Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
This article was downloaded by: [National Pingtung University of Science andTechnology]On: 20 December 2014, At: 14:51Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registeredoffice: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK
Journal of Education for Teaching:International research and pedagogyPublication details, including instructions for authors andsubscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/cjet20
Developing a ‘clinical’ model forteacher educationJames Conroya, Moira Hulmea & Ian Menterb
a School of Education, University of Glasgow, Glasgow, UKb Department of Education, University of Oxford, Oxford, UKPublished online: 09 Oct 2013.
To cite this article: James Conroy, Moira Hulme & Ian Menter (2013) Developing a ‘clinical’ modelfor teacher education, Journal of Education for Teaching: International research and pedagogy,39:5, 557-573, DOI: 10.1080/02607476.2013.836339
To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/02607476.2013.836339
PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE
Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the“Content”) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis,our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as tothe accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinionsand views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors,and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Contentshould not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sourcesof information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims,proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever orhowsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arisingout of the use of the Content.
This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Anysubstantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing,systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms &Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions
Developing a ‘clinical’ model for teacher education
James Conroya*, Moira Hulmea and Ian Menterb
aSchool of Education, University of Glasgow, Glasgow, UK; bDepartment of Education,University of Oxford, Oxford, UK
(Received 19 March 2012; accepted 31 May 2013)
This paper reports on the introduction of a ‘clinical model’ of teacher educationat the University of Glasgow in 2011. The account is set against the backdrop ofa review of major contemporary developments in teacher education. The com-mon focus in this work is on such themes as the key function of the practicum,on ‘teaching schools’ and on the roles and responsibilities of the various playersin teacher professional learning. The context for reform of teacher education inScotland is described, showing how the opportunity for a radical interventionarose. The distinctive features of the Glasgow model are set out and a summaryof the findings of the internal evaluation carried out at the University is offered.Issues identified include challenges of communication, the nature of professionallearning and the cultural embeddedness of existing practices. In the light of thisinitiative, the paper then reviews insights gained concerning the relationshipbetween policy, practice and research in teacher education, before concludingwith comments on the future of research in teacher education.
Keywords: clinical model; teaching school; practicum; teacher educationresearch
Introduction
This paper is structured in four parts. First, the international context for innovationin initial teacher education is discussed. Then, the background to the developmentof the pilot scheme to be discussed here is explained. The rationale for increasinglevels of political intervention in teacher education in the UK is considered beforeexplicating the particular history of recent intervention in the context of Scotland.Third, we outline the distinctive features of the approach being taken within theGlasgow West Teacher Education Initiative (GWTEI), including the principles thatinform the design of the programme and the roles and responsibilities of partici-pants. Then, we provide a brief account of some of the key findings to emerge fromthe evaluation of this pilot scheme (Menter et al. 2012). Finally, and returning tosome of the background themes set out at the beginning, we explore issuesconcerning relationships between research, policy and practice.
International context
The last three decades have witnessed the re-positioning of teacher educationinternationally. Supranational agencies such as the Organisation for Economic
*Corresponding author. Email: [email protected]
© 2013 Taylor & Francis
Journal of Education for Teaching, 2013Vol. 39, No. 5, 557–573, http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/02607476.2013.836339
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Nat
iona
l Pin
gtun
g U
nive
rsity
of
Scie
nce
and
Tec
hnol
ogy]
at 1
4:51
20
Dec
embe
r 20
14
Cooperation and Development (OECD) and the European Union have assertedincreasing influence on national and regional policy. Philanthropic bodies, thinktanks and the growth of edu-business have contributed to the international flow ofideas directed at the reform of school systems and the redesign of teacher education.Sahlberg (2012) characterises a global education reform movement that has pro-moted the standardisation of education, corporate management and test-basedaccountability policies. A dominant policy regime of ‘governing by numbers’ (Ozgaet al. 2011, 96) has directed attention to teacher evaluation through the close cou-pling of outcomes for learners with teacher quality. The construction and representa-tion of teacher education as a policy ‘problem’ (characterised by ‘producer capture’)has contributed to a teaching standards movement that has increasingly turned atten-tion to the effects of teacher education programmes. Within a climate of diminishedprofessional trust, the collegiate base of professional preparation has been chal-lenged. Demands for innovation and ‘realistic teacher education’ based on the prin-ciple of ‘practice first’ (Korthagen et al. 2001, 16) have cohered in a drive forincreased opportunities for school experience during initial teacher preparation.Influence has shifted from universities to schools as providers of professional prepa-ration in a reassessment of the relationship between course work and field experi-ence i.e. ‘a practicum turn in teacher education’ (Mattsson et al. 2011, 17). Nowhereis this more clearly seen than in the deliberations of the (now) annual OECD spon-sored International Summit on the Teaching Profession, where the virtues ofextended clinical practice and shift from universities to schools are merely assumedgoods (OECD 2011). Moreover, like many such publications individual country pol-icy becomes exemplary and consequently is stripped of nuance in order to make itmore portable.
