Sei sulla pagina 1di 13

Urban Fraefel

Professionalization of pre-service teachers through university-school partnerships


Partner schools for Professional Development: development, implementation and evaluation of cooperative learning in schools and classes
Abstract
In German-speaking countries the enormously strong focus on building individual skills and achieving
standards has pushed other aspects of professionalization into the background, because they are hardly
delineated within the common concept of competence. But as we know today, professionalization
involves also dimensions such as cooperation and cooperative learning among adults, the attitudes
towards and willingness to use all knowledge resources, as well as a focusing on the progress of the
students at the schools in question. The concept of partner schools has successfully moved these
neglected dimensions into the centre of attention. With the implementation of pilot schools and the
exploration of these partner schools following the design based research approach it is possible to
gain an even deeper understanding of the processes of professionalization in working and learning
communities, which in turn helps to enhance the partner school concept and to provide the theoretical
and conceptual foundations for future extension or even generalization. First results indicate that cooperation was successful both from the perspective of empirical data collection and from the subjective perspective of the participants.

1. What is it all about?


Very few areas of teacher education have been associated with such high expectations and
strong emotions as the field experience of pre-service teachers. Internships are the main pillar
of professionalization in practice and at the same time there is little research into them. On
the contrary, internships are in fact typically shaped not by research findings but by traditions
and habits. The situation is paradoxical: on the one hand, practical experience is highly regarded, especially by student teachers, while on the other hand, there are many unanswered
questions about its effectiveness.
In Switzerland and in the German-speaking countries in general only a few studies about the
impact of field experiences can be found (e.g. Schpbach, 2007; Stadelmann, 2006, Hascher
& Moser, 2001, Rotermund, 2006, Bodensohn & Schneider, 2008). In the English-speaking
countries there is fairly rich evidence (Cochran-Smith & Zeichner, 2005, Menter, Hulme et
al., 2010). Within the German context, Kunter, Scheunpflug & Baumert (2011) concluded
that initial teacher training at university level seems to be able to prepare graduates for the
reality in schools only to a limited extent, and that the transition into autonomous teaching
presents serious challenges (p. 8).
How can field experiences be advanced in the context of educational reforms so that they
support the professionalization of pre-service teachers as much as possible? The School of
Education of Northwestern Switzerland took up the challenge, declaring in their strategic
guidelines 2011 to 2014 that a structural coupling of university and school fields was to be
reconsidered on the basis of scientific evidence, and that a pilot project should be implemented to explore it (Pdagogische Hochschule FHNW, 2010). This article describes the current
situation of field experience in the German-speaking part of Switzerland, discusses contemporary needs, and presents, based on the analysis, a concept of partner schools for professional
1

development which was developed and implemented as a pilot project in two cantonal regions. The research design and initial results are presented below.

2. The problem areas of traditional internships: a situational analysis


Swiss schools of education are fortunate to be in a position to draw on a large network of motivated mentor teachers and lecturers who can offer various learning opportunities for the professionalization of prospective teachers. However, there are also problem areas in which
schools of teacher education do not have convincing answers. Four structural shortcomings of
traditional initial teacher education are explored below.
Problem area 1: Insufficient integration of knowledge bases, or the .theory-practice
problem
In teacher education it has always been widely discussed how theoretical knowledge can be
incorporated into professional practice; there seems in fact to be no other problem where desire and reality diverge so greatly. A Swiss expert report of 1975 Teacher education of tomorrow argued for the intensification of the opportunities systematic interaction of school
practice and theory, enabling a revision of the practice through theory and a verification of the
theory through practice (Mller, 1975). Oelkers (2005) complained that despite the rhetoric of
practical relevance, the theoretical knowledge does not generally correspond with the needs of
the professional field, and states that anything that increases the costs without improving the
benefits will not be considered (p. 7). Forneck, Messner et al. (2009) state that the contrast
of practice and theory emerges in initial teacher education when the basic expectations of student teachers are not satisfied (p. 170).
The theory-practice divide is seen as a problem worldwide, as Korthagen (2010) has summarized. Stadelmann (2006) notes that a connection between theory and practice is possible
in principle, but hardly occurs in reality. Therefore novel and promising approaches for a productive relationship between theory and practice are called for.
Problem area 3: Focusing on student learning
A commitment to learning and development of students is the central task of teachers and has
also turned out to be one of the best predictors of student learning (Hattie, 2009). Nevertheless, the commitment to student learning usually goes far beyond the horizon of practical experiences in teacher education. To give an example: not one of the mentor teachers interviewed in a large study by Stadelmann (2006) even mentioned the learning of school-age students. The focus on student learning is sometimes even perceived as an obstacle to individual
professional development (Arnold, Hascher et al., 2011, p. 144.). This stands in stark contrast
to the social and medical professions, where the emphasis is placed on the welfare of the subjects. Involving student teachers in real school processes as early as the internship stage
would go far beyond so-called student orientation as a methodological concept (summarized by Kleickmann, 2008). In international discourse on the subject, the focus of teacher
education has shifted from good to good and successful teaching (Fenstermacher &
Richardson, 2005) or from the good to the effective teacher (Kennedy, 2008; OECD, 2009).
Student learning must serve as the focal point for the design and implementation of clinically
based teacher preparation (NCATE, 2010, p 5). A number of studies emphasize the strength
of this approach, and numerous authors successfully challenge the popular notion that focusing real student learning is developed only in-service (Edwards & Protheroe, 2003; Levin,
Hammer et al., 2009).
The focus on student learning is a rarely discussed topic in teacher education discourse in the
German-speaking countries. In general student teachers focus instead on whether and how
2

