sharing of information and the

discussion of issues and problems, in the form of conversation focused

on professional issues and on deliberation, in order to develop a

common conceptual framework, and to tease out differences and

similarities in points of view and in context and their implications

for the group's work. Detailed, in-depth knowledge of each other's

work reduces the chance of forming misconceptions or stereotypical

views and increases the likelihood of developing sensitivity to

cultural differences. Collaboratively planned in-service education for

school-based staff could be provided in order to clarify the

university's roles and expectations in supervision and mentoring of

practice teaching. This could be enhanced by opportunities to visit

each other's work sites in order to acquire up-to-date information on

work practices and work organisation. Introducing the opportunity for

teachers to work as adjunct staff in the university with academics for

a semester could be investigated, such as the program for Faculty

Associates at the University of Tennessee (Brookhart and Loadman,

1996).

The development of a data base on teachers' expertise in the region

would facilitate invitations from tertiary staff for their

participation in lectures and workshops. Similarly a data base on the

areas of expertise of university staff should also be available to all

schools in the district to facilitate communication and interaction.

Facilitators of collaborative work need to be mindful of the

partcipants' level of experience, and that moving from individual to

collaborative work involves cultural change for the participants.

They will need support in changing their work practices and their way

of thinking about them through appropriate professional development

activities which could include democratic decision making,

interpersonal skills to work collaboratively (e.g. active listening)

and skills of critical reflection and collective inquiry. Workshops

could be designed to consider the advantages of collaborative work as

well as to help participants deal with their anxieties about

participating in the process.

Institutional support, such as valuing and rewarding collaborative work

is needed in both the school and university sectors. In universities,

working with school-based colleagues needs to be regarded as a part of

a staff member's job in teacher education and a component of workload,

rather than as an add-on or as only professional service. It needs to

be built into the organisation and work routines of university staff.

To move to a position where collaborative teacher education is a part

of the job description of qualified teachers needs the support of the

Department of School Education and of the University. This could be in

the form of appropriately rewarding the efforts of teachers to develop

their skills and the time they have devoted to teacher education. Or

it may be the case that some schools could be designated as

professional development schools to conduct the practicum (Zeichner,

1990) and staffed accordingly with teachers who devote a third or a

half of their time to teacher education. Increased non-traditional

teaching time for teachers devoted to teacher education in schools

would of course need to be resourced The establishment of such schools

could be the focus of collaborative research. The provision of a

collaboratively developed postgraduate course, as an additional

qualification for teachers, which is recognised and rewarded by the

DSE, for the study and development of collaborative work and

school-based teacher education and co-ordinated with a university-based

program could also be developed.

In conclusion, the UNE project may be viewed as the beginning of an

on-going and improving articulation between the regional sectors

involved in pre-service teacher education. This improvement can only

occur through continuing support for such work and the ongoing

enthusiasm of members of the education sector acting to achieve common

and valued goals. This requires good will and funds allocated to

resource the management and organisation of collaborative work. As

with democracy, the way to address problems in collaboration is to have

more collaboration not less. Continuing study of the successes and

failures of collaboration could also lead to institutional cultural

analysis of a wider scope.

References

Bloomfield, D. 1997. Theoretical Frameworks for the Practicum, Paper

presented the the Annual Conference of the Australian Association for

Research in Education, 30 November - 4 December, Brisbane, Queensland.

Brookhart, S.M. and Loadman, W. E. 1996. School-University

Collaboration: Across Cultures, http//www.ed.sc.edu/te/42fa.html.

September 8, pp1-14.

Elliot, J. 1991. Action Research for Educational Change, Milton Keynes,

U.K. Open University Press.

Feinman -Nemser,S. and Floden, R. 1986. The cultrues of teaching, in M.

Wittrock (Ed.), Handbook of research on teaching, Third Edition, New

York, Macmillan, pp.505-526.

Furlong, J and Maynard, T. 1995. The Growth of Professional Knowledge,

Mentoring Student Teachers, London, Routledge.

Gilbert, R. and Dewar, J. 1995. Community and the Politics of

Participation, in B. Limerick and H. Nielsen, (Eds.) School and

Community Relations, Sydney, Harcourt Brace, pp.1-16.