The influence of travelling policies requires critical appraisal. The political cul-ture, history and tradition of the host country (or region) remain significant. Travel-ling policy is re-contextualised within local sites of influence (Ozga and Jones2006). Comparative references are frequently deployed selectively by policy-makersto provide support for choices that are preferred (and possible) within specific localcontexts (Smith and Exley 2006). Inconsistencies are common in claims to policylearning ostensibly based on reviews of international practice. Sampling of suprana-tional policy texts reveals repeated references to ‘condensation symbols’ (Sapir1934, 493) that celebrate benign drivers of change (partnership, collaboration andparticipation) or indict forces of conservatism (bureaucracy, low aspirations and lowlevels of autonomy for schools). Few policy pronouncements address the evidencebase or resource implications of alternative modes of provision. The totems borneby different factions in the struggle for jurisdiction over teacher education requirecareful examination to explicate the diversity of motives, value orientations and pur-poses of proponents. In this paper, we locate one specific initiative, the GWTEI,within this transnational agenda, including attention to the treatment of teacher edu-cation as a political issue.
The rhetorical power of ‘partnership’ is deeply embedded in contemporaryforms of governance. It works to conceal differences in political and academicrepresentations of the purpose and value of work-based learning for prospectiveteachers. The slippery use of language contained in political and empiricalaccounts of innovation in teacher education obscure ideological and theoreticaldifferences. Divisions are intensifying in the USA and UK between ‘traditional-ists’ or ‘defenders’ of university-led teacher education and ‘reformers’ (advocating
558 J. Conroy et al.
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Nat
iona
l Pin
gtun
g U
nive
rsity
of
Scie
nce
and
Tec
hnol
ogy]
at 1
4:51
20
Dec
embe
r 20
14
alternative pathways and programmes) (Ravitch 2007; Wiener 2007; Imig et al.2011). Advocates of deregulation and market-based solutions critique ‘profession-alisers’’ claims of a specialist knowledge base for teacher education. Whilereformers emphasise the practical-technical dimensions of learning to teach, uni-versity-based teacher educators emphasise the complexity of teaching and the roleof education as a public good (Darling-Hammond and Lieberman 2012). Thevalue of higher education to professional formation is defended in terms of ‘theconsideration of research, of theory and of critique’ (Furlong et al. 2008, 318).The wrangling over professional and market solutions in the Anglo-Americancontext stands in contrast to the European ‘bildung’ tradition that upholds critical-emancipatory ideals of professional education in the public sphere (Carr andKemmis 1986; Ulvik and Smith 2011). Where there is a commitment to anational education service, the ‘practicum turn’ presents an alternative to the neo-liberal diversification/privatisation of teacher education.
The closer integration of theory and practice remains the dominant concernacross different national jurisdictions and between actors within education policycommunities. Teacher educators, teachers in training and policy-makers across juris-dictions consistently identify the practicum as a critical component of teacher educa-tion. Reforms commonly centre on efforts to deepen the interplay betweenuniversity course work and school experience and overcome the ‘balkanisation ofthe curriculum of teacher education’ (Grossman et al. 2009, 286). FollowingLoughran (2008), such strategies seek to link knowledge about teaching and learn-ing (academic study) with knowledge of teaching and learning (professional practiceknowledge). A particular feature of reform has been renewed interest in the teachertraining school: whether these be the ‘normaalikoulu’ in Finland (Kontoniemi andSalo 2011); ‘academische opleidingsscholen’ in the Netherlands (Snoek and Moens2010); Professional Development Schools (Holmes Partnership 2007), professionalpractice schools (Levine 1992) or clinical schools (NCATE 2010) in the USA;University Training Schools proposed in England (Department for Education 2011);or the idea of ‘hub schools’ advanced in Scotland (Donaldson 2011, 8). Many ofthese partnerships aim to move beyond the concept of reflective practice as the keypedagogical response to the theory-practice divide towards acknowledgement of theimportance of joint work (Ure 2010).
The various interpretations of the concept of the ‘training school’ referred toabove mark a move from attention to the structure of partnership to its enhancement.Key features of enhancement may include: (a) joint teaching of cohort intern groupsimmersed in partner school communities (within consortia or single schools) (Ure2010, Arnold et al. 2012); (b) opportunities for mobilities between university andschool staff i.e. the involvement of serving teachers as adjunct lecturers (Allen et al.2010) and/or university teachers working ‘in-residence’ in schools beyond the limitsof periodic ‘studio days’ or ‘summer schools’ (Grossman et al. 2009, 287); (c) co-construction of programme design (Byrd and McIntyre 1999); (d) building capacityto support the use of evidence in teaching and learning (Niemi and Jakku-Sihoven2006); and (e) professional development of (new and experienced) teachers and tea-cher educators (Darling-Hammond 2005). Partnerships vary in the extent to whichthe above features are evident, if at all, according to the stage of development of thepartnership, specific local needs and the affordances and constraints of localconditions. Not all are novel. There are clear antecedents in the Oxford internshipmodel of teacher education established in the late 1980s (McIntyre 1990); and the
Journal of Education for Teaching 559
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Nat
iona
l Pin
gtun
g U
nive
rsity
of
Scie
nce
and
Tec
hnol
ogy]
at 1
4:51
20
Dec
embe
r 20
14
work of the Holmes Group (2007), the National Network for Education Renewal(Goodlad 1994) and Teachers for a New Era (TNE) in the USA; the latter stronglyinfluenced the Scottish Teachers for a New Era (STNE) initiative at AberdeenUniversity.