lessons work and on methodological concerns. But as student teachers are not held accountable for actual student learning, their actions lack an essential orientation. This is one of the
most urgent needs in teacher education in the German-speaking world.
Problem Area 4: The lack of social learning and cooperation in practice
In the school fields of German-speaking countries the ability to cooperate in learning communities has increasingly become one of the central expectations (Bonsen & Rolff, 2006; Grsel,
Fussangel et al., 2006). A fundamental shift from an individualistic notion of teachers towards
a collaborative approach is taking place, but the implications for teacher education are hardly
reflected. There are alternative designs for teacher education, such as the concept of communities of practice, as theoretically delineated by Wenger (1998), which would have to be extended to communities of teachers and students, assuming their professional responsibilities
jointly.
Today, pre-service teachers are in a somewhat contradictory situation: cooperative learning
among university students is widely accepted (Reusser, 2005), but practical experiences are
mainly dominated by the narrow dyadic structure between teacher student and mentor teacher.
Student teachers may have some selective insight into professional life as a teacher, but there
are hardly any opportunities for real participation in school life. It is therefore necessary to
find structures that allow teacher students to experience and learn cooperation in professional
learning communities under conditions in situ.
The structural legacy traditional internship
Given the dynamics in education in general and the above-mentioned shortcomings in particular, the structural stability of internships and practical experiences are surprising. The central
reference point still remains the construct of the internship with dedicated and supportive
teachers. It is worth asking if the traditional internship is not overwhelmed by the complexity of the teaching profession and the new current challenges. Therefore, the structure of the
traditional internship requires further analysis in order to examine how it should fundamentally develop in order to meet todays requirements for the professionalization of student teachers.
First of all, it is necessary to highlight the enduring dominance of the mechanisms and effects
of traditional internships even if this is also permeated by other approaches to practical experience (see Le Cornu & Ewing, 2008). The structure of internships results from a time in
which the duties expected of teachers were manageable and coherent. Their basic pattern can
be assumed to be familiar, consisting of observation and teaching with an experienced teacher
who establishes a thematic framework, surveys the students teaching and assesses him/her
formatively and sometimes summatively. This form of teaching practice has been internalized
for generations and has therefore become part of the collective memory of the profession.
One particular problem of traditional internships is their focus on performance: Student
teachers focus on the training of standardized and functional teaching, or on building up their
teaching competencies. These internships are more concerned with good teaching than student learning, an attitude which goes against modern educational principles in all respects. A
successful mastery of teaching on the surface level is considered to be the dominant indicator
of quality. In a longitudinal analysis of 182 instructional videos for students, professional entrant and practice teachers, Baer, Kocher et al. (2011) come to the disheartening conclusion
that the prospective teachers increasingly adopt a traditional teaching style, which is in contrast to the theory taught in university courses. Practical experience in internships changes
little about this way of teaching (p. 112).
The persistence of some aspects of traditional internships does not seem, however, to result
from an explicit intention of teacher education, but rather from the afore-mentioned structural
3

stability, which in turn evokes almost ritualized forms of assignments, classroom observation
and post-lesson debriefing (Cramer, 2012, p. 516). Even differentiated objectives and elaborate manuals (Douglas & Ellis, 2011) appear to have little impact upon this. A realignment of
practical experiences in a contemporary teacher education program would therefore have to
transform the monolithic system of traditional internship (Grudnoff, 2011). Nevertheless,
traditional internships and field experiences do seem to have been enriched by new concepts
such as elaborate forms of mentoring and the reflection approach in particular.

3. Alternatives
3.1 Reflection and self-reliant professionalization
A significant attempt to reform the traditional internship through mentoring can be seen in the
reflection approach. This can be interpreted as a response to a behaviourist notion of correct
teaching, as the antithesis of a teacher who refers to the mainstream of current practices.
Reflective teachers are encouraged to actively take responsibility for their own professionalization.
The concept of reflection has already been discussed by Heimann (1976) and Dewey (1916,
1933), but only since Schns Reflective Practitioner (1983, 1987) have the reflection of own
thoughts, actions, beliefs and school conditions become a central principle of practical experiences in teacher education. The reflexive approach gives teachers new ways to deviate from
a planned technological rationality in teaching. Teachers are encouraged to reflect on the appropriateness of their own actions and also to correct their own action plans in a range of concrete situations (reflection-in-action). The central tenet of the reflection approach is taking
seriously the real practice of teachers and students: clinical practice is a valuable form of
knowledge (Schns knowledge-in-action, 1983), and improvement always begins with the
practice itself, at the place where the shoe pinches. The sometimes uncomfortable recognition of misconceptions and suboptimal action is the most productive starting point for reflection and transformation. Forms of reflection have become abundantly heterogeneous, as Jay
& Johnson (2002) analyse accurately, and as Zeichner laconically states in a critical review:
Among those who have embraced the slogan of reflection are vast differences in perspectives about teaching, learning, schooling, and the good society. Everyone, no matter what
his or her ideological commitments, has jumped on the bandwagon and is committed to some
version of reflective teaching (Zeichner & Liu, 2010, p 69-70).
There has been consistent criticism that encouraging reflection does not necessarily lead to
better professionalization. In practice, the reflection approach may tend towards prescribed
self-criticism. Sometimes, reflection is not sufficiently motivated by the explicit intention to
improve practice (Wyss, 2012). According to Zeichner (2010), the function of reflection must
be clearly stated whether for the effective implementation of practices or the personal development or the commitment for better conditions. Nigglis (2003) three-level model points
in the same direction. In retrospect, the approach of reflective thinking can be seen as an attempt to give student teachers more awareness and responsibility for their own professionalization, but still within the context of traditional structures of internships and mentoring.
3.2 Professionalization through participation in the professional field
In the field teachers should be able to act professionally even under the pressures of time, of
immediate decision-making, and of social expectations. Student teachers, however, usually
only experience the entire complexity of professional action and cooperation during the induction phase, and they therefore lack those learning experiences that would serve most. It is
questionable whether newly-qualified teachers can successfully integrate the disparate skills
4

