Rethinking Field Experience

Abstract

Three types of data were gathered on a partnership and a single-placement model of early field experience. Data came from mentor and preservice teacher interviews, preservice teacher time logs, and transcripts of planning sessions. Although all mentors and preservice teachers found value in their experience, data indicate that those who participated in partnership placements had a very different experience. Preservice teachers in partner-placements felt better supported and were able to engage in greater instructional risks within the classroom. Children in classrooms where partners were placed were reportedly better served. Mentors in partnership placements were more flexible in planning with preservice teachers and appeared to be more trusting. The authors conclude that partnership placement holds promise for providing richer, more interesting, and more educative early field experience for elementary preservice teachers than traditional practice allows.

Planting the Seed of Teacher Identity: Nurturing Early Growth through a Collaborative Learning Community

“…Findings from this study appear to support earlier research, which suggests that continuous school placement (Darling-Hammond, 2006) and paired class placements (Bullough et al, 2002) provide a supportive structure to allow for authentic teaching experiences. The benefits of situating the teaching of course content within the school context, in collaboration with school and university staff were also evident in this study.…”

“…The findings of the study highlighted that pre-service teachers found both the in-school tutorials and the paired placements particularly beneficial as this provided extra opportunities to discuss, clarify, problem-solve and make sense of their classroom experiences. This finding was consistent with similar research by Bullough et al, (2002) who also found that pre-service teachers in partner placements felt better supported and were able to engage in greater instructional tasks within the classroom. In this study, the pair relationship played an important part in providing personal and professional support to each other (Le Cornu, 2009).…”

Teacher Education

“…There is a growing body of research evidence that highlights benefi ts for participating schools and PSTs within a collaborative or paired model of placement (Ammentorp & Madden, 2014 ;Baker & Milner, 2006 ;Bullough et al, 2003 ;Gardiner & Robinson, 2009 ;Harlow & Cobb, 2014 ). While this evidence cites many benefi ts that contribute to PSTs' experiences on placement and the supervising teachers ' experiences, many also examine the challenges this kind of model can pose.…”

“…While this evidence cites many benefi ts that contribute to PSTs' experiences on placement and the supervising teachers ' experiences, many also examine the challenges this kind of model can pose. The paired placement model has evolved internationally and nationally due to: increasing pressure to secure places for PSTs (King, 2006 ;Smith, 2002 ); the need for PSTs to develop collaboration skills (Bullough et al, 2003 ;Smith, 2002 ;Walsh & Elmslie, 2005 ); and to provide more scaffolding support (Smith, 2002 ;Walsh & Elmslie, 2005 ). Instead, a paired placement has two PSTs placed with one supervising teacher .…”

School—University Partnership: Challenges and Visions in the New Decade

“…This increase posed many problems for universities responsible for pre-service teacher education and teacher development. In parallel with the need to develop student teachers into reflective practitioners who are able to construct professional knowledge by reflecting on their own practice (Schon, 1983(Schon, , 1987, one of the suggestions was to reform the practicum, which is regarded as the most powerful influence in pre-service teacher education (Johnstone, 1994;Bullough et al, 2002). A 'new institution', or the professional development school, has emerged in response to a suggestion for a collaborative approach, in which universities and schools form partnerships for successful teacher education reform (Holmes Group, 1990.…”