The GWTEI is a further experiment in undertaking teacher education differently.In comparison to its near neighbour, England, the value ascribed to universityinvolvement in teacher education in Scotland remains high. The market reforms thathave encouraged competition between schools and teacher education providers southof the border have been largely resisted. The General Teaching Council of Scotlandwas established in 1965 and achieved full independent status in April 2012. There isno significant problem with retention of new entrants to the profession. Whilst a per-formative turn is felt across the UK, the quality regime that operates in Scotland iscommonly regarded as a softer form of managerialism. However, it might be arguedthat while teacher education has enjoyed a somewhat more favourable political con-text there has been little innovation despite successive reviews of teacher education,the most recent in 2010 (Donaldson 2011). It was against this background that theUniversity of Glasgow embarked on a re-imagining of partnership with local gov-ernment and its schools through what became known as the Glasgow West initiative.The following section considers the range of factors that contributed to itsdevelopment.
Background to the Glasgow west initiative
How does a policy emerge? In a data rich, late industrial polity, we might logicallyexpect that there exists some neat trajectory emerging from a coherent normativeclaim or set of claims as to how any public entailment might be developed orshaped; and indeed, that such normative claims are themselves informed by appro-priate accounts of efficacy. Of course, as Moore (1993) famously pointed out,choices about what we ought to do need have no necessary causal connection towhat happens to be the case. Nevertheless, given the contested and competing natureof our normative claims about education, we would expect to see some connectionsbetween these claims and scholarly evidence; but even in the simplest of politicalentailments the trajectory is rarely uniform and almost never linear (Ball 1990,1994). The emergence of new forms of partnership in Scottish teacher educationoffers some insight into the complex and non-linear, sometimes dialectic and oftencontorted, nature of policy formation and practical instantiation.
As indicated in the previous section, there is no shortage of opinion on how weshould best prepare teachers and what kind of licence we should give them inpractice. Much of this opinion is not grounded in any research but is, rather, afunction of individuals’ and groups’ normative attachments, ‘what they think oughtto be happening’ (HonerØd Hoevid and Conroy 2008, 453). It is for this reason thatthe moves over recent years to re-position teacher education in England can be seenas driven by perceived failures and ideological preferences. The default reasoning is,‘we don’t think x is as good as it ought to be therefore we will change the way inwhich we do x’. But this fails to make sense of how we decide that x is not goodenough and it is usually determined not with regard to any evidence but in relationto a range of proxies that may or may not have anything to do with x. So it is thatthe claim, ‘levels of literacy are not sufficiently high therefore teacher preparationto teach literacy mustn’t be good enough’ has gained increasing credence.
560 J. Conroy et al.
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Nat
iona
l Pin
gtun
g U
nive
rsity
of
Scie
nce
and
Tec
hnol
ogy]
at 1
4:51
20
Dec
embe
r 20
14
‘Consequently we must change the model of teacher education’. In this account,there is no clear understanding of:
(1) what we mean by ‘high’;(2) what the causal connection between teacher preparation and levels of literacy
actually is; or(3) what part is played by other social and cultural factors not directly related to
teacher preparation.
In such general pronouncements as to causal connections other, perhaps moresalient, causes such as health and wealth (see, e.g. Weiss et al. 1992) are rather toooften ignored. Moreover, it is clear from recent governmental pronouncements inEngland, most notably the White Paper The Importance of Teaching (DfE 2010),heavily influenced by the claims of philosophers such as Anthony O’Hear (1988) andothers such as the former Chief Inspector of Schools in England, Chris Woodhead,that teaching is considered to be a craft based profession where the cultivation of cer-tain kinds of skills takes precedence over theoretical or intellectual considerations.Putting aside the complex question about what exactly a craft based professionentails, it was clear that the unease felt by many politicians and others as to the effi-cacy of teacher education itself acts as a kind of proxy for perceived failures in theeconomy (routed through perceptions about achievement in such other proxies as theProgramme for International Student Assessment and the Trends in InternationalMathematics and Science Study). The salient point here is the way in which proxiesare interwoven one within the other in complex and sometimes highly convolutedways.
In the case in point (the creation of new forms of partnership in the preparationof teachers for Scottish schools), it is worth observing that the proximate cause ofchanges to partnership arrangements between university schools of education wasnot an obvious dissatisfaction with existing arrangements but an entirely differentimperative, namely control over teacher supply. But, as suggested in the previoussection, these local considerations quickly become entwined in wider international(travelling) considerations.
In November 2007, shortly after taking up office as a minority government, theScottish National Party established a Concordat with local government whichentailed that the latter would deliver on the Government’s broad political prioritiesand the national Government would in turn desist from ring-fencing particular bud-gets for the period 2008–2011 (Scottish Government 2008). Education, no longerthe beneficiary of a discrete (and protected) budget line, had to vie with other localgovernment priorities such as transport and social welfare for its share of resources.Before the dire consequences for UK public expenditure of the global economic cri-sis, Scotland was already rushing headlong into a numbers crisis (Menter and Hulme2012). The incoming Government was committed to a manifesto pledge to reduceclass sizes in early years provision and many of Scotland’s 32 local authorities wereno longer prepared to employ the number of teachers required to do so. In mid-2007, it was realised by Government that there was a chasm opening up betweenthe number of teachers the state planned to put into the system and the number ofteachers local authorities were prepared to employ.