acquired during teacher preparation in a consistent and stable concept of professional action
by themselves. The risks of inadequate preparation for career entry are regressive developments (Dann, Cloetta et al., 1978), stress and attrition in student teachers first years. It is also
known that although student teachers are realistic in their assessment of imminent stressful
situations, classroom management is nevertheless perceived as very challenging (Zingg &
Grob, 2002). Based on evidence, Clift & Brady (2005) stated that focusing on student learning and use of knowledge of newly-qualified teachers in the U.S. tend to decrease, which
leads to deprofessionalization. Nevertheless, induction programs and support for young professionals can help to prevent professional stagnation (Strong, 2009; Abs, 2011; KellerSchneider & Hericks, 2011; Schubarth, 2011). Induction programs in German-speaking countries are well regarded (Huwendiek, Gutzwiller-Helfeninger et al., 2009). On the other hand,
practical preparation in initial teacher education seems to be quite poor with regard to the
complex and stressful professional life. The apodictum practice, one always learns only in
practice (Reichenbach, 2004, p. 329) is an unacceptable provocation, given the training period of six to nine semesters in Switzerland. What is required are situated settings where student teachers can learn professional action under real conditions.
3.3 Participation in real communities of learning and practice
The major challenge is multi-faceted, consisting of the following objectives: 1. to allow complex professional field experience, 2. to let students participate in communities of learning and
practice and share responsibility, and 3. at the same time to ensure the development of stable
professionalism. The schools should be willing to welcome prospective teachers to the team
as junior partners and to involve them as befits their level of professional development. From
the perspective of teacher education this is desirable, but for the school teams and even for
student teachers it might be a challenge to establish a community of practice. Moreover, student teachers are expected to demonstrate a serious commitment to the schools goals and
student learning. This is a delicate process which Lave & Wenger (1991) have described and
analysed as legitimate peripheral participation.
By immersing student teachers in the school teams as communities of practice, the hierarchical relationship between pre-service and in-service teachers can be transformed into a collegial relationship of teachers with different backgrounds in terms of experience. The common interest is shifting away from the normatively correct action of the student teachers
and towards the common assumption of job responsibilities. Numerous studies have shown
that this type of collaborative learning in communities of practice leads to improvements in
teaching, student learning and the school culture (summarized by Vescio, Ross et al., 2008; on
assistant teachers see Farrell, Alborz et al., 2010). Communities of practice are also a promising constellation with respect to integration of disparate knowledge resources and overcoming
the theory-practice gap, as Wenger (1998) sets out compellingly.
The individual components of cooperation are already familiar in Switzerland. Paired teaching placements (tandems) can be developed further with a view to encouraging and enabling
peer coaching among student teachers. In a research overview Lu (2010) concluded that peer
coaching promotes learning in internships, supports interns in their professionalization and
gives affective support during field-based experiences. The approach of content-focused
coaching (West & Staub, 2003; Staub, 2004; Kreis & Staub, 2011) is well established in
German-speaking countries and is often used as the basis for training programmes for mentor
teachers and lecturers. West & Staub (2011) were among the first to emphasize the potential
of joint responsibility in planning and classroom activities.
A more distinct approach to learning communities on the classroom level is offered by the
consistent implementation of co-planning and co-teaching of student teachers with mentor
teachers. Initially used more typically in inclusive schooling (eg Villa, Thousand et al., 2008;
5

Willmann, 2009), co-planning and co-teaching are increasingly being introduced into initial
teacher training (Bacharach, Washut Heck et al., 2010; Fraefel & Kohler, 2011). Co-planning
and co-teaching have proven very successful tools for initiating cooperative ways of working
and for addressing the shortcomings of traditional evaluative mentoring forms. The coconstructive planning process helps student teachers share different knowledge sources and
establishes learning partnerships (Fraefel & Haunberger, 2012).
3.4 Hybrid structures between university and school field
Structural alternatives to the traditional organization of internships are also needed at the system level (NCATE, 2001; The Holmes Group, 1986; on the subject of Urban Teacher Residency programs: UTRU, 2010). In the U.S. so-called professional development schools (PDS)
have been established since the late 1980s as cooperations between universities and schools.
Similar approaches can be found in other English-speaking countries (Maandag, Deinum et
al., 2007) and in the Netherlands with the Opleidingsschool (van Velzen, 2012). These new
forms are motivated by a desire to address shortcomings in teacher training, recruitment problems in schools and the expectations of positive effects on schools and in-service teachers.
Most alternative models have in common that they:
1. are committed to a university-school cooperation at the institutional level (NCATE, 2001;
van Velzen, Bezzina et al., 2009; van Velzen, 2012)
2. encourage shared responsibility in student teachers in the field (Oser, 2000),
3. require groups of pre-service and in-service teachers to form cooperating teams, in place
of the traditional single allocation practice (e.g. Beck & Kosnik, 2002),
4. take into account the interests of the field, especially student learning, the professional
development of experienced teachers and the development of schools (NCATE, 2010),
5. promote the generation and development of professional knowledge in cooperative settings, on the one hand by continuous collaboration of pre-service and in-service teachers,
and on the other hand by collaborative practitioner research projects.
There is rich evidence on such initiatives, particularly the formally designated professional
development schools (PDS) and similar models (Boyle-Baise & McIntyre, 2008; McIntyre,
Byrd et al., 1996; Abdal-Haqq, 1997; Teitel, 2001; Clift & Brady, 2005; Castle & Reilly,
2011). Individual studies find positive effects in PDS settings in terms of focusing on student
learning, classroom management, motivation, efficiency, reflection, and use of knowledge. In
Switzerland, too, conceptual developments are now being discussed. Several partnerships at
all K-12 levels in the cantons of Basel, Solothurn, Aargau and St. Gallen have been implemented, based on the conceptual framework of partner schools for profession development
investigated by the School of Teacher Education FHNW (Fraefel & Haunberger, 2012; see
below).
In response to this diversity in organizational forms, Zeichner (2010) has described a significant dimension of partnership approaches, the so-called hybrid space (or third space),
which seeks to:
bring practitioner and academic knowledge together in less hierarchical ways to create new
learning opportunities for prospective teachers Creating third spaces in teacher education involves an equal and more dialectical relationship between academic and practitioner knowledge
in support of student teacher learning (p. 92).