Gitlin, A. 1987. Common School Structures and Teacher Behaviour, in J.

Smyth (Ed.), Educating Teachers: Changing the Nature of Pedagogical

Knowledge, Lewes, Falmer Press, pp.107-19.

Grundy, S. 1996. Building Professional Research Partnerships:

Possibilities and Perplexities, Australian Educational Researcher,

23(1), pp.1-15.

Hargreaves, A. 1996. Transforming Knowledge: Blurring the Boundaries

Between Research, Policy and Practice, Educational Evaluation and

Policy Analysis, 18(2), pp. 105-122.

Harradine, J. 1995. Collaboration for School Reform Reading Guide,

National Schools Network Research Paper Number 2.

Hatttam, R., Smyth, J. and Smith, B. 1996. Schools as Critical

Collaborative Communities, Working Papers, Flinders Institute for the

Study of Teaching, Flinders University.

Jordan,G. and Weedon.C 1995. Cultural Politics, Oxford, Blackwell.

Johnston, M. and Kerper, R.M. 1996. Positioning Ourselves: Parity and

Power in Collaborative Work, Curriculum Inquiry, 26(1), pp. 5-24.

Little, J. 1990, the Persistence of Privacy: Autonomy and Initiative in

Teachers' Professional Relationships, Teachers College Record, 91(4),

pp. 509-36.

McTaggart, R. 1989.Bureaucractic rationality andthe self-educating

profession: the problem of teacher privatism, Journal of Curriculum

Studies, 21(4), pp.345-361.

McIntyre, D. 1991. The Oxford University Model of Teacher Education,

South Pacific Journal of Teacher Education, 19(1), pp.117-130.

National Project on the Quality of Teaching and Learning (NPQTL) 1996.

National Competency Framework for Beginning Teaching. Leichardt,

Australian Teaching Council.

Oakes, J., Hare,S. and Sirotnik, K. 1986. Collaborative Inquiry:

Congenial paradigm in a cantankerous world, Teachers College Record,

87(4), pp.545-561.

Peters, J., Dobbins, R. and Johnson, B. 1996, Restructuring and

organisational culture, Research Paper 4, National Schools Network,

Sydney.

Pine, G. and Keane, W. 1989. Collaboration for excellence and equity:

Lessons learned, Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American

Association of Colleges for Teacher Education, Anheim CA.

Sparkes, A.C. and Bloomer, M. 1993. Teaching Cultures and School-based

Management: Towards a Collaborative Reconstruction, in Smyth, J. (Ed.),

A Socially Critical View of the Self-Managing School, London, Falmer

Press, pp. 171-189.

Stenhouse, L. 1975. An Introduction to Curriculum Research and

Development, London, Routledge and Kegan Paul.

Stokes, H. and Tyler, D. 1997, Rethinking Inter-Agency Collaboration

and Young People, Language Australia, Canberra and Youth Research

Centre, Melbourne.

Treleaven, L. 1995. Collaborative Inquiry: Unsettling Gendered

Discourses, Creating New Subjectivities, in A.M. Payne and L. Shoemark,

(Eds.) Women Culture and Universities: A Chilly Climate? University of

Technology, Women's Forum, pp. 179-185.

Tikunoff, W. and Ward, B. 1983. Collaborative Research on Teaching,

Elementary School Journal, 83(4), pp.453-468.

Wasser, J.D. and Bressler, L. 1996. Working in the Interpretive Zone:

Conceptualising Collaboration in Qualitative Research Teams,

Educational Researcher, 25(5), pp.5-15.

Weedon, C. 1987. Feminist Practice and Postructuralist Theory, Oxford,

Blackwell. .

White, J. and Wehlage, G. 1995. Community Collaboration: If it is such

a good idea, why is it so hard to do? Educational Evaluation and Policy

Analysis, 17(1), pp. 23-38.

Zeichner, K. 1990. Changing directions in the Practicum: Looking to the

1990's. In K. Appleton, D. Price and K. Zeichner (Eds) The Practicum in

Teacher Education, Proceedings, Fourth National Conference 1989,

Rockhampton: Unversity College of Central Queensland, pp. 13- 30.