Fiona Hyslop, then Cabinet Secretary for Education and Lifelong Learning, setup a Teacher Employment Working Group to look at the relevant actuarial
Journal of Education for Teaching 561
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Nat
iona
l Pin
gtun
g U
nive
rsity
of
Scie
nce
and
Tec
hnol
ogy]
at 1
4:51
20
Dec
embe
r 20
14
calculations (Di Paola 2008). Local authority and teacher union officials consideredthat Government officials were not looking at the right figures. Local Governmentthen accused Central Government of not basing the figures on their express employ-ment plans. This concern with numbers gradually melded into a concern about who‘controls’ teachers; this in turn changed into a claim that Local Government had toolittle say in the evolution of the profession and from there it was a short step toclaiming that there is a crisis in the preparation of teachers, so that the anxiety aboutnumbers became, through a series of elisions, an anxiety about professional control.This, at least, is our reading of the sequence of events that led to the establishmentin 2009 of the Review of Teacher Education in Scotland, which the outgoing SeniorChief Inspector of Education (2002–2010), Graham Donaldson, was commissionedto undertake.
When the Scottish Government, under the weight of the mismatch between cen-tral government and local government predictions, suddenly decided to cut studentintake numbers for initial teacher education (ITE) programmes across the country(SFC circular 2010), there was much consternation expressed by the seven univer-sity providers of ITE suggesting that the sudden reduction in resourcing could havea deleterious effect on the quality of provision. Places on undergraduate and post-graduate programmes for primary and secondary teachers for 2010/11 were reducedto 2307 (a 40% reduction from 2009/10). The primary post-graduate diploma(PGDE) was most affected (70% reduction in numbers). In 2010/11, only 405 placeswere allocated (a reduction of 950 places). There were 100 fewer secondary PGDEplaces (11% reduction). Almost immediately many universities started to cut num-bers of academic staff involved in teacher education through voluntary severanceand voluntary early retirement. In an attempt to ameliorate the cataclysmic impact ofsuch large cuts to numbers (and therefore funding), the Scottish Government invitedthose universities involved in ITE to submit plans for research and development pro-jects which would lead to improvements in teacher education and professionaldevelopment. In an attempt to offset the reduction in student numbers (as a result ofan overall £8 million cut in the teacher education budget), £2 million was allocatedto institutions. The project reported here developed with support from these fundsand reflects moves towards a re-conceptualisation of partnership in the re-design ofteacher education programmes at the University of Glasgow.
While the proximate cause of major developments in teacher education may havebeen the precipitous decline in numbers (resources) a longer standing acknowledge-ment, in some parts of Scottish Teacher Education, of discomfort with the perceivedfailure of two earlier reviews of teacher education. This perception was part of awider concern and debate (alluded to in the opening section) and saw the Universityof Aberdeen successfully tender for a Carnegie/Hunter Foundation sponsored projecton Scottish Teachers for a New Era. This move notwithstanding, neither of thesereviews, (Scottish Executive 2001, 2005), both arising from the agreement on teach-ers’ pay and conditions in 2001 (the so-called McCrone Agreement) (Scottish Exec-utive Education Department 2001), had led to any radical developments in teachereducation. However, both indicated that there were some problems in the relationsbetween the providers, the schools (teachers) and local authorities, the key stake-holders in teacher education. Following the second review, all local authorities hadappointed a ‘placement coordinator’ whose task was to ensure that suitable placeswere secured for school experience. But there had been no fundamental rethinkabout roles and responsibilities for teachers and tutors who were contributing to the
562 J. Conroy et al.
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Nat
iona
l Pin
gtun
g U
nive
rsity
of
Scie
nce
and
Tec
hnol
ogy]
at 1
4:51
20
Dec
embe
r 20
14
practices in spite of continued calls for change (see Brisard et al. 2005; McIntyre2005; Smith, Brisard, and Menter 2006).
Scotland was not alone in having these concerns (see Slater and Ravid 2010).Developments in ‘partnership’ in England had brought about significant shifts inthese relationships, alongside increases in school-led provision. There was accumu-lating evidence from both the UK and internationally that students (and others)report intra-institutional inconsistencies with respect to their school placement(HMIE 2005; Johnston 2010). Additionally, reviews of available evidence suggesteda dearth of high-quality research applied to programme development and a lack ofclarity within the existing knowledge base on those dimensions of school experiencethat are more effective in supporting professional learning (Moyles and Stuart 2003;Clifford and Millar 2008; Hobson et al. 2009; Menter et al. 2010a). The pilot initia-tive reported here sought to: (a) enhance school experience for beginning teachers,particularly the integration of theory, practice, content and pedagogy; (b) promotethe professional learning of school teachers, teacher mentors and university tutors;and (c) use evaluation evidence to inform programme development and future policychoices.
The Glasgow west teacher education initiative
For some time, teacher education provision at the University of Glasgow has beensubject to collaborative review and re-shaping to address the challenge of ensuringbeginning teachers enjoy the twin merits of intellectual robustness and sophisticatedpractical capacities (Dickson 2011). The re-design of programmes was influencedby, among others, the work of Darling-Hammond (2006) on the critical componentsof teacher education programmes and the work of Cochran-Smith (2009, 458) onthe need for an ‘inquiry stance’ to promote teacher learning and build ‘cultures ofevidence’ in teacher education.