The tensions between academic and practitioner knowledge forms come to the fore in a discontinuous transition at student teachers career entry point. This precarious transition has to
be channelled back into initial teacher preparation by establishing a hybrid space in which
the experience and knowledge of schools and universities can be shared and used. Day-to-day
work in the teaching profession can be modelled very realistically. Furthermore, the relationship between university and school settings can be developed further by a structural redesign
6

of the field-based experiences in the hybrid space. In partnerships of this nature, universities
forgo some of the control over processes in the hybrid space in favour of collaboration with
schools as equal partners. [We] have a field that is constituted by the clash of two discourses
and neither of those discourses may have the upper hand and everyone must be prepared to
have his or her thinking upset by the other (Forneck, 2009, p. 253).
Hybrid structures support the participatory approach to a large extent and allow mentor teachers to abandon their traditional role of pure mentoring. The more intense the dialectical exchange and co-constructive processes are at the micro level, the more productive they are for
students and teachers. Whenever steps in the direction of hybrid structures are made, teachers
generally react very positively, recognizing the benefit for themselves and their classes and
appreciate being relieved of duties of supervision and evaluation (Schussler, 2006; Le Cornu,
2010). The role of the lecturer needs to be repositioned in a similar manner.

4. The intervention study partner schools for Professional Development:


Design of a theory- and evidence-based concept
The above situational analysis opens our eyes on the one hand to traditions and largely unquestioned structures, and, on the other hand, to alternative approaches which could be tested
for their contribution to professionalization. Ultimately, a concept of teacher education cannot
be implemented purely from a scientistic perspective and just with sound arguments. It has to
be built on existing, well-functioning structures, with an eye for what is possible, taking the
numerous parties into account, and getting them on board for a step into the unknown.
Thanks to the determination of the School of Teacher Education FHNW to take a leading role
in overhauling student teacher field experiences, the room for manoeuvre has greatly increased. This has allowed us to introduce theoretical positions which are outside of the local
mainstream:
The approach of situated learning (Lave & Wenger, 1991) explores the significant learning potential of a (temporary) co-responsible participation in the rich learning environments of the field.
The concept of communities of practice (Wenger, 1998) moves learning and cooperation
in schools into the centre of attention.
According to the theoretical approach of the third space an autonomous hybrid space
emerges at the intersection between university and school, making it possible to integrate
disparate bodies of knowledge and enhance sustainable professionalization (Zeichner,
2010).
Moreover, the design of this intervention study was based on explored concepts and evaluated
interventions with evidence for desired effects. In particular, it referred to field-tested university-school partnerships (professional development schools or PDS and related concepts,
see above). Furthermore, experiences and findings on co-planning and co-teaching have been
taken into account and incorporated. On this basis, principles of an alternative conception of
field experiences in internships were developed, aiming at a thorough professionalization in
the deficit areas. We will call this concept partner schools for professional development.
4.1 The basic concept and objectives
The central idea is to understand partner schools as professional learning and working communities, in which students, teachers and lecturers communicate and cooperate intensively in
order to achieve the objectives of both the university and the school. This includes the learning and development of students and student teachers and mentor teachers. It is worth noting
that the objectives of the concept of partner schools for professional development cannot
7

