Building a teacher education community: Recognizing the ecological reality of sustainable collaboration

The Project Model

The project model has been described in detail elsewhere (Watson, 2005) and will only be summarised briefly here. At the core of the model is a vision that learning communities will be established at a number of different levels (Watson, 2005). At the school department level this will typically involve the school department staff (but perhaps not all), the pre-service teachers and university staff. The next level or layer of community will be across a few schools where there will be interchange of ideas to varying extents. A third tier of community may be all the schools implementing the model within the same district, or within the same educational system. The next level or layer of community may be one which includes professional organisations. As time passes, people will move in and out of communities at different levels as needs determine. Each individual in the system will access and interact with a community or communities as their needs and the needs of communities change. As one aspect of the model is refined, the model as a whole may be changed. This may result in associated changes that may impact on other aspects of the model. In this way the model will continuously evolve - learning will take place constantly and change will follow.

The Teacher education program

The science teacher education program is a pathway through a one year end-on postgraduate Bachelor of Teaching. In addition to two four-week blocks of practicum (professional experience), students spent one day a week in schools, in place of the usual lectures and tutorials for one of their science method subjects. They completed assignments based on their teaching experience with an emphasis on the development of student-centred approaches to teaching and learning.

Pre-service teachers participated in a variety of activities in schools, including: teaching classes or parts of classes; team teaching; helping with administrative tasks; observing lessons; formally seeking advice about teaching and classroom lessons; completing set tasks, for example the preparation and delivery of an 'exemplary' student-centred lesson at least once per semester; and attending formal community activities for example, workshops. These activities were seen as providing pre-service teachers with examples of contemporary 'good practice' in classroom teaching with student learning as a central priority.

Eight pre-service science teachers were involved in the study. They were a cohort of students completing their course exclusively in the science strand rather than those in, for example, science and mathematics or any other combination involving science. Each pre-service teacher spent one semester in a school then transferred to another school for the second half of the year. At all times the pre-service teachers were actively supervised by university staff. The teacher educators moved between schools, coordinating pre-service teacher time and participation, rather than passing this additional responsibility on to head teachers. University staff also organised community building activities and provided support to staff in their role as supervising teachers.

School staff were principal contributors to the overall teaching/learning process. Some of their tasks were to facilitate pre-service teachers in teaching classes or parts of classes; provide opportunities for team teaching; assist pre-service teachers to become familiar with the school environment; provide opportunities for pre-service teachers to observe lessons; provide feedback and advice about teaching and classroom lessons; and participate in community activities. Pre-service teachers were not allocated to one teacher. Rather, they were introduced as a resource for the whole department, to be viewed as a collegial, shared responsibility and so contribute to an environment of building a learning community.

Strategies for building a learning community

As community building was fundamental to the model, the pilot study incorporated a number of strategies intended to foster cooperation and collaboration between members of the partnership. These strategies were focused at both the school level and the collegiate level. Specific activities that were designed to promote community building were:

weekly visits of university staff to the eight participating schools. This potentially allowed an exchange of views about how the project was progressing and the transmission of ideas between member schools;
having pre-service teachers work with more than one staff member and be regarded as a responsibility of the entire department. This was intended as a way of building community within the school;
department wide analysis of pre-service teacher lessons. Within each department the pre-service teacher's exemplary lesson was 'debriefed' by the staff, the pre-service teacher and the university lecturer in a round table discussion. The role of the university staff was to contribute understandings from the education literature and to guide the debriefing process. They actively avoided imposing their own views on the best way to teach the lesson. The science staff members provided feedback for the pre-service teacher based on their experience and re-designed the lesson the way they thought it should be taught. This debriefing process was designed to encourage teaching staff to come together with the express intention of discussing pedagogy. At least one debriefing session was conducted in each school in each semester;
workshops organised by university staff. Teachers and pre-service teachers were asked to present on various aspects of teaching and learning. These workshops took place out of school hours and included food provided at university expense. Teachers who gave a presentation were renumerated for their time. At least two workshops were held per semester; and
brown-bag lunchtime discussions. Once each semester university staff organised lunchtime discussions at which pre-service teachers and teachers met to discuss issues of content and pedagogy. These sessions, although organised by university staff were free ranging and directed by the interests of those attending.