The model proposed in the Glasgow pilot makes some significant changes to thehistoric pattern of ‘placement’ and reshapes the relationship between tutor andschool. This development aimed to reverse the perception of many that, as Schoolsof Education in Scotland attempted to improve the provision of teacher education,insufficient attention was paid to learning through school experience. While this wasnot necessarily the case, perception was (and is) nonetheless important.
In this model of ‘clinical placement’, university tutors are located in a learningcommunity (i.e. a cluster of schools) with the task of providing overall co-ordinationand support for supervision with respect to students pursuing the Post GraduateDiploma in Education (PGDE) who are placed in the schools concerned. Formalpartnership agreements are negotiated with at least one secondary school and a num-ber of associated primary schools which commit to work with the university todevelop a bespoke programme, in collaboration with the local authority. Embeddedin the day-to-day operation of the school-based programme, university tutors workclosely with teacher mentors in development and assessment activities over a sus-tained period. Central to this undertaking is a commitment to more effectively sewtogether scholarly and research insights, practical skills and abilities, and profes-sional dispositions. Such a synthesis is to be created around matters relating toteaching and learning, assessment, pupil support, class, and school organisation andmanagement.
Journal of Education for Teaching 563
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Nat
iona
l Pin
gtun
g U
nive
rsity
of
Scie
nce
and
Tec
hnol
ogy]
at 1
4:51
20
Dec
embe
r 20
14
It should be noted that the use of the term ‘clinical’ does not imply uncriticalacceptance of the applicability of the ‘medical model’ to the professional educationof teachers. We do not aim to supplant professional judgement with lessonsextracted from scientific evidence of ‘what works’ conveyed by clinical educators inschool settings; nor do we valorise practitioner knowledge above other forms ofknowledge. Rather, we suggest that the development of professional craft knowledgeand research-based thinking can be enhanced through collaborative inquiry intoauthentic pedagogical problems (TLRP 2007). In this model of teacher preparationschool settings are critical sites for sustained professional deliberation and co-inquiry. An important aspiration for the pilot was the engagement of universitytutors in action research, with the support of an experienced mentor. Such systematicintentional inquiry might support teacher educators in understanding and managingcomplex relationships within the developing programme and was founded on a com-mitment to support the professional renewal of all educators.
The pilot programme sought to give scope for all parties to teacher education tobenefit from a much closer collaboration with a direct conduit into the heart of theUniversity’s School of Education and for school partners to share in the shaping ofprovision. On recruitment of a local authority and volunteer schools to the scheme,remits were drawn up, respectively, for the tutor/s, the teachers in the schools andthe students. Initially, it was anticipated that one tutor would be based in the Learn-ing Community throughout the period of school placement. In the event, it wasdecided to appoint two tutors each on a half-time basis (0.5 FTE); one with profes-sional expertise in primary education and the other in secondary education. The keyfeatures of the plan developed and agreed with the school and local authority part-ners in November 2010 are as follows (these sections are extracted from briefingmaterials distributed to participants in the project):
The development of processes
The university tutors will act as the first point of contact for teacher mentors withregard to student experience. They will partner teachers in their assessment of stu-dents and in shaping the experience of students in collaboration with the Regent (orteacher-in-charge of students). In order to secure the best possible service to the stu-dents and the school, university tutors will initiate a number of new practices includ-ing demonstration lessons, learning rounds, common observation schedules and jointfeedback sessions for the students.
Learning rounds
The tutors will organise, in liaison with the relevant teachers, a schedule of learningrounds (see Elmore 2009) which will entail the university tutor, teacher mentor andtwo other students observing lessons conducted with a particular learning or organi-sational focus in mind. The learning rounds would subsequently form a focus for atutorial or seminar. The object is not to evaluate the student’s performance per sebut, through the creation of critical distance, to place observation and analysis aheadof judgement in the logical priority of professional development. Hence, the studentunder observation will not be party to the discussion. Teacher and tutor will workcollaboratively in developing the summative report and assessment.
564 J. Conroy et al.
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Nat
iona
l Pin
gtun
g U
nive
rsity
of
Scie
nce
and
Tec
hnol
ogy]
at 1
4:51
20
Dec
embe
r 20
14
Seminar programme
The development of an in situ seminar programme will require all students – in part-ner primary and secondary schools – to be off timetable at the same time during thecourse of their school experience. Additionally, and with no jeopardy to existingarrangements in schools, elements of the programme (as determined in consultationwith school colleagues) will be available to probationary teachers (i.e. newly quali-fied teachers completing a salaried one-year induction period in order to obtain theScottish Standard for Full Registration).
Assessment
All students are required to demonstrate their ability to overtake national benchmarkcompetences i.e. the Standard for ITE. However, on-going formative assessment andfeedback jointly conducted by teacher and tutor will play a larger role than hereto-fore. There will only be one summative assessment (per placement), which will bejointly agreed by teacher and tutor. This represents a significant advance for all par-ties, most especially for the student, since they will receive a more consistentaccount of their performance and abilities than has sometimes been the case.
In this semester only, secondary students will no longer receive a visit from asubject specialist. In no way should this be construed as underplaying the impor-tance of ‘subject knowledge’. Rather, the tutor will work closely with the class tea-cher to ensure that, for each subject, proper consideration of the command andaccuracy of subject matter – pedagogic and content – is paramount and that the cri-teria for providing evidence of such command is in no way diminished.