replace those of university and schools but they can, however, complement them. The specific
objectives are:
1. an ability and a willingness to cooperate with all stakeholders in the field, especially
within the school team
2. the construction and use of professional knowledge, focused on a wide range of sources:
theory, evidence and experience, but also individually structured professional knowledge
to be applied under complex conditions
3. a strong focus on learning and the development of students, i.e. not only successful teaching and the creation of learning opportunities, but also a commitment for students so that
they may take advantage of the given opportunities.
4.2 Basic Features
The characteristics of the intervention contrast significantly with conventional settings and
can be seen to constitute a professional learning community (Zeichner, 2010).
collective steering at all levels: At the institutional level, a group of both school and university staff steers the project; at the operational level mentor teachers and lecturers make
decisions together; at the level of teaching, student teachers and mentor teachers cooperate
in micro-teams.
Co-responsibility of student teachers at all levels of the school, which means: 1. On the
school level, participation in discussions and activities of the school team; 2. On the lesson level, shared responsibility between student teachers and mentor teachers for successful teaching with obligatory co-planning and co-teaching components (Murphy &
Scantlebury, 2010; Kreis & Staub, 2011); 3. At the individual level, on the one hand joint
responsibility for learning and development of the students, and on the other hand responsibility for student teachers own professionalization.
Consistent and applied problem solving at all levels of the school: Addressing and working out real needs and real problems at the level of students, of classes, and, where appropriate, at the level of the school. The initiation of practitioner research projects and
participation in school-based research projects is welcome.
This intervention concept is not the sum of isolated individual approaches, which in turn focus on specific competencies, but instead seeks to create a learning environment. This environment would seem particularly useful in supporting student teacher attitudes and professional activities and in guiding them towards more knowledge sharing, collaboration and student learning.
4.3 Approach
At the schools of teacher education in Northwestern Switzerland and St. Gallen partner
schools and the school of education flesh out in detail the design of the implementation. This
is influenced by the local conditions of the school, ongoing projects, finances, interests and
the wishes of teachers and of school management staff. Local circumstances also determine
the timing, form and phasing of implementation. This implementation becomes the shared
task of the universities and partner schools. Lecturers and teachers are introduced to the concept in workshop settings before the student teachers start their internships in the partner
school.

5. Studying the implementation: Design Based Research as a cyclical process of innovation


In the theory-based approach of partner schools for profession development the cooperation
of the university and the school field should be newly regulated. This is not achieved solely
8

with a promising concept, however, for a number of questions arise. How can we ensure that
the theoretically based approach is well implemented and successful? How can errors be corrected? And how can new theoretical knowledge concerning professionalization be generated
and used?
Research in the school field makes it difficult to exclude biases and undesirable effects; therefore a strictly experimental research approach is not appropriate here. In addition, it can
scarcely be considered socially acceptable to engage schools as year-long objects of research
if the benefits for them remain uncertain.
An approach was therefore chosen which links development and research as closely as possible: the design-based research approach (DBR). The basic idea is very simple (see Figure 1)
At the beginning there is a theory-guided design of the concept, which is then implemented in
the field. Reactions in the field to the design adopted are collected and analysed. This results
in the next cycle, that is on the one hand a re-design phase and better implementation, on the
other hand concerns theoretical implications. This ongoing innovation process then runs
through several cycles.

Figure 1: Design based research as an ongoing process of innovation


The research process is therefore stimulated by the intended improvement in the design. In
comparison to traditional research design and pure evaluation, design based research is characterized by the following specific benefits:
innovation is at the cutting edge of theoretical knowledge
the implementation will be accompanied by the research team
stakeholders in the field are not only data providers, but also actively customize the
design
effects are continuously analysed with quantitative and qualitative methods which allows
for the prompt adjustments to the implementation
The concept itself and the theoretical foundations are continuously reviewed and adapted.
5.1 Data collection
This methodology is based on an exploratory pre-study (Fraefel & Haunberger, 2012). The
project addresses 5 elementary and 7 secondary schools, each numbering 10 pre-service
teachers, 10 mentor teachers, and 1-2 lecturers on average. Constraints in the field imposed a
quasi-experimental design sample of partner and regular schools and multiple measurements.
Student teachers were assigned randomly to the experimental partner school group or to the
traditional control group.
At three intervals within the course of a year quantitative data from pre-service and mentor
teachers are collected by an online questionnaire using tested scales on attitudes and the practice of cooperation, on the use of knowledge resources, and on focusing on student learning.
9

Qualitative data collected at two intervals and addressing all research questions comprise individual interviews with mentor teachers and tandems of pre-service teachers, group interviews with all stakeholders in partner schools, and teaching quality using observation with
CLASS (Hamre, Pianta et al., 2007); furthermore, a paper-pencil-questionnaire for students
on perceived support by pre-service teachers was also implemented. Full data and final results
of the three-years-project are expected by 2016.
5.2 First results
Data collection is not yet complete, but first tendencies have emerged which entirely corroborate the findings from the pre-study.
From quantitative surveys:
In terms of cooperation between mentor teachers and student teachers the values of the
partner schools are significantly higher.
In general, the sources of professional knowledge expert knowledge, literature, lectures
etc. are used more intensively over time.
Between the individual partner schools, there are significant differences, which might indicate that the quality of implementation and the understanding of the concept differ
considerably.
From interviews with student teachers and mentor teachers:
The implementation of the concept is challenging, but is perceived in the field to be a very
satisfying experience
The need for optimization is localized mainly at the level of managerial tasks
Students appreciate the opportunity to bring elements of their theoretical knowledge into
co-planning sessions.
The long-term residence period in the partner school is seen very positively.
Group discussions with all stakeholders of the respective partner schools show the following:
the partner school concept is sound, sustainable, plausible, and in principle very welcome.
the implementation requires prudence, patience, and open and continuous communication
the crucial key to success seems to be an innovative school management, motivated teachers and the intensive cooperation in planning and teaching.
From observations on the quality of teaching initial results can be reported:
The teaching quality measured in prospective teachers differs little from similar studies
with in-service teachers
In co-teaching, numerous indicators of the teaching quality of the student teacher observed are higher than in solo teaching.
Full data and final results of this three-year project are expected by 2016.

6. Conclusion
In German-speaking countries the enormously strong focus on building individual skills and
achieving standards has pushed other aspects of professionalization into the background, because they are hardly delineated within the common concept of competence. But as we know
today, professionalization involves also dimensions such as cooperation and cooperative
learning among adults, the attitudes towards and willingness to use all knowledge resources,
as well as a focusing on the progress of the students at the schools in question. The concept of
partner schools has successfully moved these neglected dimensions into the centre of attention. With the implementation of pilot schools and the exploration of these partner schools
following the design based research approach it is possible to gain an even deeper understanding of the processes of professionalization in working and learning communities, which
10

in turn helps to enhance the partner school concept and to provide the theoretical and conceptual foundations for future extension or even generalization. First results indicate that cooperation was successful both from the perspective of empirical data collection and from the subjective perspective of the participants.