These then were the essentials of the plan as developed during autumn 2010 andput in place during the spring and summer of 2011. It is the combination of all ofthese elements, together with the sustained presence of university staff within theschool cluster that makes the approach very different from that of other providers inScotland and that gives rise to the label ‘clinical’.
A group of 31 PGDE students, 18 primary and 13 secondary, volunteered to takepart in the pilot scheme for their second and third school experience placements insemester two. The University of Glasgow Post Graduate Diploma in Education(PGDE) is a ten-month full-time master’s level qualification, (which can lead to anMEd in Professional Practice with PGDE at an early career stage for students whoelect to continue with professional inquiry into their induction year). The pilot pro-gramme involved a cluster of 11 partner secondary (2) and primary schools (9).
Evaluation of the GWTEI
A research team was identified within the School of Education to conduct an evalua-tion of the pilot and write a report for the Scottish Government as funders. The teamincluded four colleagues who were not otherwise involved in the implementation,two who did have teaching and/or management roles in the PGDE and the localauthority officer who was the key link person between the schools and the Univer-sity. Data gathering for the evaluation was conducted in step with the implementa-tion of the pilot programme (over a period of six months, January–June 2011). Theevaluation aimed to provide a narrative account of the development of the initiativeand an assessment of the achievement of project goals. Evidence was drawn from
Journal of Education for Teaching 565
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Nat
iona
l Pin
gtun
g U
nive
rsity
of
Scie
nce
and
Tec
hnol
ogy]
at 1
4:51
20
Dec
embe
r 20
14
analysis of pre- and post-experience questionnaires for students; observation ofsteering group meetings and school-embedded activities; interviews and focus groupdiscussions with students, teachers, school managers, local authority and universitystaff. A full evaluation report and briefing was released in January 2012 (Menteret al. 2012). Some of the main outcomes can be summarised as follows.
Communication
It is to be anticipated that any innovative pilot scheme will raise questions of com-munication, given that the overall aim is to bring about changes in practices. Never-theless, there did seem to be evidence that the considerable complexity of therelationships in terms of their quantity and their dynamics may have been underesti-mated. With more than 30 students, there were also considerably more teachersinvolved (including heads and other senior staff) as well as the two school-basedtutors. The details of the programming of the tutors’ visits, the coordination of theschool-based seminars and the organisation of the learning round observations hadto be continuously conveyed to all concerned.
Levels and type of support
Students consistently welcomed the opportunity for increased peer support, whichthey experienced. There seemed to be increased professional dialogue, as well asemotional support, compared with their previous experiences. However, some con-cerns were expressed about the levels and nature of support from tutors and teach-ers. Several students offered their perception that the tutors were trying to meet avery high level of demand on their time and would have welcomed more support.There were also some concerns about subject specialist support for secondary stu-dents, which a minority felt could not be provided in the same way by school staffas it could by university staff. A number of teachers indicated that they felt studentswere getting more support from the university than their fellows received on con-ventional programmes. The two tutors did feel they were being severely stretched inmeeting the expectations generated within the project, but were confident that stu-dent support was not only satisfactory in terms of levels, but was much improved interms of its quality.
Professional learning
On the one hand, although some anxieties were expressed about learning rounds,particularly for the student being observed, they were generally well received. Inany event, given that there was no control group it would be difficult to argue thatthe level of anxiety experienced was any greater than that experienced on a tradi-tional ‘crit’ visit. On the other hand, many students as observers/discussants felttheir awareness of professional skills was greatly enhanced. The seminars were verypopular although some seemed to be better received than others. Overall, it wouldseem that these activities raised the level and quality of professional discourse forstudents. There was much support for these activities among school staff, especiallyheads and deputy heads, several of whom reported a significant impact on theircolleagues and some of whom indicated that their own school’s professional devel-opment activities had been directly influenced by the learning rounds.
566 J. Conroy et al.
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Nat
iona
l Pin
gtun
g U
nive
rsity
of
Scie
nce
and
Tec
hnol
ogy]
at 1
4:51
20
Dec
embe
r 20
14
Professional identities and roles
The school-based tutors were extremely positive about their experience of a newway of working, saying it had been professionally enriching for them (as well asbeing challenging). Many of the teachers were initially sceptical, feeling that theywould not be able to get to know ‘their’ student in the way they were used to and/orthat they would not be able to make much of a contribution to the learning rounds.However, as the project developed many of these teachers changed their views andreported that not only did they feel the students were getting a better quality of sup-port but that they themselves were learning a great deal and that their own practicewas being influenced by the experience. While not all of the students were con-vinced that teachers’ views were positive or that their practices had actually chan-ged, most were. Certainly the structure and discourse appears to have assisted in thewider development of students’ professional identities.
Cultural change
Conventional approaches to teacher education are deeply embedded within schoolsand universities. The continuing influence of the idea of the ‘crit lesson’ whichseemed to pervade several accounts, even when this was being explicitly disavowedin the initiative, is one example of this. Although the learning rounds were generallysuccessful, some of the teachers still tended to see these as a new version of the ‘critlesson’ and would encourage students to prepare for it in the same performative wayas previously. Some teachers felt the students were then short-changed when only ashort part of their prepared lesson was actually observed and the student themselveswere not involved in the ensuing discussion.
Overall, it may be concluded that the students’ professional learning was gener-ally enhanced by the distinctive nature of the scheme. In particular, they indicatedan appreciation of being able to link theory and practice in a more meaningful waythan on previous placements. The learning rounds and the seminars both played asignificant part in this. The collegiate model offered by the Initiative was also valuedand it is clear that students have learned much from observing peers across sectorsand sharing ideas on practice.
There is still variability in the accounts of the sources and levels of support. It ispossible that this model, predicated on a different type of support and input fromuniversity staff, requires careful attention to the ratio of tutors deployed to participat-ing students. It seems from the students’ accounts that some of the school partici-pants were more fully engaged and involved in the initiative than others. There aresome differences between secondary and primary schools in this regard. In the sec-ondary setting, students tend to have interactions with a greater number of teachersthan those in primary schools who will normally be attached to one class teacher.This of course is not different from a student on a conventional placement: howeverwhen innovations are being implemented and new practices are being expected, thequestion becomes more pronounced. Furthermore for secondary students, there wasclearly some anxiety about the absence of subject specialist tutor support from theuniversity.
Indeed, the extent of the required cultural shift in professional practices and dis-positions for many of those involved appears to have been significant and one of therecommendations to emerge from the evaluation is that a more systematic
Journal of Education for Teaching 567
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Nat
iona
l Pin
gtun
g U
nive
rsity
of
Scie
nce
and
Tec
hnol
ogy]
at 1
4:51
20
Dec
embe
r 20
14
professional development and training programme may be required to support thefuller realisation of the potential of this clinical approach. This fuller realisation mayalso imply increased attention to engagement with extant research and also withenquiry or action-research approaches. One of the original aspirations for the initia-tive was that it would develop an integration with the programme of support fornewly qualified teachers undertaking their induction year. The scheme as trialledwas very strongly focused on ITE even though, as indicated above, there was signif-icant professional learning for a wider range of participants than the students alone.
Roles and relationships, policies and processes
We now wish to stand back somewhat from the question of the success or otherwiseof the project itself in order to return to some of the matters we foregrounded earlierin order to consider some of the wider implications, in particular those concerningrelationships between research, policy and practice and the function of thepracticum.
Roles and relationships in teacher education
Any reading of the long history of teacher education reveals the enduring nature ofthe tensions and concerns about roles and relationships and their links with the verynature of teaching as a profession. Robinson’s (2004) historical study of these mat-ters, focusing especially on the first two decades of the twentieth century, revealsvery similar debates, partly driven by a great concern to raise the professional stand-ing of teaching as a profession, through bringing theory and practice closer togetherand through developing a distinctive ‘education science’ to complement the thenprevalent notions of teaching as a craft and as an art. Hence, the initiative reportedhere can be seen as part of a long quest for greater integration of professional learn-ing and professional practice in teaching in a systematic and intellectually coherentway (see also Hulme 2011), that is recognised elsewhere in Europe and around theworld, as indicated in the opening section of this paper. It remains clear that, whenmajor change is instituted in the conduct of teacher education, the maintenance ofprofessional identity emerges as a significant concern and can lead to blockages,which require careful consideration. Perhaps such concerns impact on the sense ofprofessional identity of the university teacher as much, if not more than, the schoolteacher.
Policy processes and managing change
There are aspects of the initiative which might be considered opportunistic or seren-dipitous. The fact that funding for new initiatives became available at the same timeas a major review of teacher education in Scotland was in progress was not entirelya coincidence but, arguably, did require a degree of foresight and imagination forthings to ‘come together’ in the shape of this particular initiative.
The publication of the Donaldson Report occurred in January 2011 just as thisscheme was actually starting in the schools. Among other things, the report empha-sised the role of the university in teacher education, the importance of career-longdevelopment and the significance of partnerships in learning. There was also a com-mitment to the view that ‘every teacher should be a teacher educator’ (73). Donald-
568 J. Conroy et al.
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Nat
iona
l Pin
gtun
g U
nive
rsity
of
Scie
nce
and
Tec
hnol
ogy]
at 1
4:51
20
Dec
embe
r 20
14
son argued that the university location of Schools of Education might be more fullyexploited to reduce, ‘unhelpful philosophical and structural divides, [that] have ledto sharp separations of function amongst teachers, teacher educators and researchers’(p.5). A view of schools as sites for ‘well researched innovation’ by ‘research awareteachers’ is encouraged (p.102). School experience ‘should do much more than pro-vide practice in classroom skills, vital though these are. Experience in a school pro-vides the opportunity to use practice to explore theory and examine relevantresearch evidence’ (p.90). This meant that all of those involved had some sense oftaking part in a project that had the potential for very significant and possibly endur-ing influence on the shape of teacher education across Scotland. The Glasgow WestInitiative has attracted much interest from broadcast and print media in Scotland,and from teacher educators in other parts of the UK (and beyond). Colleagues lead-ing the project were also invited to make presentations at a number of conferencesand professional events in Scotland and elsewhere.
As the programme of change proceeds, partnership is expanding both with localauthorities and with at least one other university. Challenges remain; these includehow the approach may be adapted to work in more dispersed areas, where the urbanconcentration of schools that is found in central Glasgow does not exist; the com-mitment of local authorities and unions, and their capacity to embrace change; howsecondary expertise can be harnessed more effectively. More widely, there will bedebate about how other providers may (or may not) adopt such an approach. Morerecently, a National Implementation Board (NIB) has been established to secure andensure the practical instantiation of Donaldson’s recommendations. One importantconsideration with respect to future development of ‘clinical schools’ will be howthis NIB positions itself in relation to this initiative. Furthermore, the scheme asdeveloped has only been adopted on the one-year PGDE programme at Glasgow.