7. Literature
Abdal-Haqq, I. (1997). Professional development schools: Weighing the evidence. Thousand Oaks: Corwin
Press.
Abs, H. J. (2011). Programme zur Berufseinfhrung von Lehrpersonen. In E. Terhart, H. Bennewitz & M.
Rothland (Ed.), Handbuch der Forschung zum Lehrerberuf (S. 381-379). Mnster: Waxmann.
Arnold, K.-H., Hascher, T., Messner, R. et al. (2011). Empowerment durch Schulpraktika: Perspektiven
wechseln in der Lehrerbildung. Bad Heilbrunn: Klinkhardt.
Bacharach, N. L., Washut Heck, T. & Dahlberg, K. R. (2010). Changing the Face of Student Teaching through
Coteaching. Action in Teacher Education, 32 (1), 3-14.
Baer, M., Kocher, M., Wyss, C. et al. (2011). Lehrerbildung und Praxiserfahrung im ersten Berufsjahr und ihre
Wirkung auf die Unterrichtskompetenzen von Studierenden und jungen Lehrpersonen im Berufseinstieg.
Zeitschrift fr Erziehungswissenschaft, 14 (1), 85-117.
Beck, C. & Kosnik, C. (2002). Components of a Good Practicum Placement: Student Teacher Perceptions.
Teacher Education Quarterly, 29 (2), 81-98.
Bodensohn, R. & Schneider, C. (2008). Was ntzen Praktika? Evaluation der Block-Praktika im Lehramt
Ertrge und offene Fragen nach sechs Jahren. Empirische Pdagogik, 22 (3), 274-304.
Bonsen, M. & Rolff, H.-G. (2006). Professionelle Lerngemeinschaften von Lehrerinnen und Lehrern. Zeitschrift
fr Pdagogik, 52 (2), 167-184.
Boyle-Baise, M. & McIntyre, D. J. (2008). What kind of experience? Preparing teachers in PDS or community
settings. In M. Cochran-Smith, S. Feiman-Nemser & K. E. Demers (Ed.), Handbook of research on teacher
education: enduring questions in changing contexts (3rd. S. 307-329). New York: Routledge.
Castle, S. & Reilly, K. A. (2011). Impact of Professional Development School Preparation on Teacher
Candidates. National Society for the Study of Education, 110 (2), 337371.
Clift, R. T. & Brady, P. (2005). Research on Methods Courses and Field Experiences. In M. Cochran-Smith &
K. Zeichner (Ed.), Studying teacher education: the report of the AERA Panel on research and teacher
education (S. 309-424). Mahwah, N.J.: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Cochran-Smith, M. & Zeichner, K. (2005). Studying teacher education: the report of the AERA Panel on
research and teacher education. Mahwah, N.J.: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Cramer, C. (2012). Entwicklung von Professionalitt in der Lehrerbildung: Empirische Befunde zu
Eingangsbedingungen, Prozessmerkmalen und Ausbildungserfahrungen Lehramtsstudierender. Bad
Heilbrunn: Klinkhardt.
Dann, H.-D., Cloetta, B., Mller-Fohrbrodt, G. et al. (1978). Umweltbedingungen innovativer Kompetenz: eine
Lngsschnittuntersuchung zur Sozialisation von Lehrern in Ausbildung und Beruf. Stuttgart: Klett-Cotta.
Dewey, J. (1916). Democracy and education: an introduction to the philosophy of education (20. Ed. 1930).
New York: Macmillan.
Dewey, J. (1933). How we think: A restatement of the relation of reflective thinking to the educative process.
Lexington: D.C. Health.
Douglas, A. S. & Ellis, V. (2011). Connecting Does Not Necessarily Mean Learning: Course Handbooks as
Mediating Tools in SchoolUniversity Partnerships. Journal of Teacher Education, 62 (5), 465476.
Edwards, A. & Protheroe, L. (2003). Learning to See in Classrooms: what are student teachers learning about
teaching and learning while learning to teach in schools? British Educational Research Journal, 29 (2).
Farrell, P., Alborz, A., Howes, A. et al. (2010). The impact of teaching assistants on improving pupils academic
achievement in mainstream schools: a review of the literature. Educational Review, 62 (4), 435-448.
Fenstermacher, G. D. & Richardson, V. (2005). On making determinations of quality in teaching. Teachers
College Record, 107 (1), 186-213.
Forneck, H. J. (2009). Die Autonomie Pdagogischer Hochschulen. Beitrge zur Lehrerbildung, 27 (2), 250-256.
Forneck, H. J., Messner, H. & Vogt, F. (2009). Entwicklung von Professionalitt in den berufspraktischen
Studien. In H. J. Forneck, A. Dggeli, C. Knzli David et al. (Ed.), ProfessionaIisierung von Lehrerinnen
und Lehrern: Orientierungsrahmen fr die Pdagogische Hochschule FHNW (S. 169-186). Bern: hep.
Fraefel, U. & Kohler, R. (2011). Co-Planning und Co-Teaching: Film zur Schulung von Praxislehrpersonen
(http://web.fhnw.ch/ph/praxis/praxislehrpersonen). Aarau: PH FHNW.

11

Fraefel, U. & Haunberger, S. (2012). Entwicklung professionellen Handelns in der Ausbildung von
Lehrpersonen: Einblicke in die laufende Interventionsstudie Partnerschulen fr Professionsentwicklung.
Beitrge zur Lehrerbildung, 30 (2), 185-199.
Grsel, C., Fussangel, K. & Prbstel, C. (2006). Lehrkrfte zur Kooperation anregen eine Aufgabe fr
Sisyphos? Zeitschrift fr Pdagogik, 52 (2), 205-219.
Grudnoff, L. (2011). Rethinking the practicum: limitations and possibilities. Asia-Pacific Journal of Teacher
Education, 39 (3), 223-234.
Hamre, B., Pianta, R. C., Mashburn, A. J. et al. (2007). Building a science of classrooms: Application of the
CLASS framework in over 4,000 U.S. early childhood and elementary classrooms. New York: Foundation for
Child Development.
Hascher, T. & Moser, P. (2001). Betreute Praktika Anforderungen an Praktikumslehrerinnen und -lehrer.
Beitrge zur Lehrerbildung, 19 (2), 217-231.
Hattie, J. (2009). Visible learning: a synthesis of over 800 meta-analyses relating to achievement. Oxon:
Routledge.
Heimann, P., Otto, G. & Schulz, W. (1976). Unterricht: Analyse und Planung (8. unvernd. Aufl.). Hannover:
Schroedel.
Huwendiek, V., Gutzwiller-Helfeninger, E. & Maresch, G. (2009). Der Berufseinstieg im deutschen
Sprachraum: Deutschland, sterreich und die Schweiz im Vergleich. Journal fr Lehrerinnen- und
Lehrerbildung, 9 (3), 8-17.
Jay, J. K. & Johnson, K. L. (2002). Capturing complexity: a typology of reflective practice for teacher education.
Teaching and Teacher Education, 18 (1), 73-85.
Keller-Schneider, M. & Hericks, U. (2011). Forschungen zum Berufseinstieg. bergang von der Ausbildung in
den Beruf. In E. Terhart, H. Bennewitz & M. Rothland (Ed.), Handbuch der Forschung zum Lehrerberuf (S.
296-313). Mnster: Waxmann.
Kennedy, M. (2008). Sorting out Teacher Quality. Phi Delta Kappan, 90 (1), 59-63.
Kleickmann, T. (2008). Zusammenhnge fachspezifischer Vorstellungen von Grundschullehrkrften zum Lehren
und Lernen mit Fortschritten von Schlerinnen und Schlern im konzeptuellen naturwissenschaftlichen
Verstndnis (Dissertation). Mnster: Westflische Wilhelms-Universitt.
Korthagen, F. (2010). How teacher education can make a difference. Journal of Education for Teaching, 36 (4),
407-423.
Kreis, A. & Staub, F. C. (2011). Fachspezifisches Unterrichtscoaching im Praktikum. Eine quasi-experimentelle
Interventionsstudie. Zeitschrift fr Erziehungswissenschaft, 14 (1), 61-84.
Kunter, M., Scheunpflug, A. & Baumert, J. (2011). Start in den Lehrerberuf: Editorial. Zeitschrift fr
Erziehungswissenschaft, 14 (1), 7-10.
Lave, J. & Wenger, E. (1991). Situated learning: legitimate peripheral participation. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
Le Cornu, R. & Ewing, R. (2008). Reconceptualising professional experiences in pre-service teacher education:
reconstructing the past to embrace the future. Teaching and Teacher Education, 24, 1799-1812.
Le Cornu, R. (2010). Changing roles, relationships and responsibilities in changing times. Asia-Pacific Journal
of Teacher Education, 38 (3), 195-206.
Levin, D. M., Hammer, D. & Coffey, J. E. (2009). Novice Teachers Attention to Student Thinking. Journal of
Teacher Education, 60 (2), 142-154.
Lu, H.-L. (2010). Research on peer coaching in preservice teacher education A review of literature. Teaching
and Teacher Education, 26 (4), 748-753.
Maandag, D. W., Deinum, J. F., Hofman, A. W. H. et al. (2007). Teacher education in schools: an international
comparison. European Journal of Teacher Education, 30 (2), 151-173.
McIntyre, D. J., Byrd, D. M. & Foxx, S. M. (1996). Field and laboratory experiences. In J. Sikula (Ed.),
Handbook of Research in Teacher Education (2nd ed., S. 171-193). NewYork: Macmillan.
Menter, I., Hulme, M., Elliot, D. et al. (2010). Literature Review On Teacher Education In The 21st Century.
Edinburgh: Scottish Government Social Research.
Mller, F. (Ed.) (1975). Lehrerbildung von morgen: Grundlagen, Strukturen, Inhalte. Bericht der
Expertenkommission im Auftrag der EDK. Hitzkirch: Comenius.
Murphy, C. & Scantlebury, K. (Ed.) (2010). Coteaching in International Contexts: Research and Practice.
Dordrecht: Springer.
NCATE (2001). Standards for Professional Development Schools. Washington DC: National Council for
Accreditation of Teacher Education.
NCATE (2010). Transforming teacher education through clinical practice: a national strategy to prepare
effective teachers. Report of the blue ribbon panel on clinical preparation and partnerships for improved
student learning. Washington DC: National Council for Accreditation of Teacher Education.
Niggli, A. (2003). Handlungsbezogenes 3-Ebenen-Mentoring fr die Ausbildung von Lehrpersonen. Journal fr
Lehrerinnen- und Lehrerbildung, 3 (4).

12

OECD (Ed.) (2009). Creating Effective Teaching and Learning Environments: First Results from TALIS. Paris:
OECD.
Oelkers, J. (2005). Standards in der Lehrerbildung und Folgen fr die Organisation. Vortrag im Studienseminar
fr das Lehramt der Primarstufe Solingen am 16. September 2005.
Oser, F. (2000). Emergency Room Schule: Erschwerende Rahmenbedingungen pdagogischer Professionalitt.
Beitrge zur Lehrerbildung, 18 (1), 82-84.
Pdagogische Hochschule FHNW (2010). Strategische Entwicklungsperspektiven der Pdagogischen
Hochschule FHNW 20112014. Brugg.
Reichenbach, R. (2004). Noch ein Sensorium fr das Allgemeine in der Pdagogik? Urteilsfhigkeit als
Kennzeichen pdagogischer Professionalitt. 22 (3), 326-335.
Reusser, K. (2005). Problemorientiertes Lernen Tiefenstruktur, Gestaltungsformen, Wirkung. Beitrge zur
Lehrerbildung, 23 (2), 159-182.
Rotermund, M. (Ed.) (2006). Schulpraktische Studien Evaluationsergebnisse und neue Wege der
Lehrerbildung. Leipzig: Universittsverlag.
Schn, D. A. (1983). The Reflective Practitioner: how professionals think in action. Aldershot: Arena.
Schn, D. A. (1987). Educating the reflective practitioner: toward a new design for teaching and learning in the
professions (10th print.). San Francisco, Calif.: Jossey-Bass Publ.
Schubarth, W. (2011). Endlich Praxis! Forschungsbefunde zu Potenzen und Problemen der zweiten Phase der
LehrerInnenbildung. Journal fr Lehrerinnen- und Lehrerbildung, 11 (3), 40-45.
Schpbach, J. (2007). ber das Unterrichten reden: die Unterrichtsnachbesprechung in den Lehrpraktika - eine
Nahtstelle von Theorie und Praxis? Bern: Haupt Verlag.
Schussler, D. L. (2006). The Altered Role of Experienced Teachers in Professional Development Schools: The
Present and Its Possibilities. Issues in Teacher Education, 15 (2), 61-75.
Stadelmann, M. (2006). Differenz oder Vermittlung in der Lehrerbildung? Das Verhltnis von Theorie und
Praxis im Urteil von Praktikumslehrpersonen der Primar- und Sekundarschule 1. Bern: Haupt.
Staub, F. C. (2004). Fachspezifisch-Pdagogisches Coaching: Ein Beispiel zur Entwicklung von
Lehrerfortbildung und Unterrichtskompetenz als Kooperation. Zeitschrift fr Erziehungswissenschaft, 7
(Beiheft 3), 113-141.
Strong, M. (2009). Effective teacher induction and mentoring: Assessing the evidence. New York: Teachers
College Press.
Teitel, L. (2001). An Assessment Framework for Professional Development Schools: Going Beyond the Leap of
Faith. Journal of Teacher Education, 52 (1), 57-69.
The Holmes Group (1986). Tomorrows teachers. Michigan: The Holmes Group.
UTRU (2010). UTRU Quality Standards for Teacher Residency Programs. Chicago: Urban Teacher Residency
United.
van Velzen, C., Bezzina, C. & Lorist, P. (2009). Partnerships Between Schools and Teacher Education Institutes.
In A. Swennen & M. van der Klink (Ed.), Becoming a teacher educator: theory and practice for teacher
educators (S. 59-73). Amsterdam: Springer.
van Velzen, C. (2012). Partnerschaften :zwischen Hochschulen und Berufsfeld. Beitrge zur Lehrerbildung, 30
(2), 171-184.
Vescio, V., Ross, D. & Adams, A. (2008). A review of research on the impact of professional learning
communities on teaching practice and student learning. Teaching and Teacher Education, 24 (1), 80-91.
Villa, R. A., Thousand, J. S. & Nevin, A. I. (2008). A Guide to Co-Teaching: Practical Tips for Facilitating
Student Learning. Thousand Oaks: Corwin Press.
Wenger, E. (1998). Communities of practice: learning, meaning, and identity (Reprint 2003). Cambridge:
Cambridge Univ. Press.
West, L. & Staub, F. C. (2003). Content-Focused Coaching: Transforming mathematics lessons. Portsmouth
NH: Heinemann.
Willmann, M. (2009). Co-Teaching: Gemeinsames Unterrichten als Erweiterung des methodischen Spektrums
einer integrativen Didaktik. Sonderpdagogische Frderung heute, 54 (4), 343-355.
Wyss, C. (2012). Unterricht und Reflexion. Eine Pilotstudie zur mehrperspektivischen Analyse der Unterrichtsund Reflexionskompetenz von Lehrpersonen im Berufseinstieg und erfahrenen Lehrpersonen (Dissertation):
Universitt Zrich.
Zeichner, K. (2010). Rethinking the Connections Between Campus Courses and Field Experiences in Collegeand University-Based Teacher Education. Journal of Teacher Education, 61 (1-2), 89-99.
Zeichner, K. & Liu, K. Y. (2010). A critical analysis of reflection as a goal for teacher education. In N. Lyons
(Ed.), Handbook of Reflection and Reflective Inquiry: Mapping a Way of Knowing for Professional
Reflective Inquiry (S. 67-84). New York: Springer.
Zingg, C. & Grob, U. (2002). Belastungswahrnehmungen von Primarlehrpersonen im Kanton Zrich beim
Berufseinstieg Beitrge zur Lehrerbildung, 20 (2), 216-226.

13

Potrebbero piacerti anche