Conclusion: teacher education research
The centrality of the practicum as a focus for change within teacher education hasbeen affirmed by this project. Many of the issues identified internationally, in theopening section, concerning, for example, the sites of professional learning, the rolesand responsibilities of various participants, the complex nature of pedagogic theoryand practice, have all arisen as significant elements. What does this tell us about thenature of teacher education research for the future?
Working in teacher education in Scotland is a very different experience to thatelsewhere in the UK and perhaps has greater similarities with the context elsewherein Europe and beyond. While the relationship of research to policy and practice maybe far from perfect, it remains more positive in Scotland than in England (as a com-parison of The Importance of Teaching (DfE 2010) and the Donaldson Report attests(Hulme and Menter 2011)). In the light of this project and the professional environ-ment in which it and its evaluation have been conducted, we can draw attention to:
� The significance attached to research in conducting a review of policy andpractice in teacher education. Donaldson commissioned a literature review spe-cifically to inform his work (Menter et al. 2010a) and his report draws signifi-cantly on this as well as on other research and other forms of evidence.
� The way in which teaching itself is defined as an evidence- and/or research-based profession. This is demonstrated not only in the Donaldson Report but
Journal of Education for Teaching 569
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Nat
iona
l Pin
gtun
g U
nive
rsity
of
Scie
nce
and
Tec
hnol
ogy]
at 1
4:51
20
Dec
embe
r 20
14
also in the ways in which the suite of Standards for teaching are written (theStandard for ITE, Standard for Full Registration, Standard for Chartered Tea-cher and Standard for Headship).
� The continuing, indeed increased, central role of universities in the profes-sional education and development for teachers. This consolidation has been inmarked contrast to developments south of the border, although generally moreconsistent with developments elsewhere in the UK and Europe (Menter 2008)and as identified in OECD reports (OECD 2005), for example in Singapore,Finland and Shanghai (see also Darling-Hammond and Lieberman 2012).
Having made these positive statements, it is surprising how little research, espe-cially of a large-scale or longitudinal nature, has been commissioned or carried out.As with elsewhere in the UK, most research has been small-scale, short-term andpredominantly qualitative (Menter et al. 2010b).
There is certainly a case for more research and development projects to beencouraged and for these to be evaluated in the ways in which we have reportedhere. But there is also a need for a wider research programme. As we suggested ear-lier in this paper, as with much of educational provision, the shape and form of tea-cher education is as likely to be hypothecated on the normative attachments of thevarious players as on any consideration of the evidence of efficacy. Research there-fore needs to be developed on the basis of clear and explicit value statements andwith clear aims that are open to challenge and debate. Furthermore, teacher educa-tion research needs to be very sensitised to the significance of social, political andcultural context (Crossley and Watson 2003) at the same time as being cognisant ofthe international globalised aspects of many developments in policy and practice(Tatto 2007; Rizvi and Lingard 2010).
ReferencesAllen, J. M., C. Butler-Mader, and R. A. Smith. 2010. “A Fundamental Partnership: The
Experiences of Practising Teachers as Lecturers in a Pre-service Teacher Education Pro-gramme.” Teachers and Teaching: Theory and Practice 16 (5): 615–632.
Arnold, J., T. Edwards, N. Hooley, and J. Williams. 2012. “Theorising On-site Teacher Edu-cation: Philosophical Project Knowledge (PPK).” Asia-Pacific Journal of Teacher Educa-tion 40 (1): 67–78.
Ball, S. J. 1990. Politics & Policy Making in Education: Explorations in Policy Sociology.London: Routledge.
Ball, S. J. 1994. Education Reform: A Critical & Post-structural Approach. Buckingham:Open University Press.
Brisard, E., I. Menter, and I. Smith. 2005. Models of Partnership in Initial Teacher Educa-tion. Edinburgh: General Teaching Council for Scotland.
Byrd, D. M., and D. J. McIntyre (eds.). 1999. Research on Professional DevelopmentSchools. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin/Sage.
Carr, W., and S. Kemmis. 1986. Becoming Critical: Education, Knowledge, and ActionResearch. London: Falmer.
Clifford, M., and S. B. Millar. 2008. K:20 Partnerships: Literature Review and Recommen-dations for Research. Madison: University of Wisconsin-Madison, Wisconsin Center forEducational Research.
Cochran-Smith, M. 2009. “‘Re-Culturing’ Teacher Education: Inquiry, Evidence, andAction.” Journal of Teacher Education 60 (5): 458-468.
Crossley, M., and K. Watson. 2003. Comparative and International Research in Education –Globalisation, Context and Difference. London: Routledge/Falmer.
570 J. Conroy et al.
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Nat
iona
l Pin
gtun
g U
nive
rsity
of
Scie
nce
and
Tec
hnol
ogy]
at 1
4:51
20
Dec
embe
r 20
14
Darling-Hammond, L. (ed.). 2005. Professional Development Schools. Schools for Develop-ing a Profession. New York: Teachers College Press.
Darling-Hammond, L. 2006. Powerful Teacher Education. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.Darling-Hammond, L., and A. Lieberman (eds.). 2012. Teacher Education around the World.
Changing Policies and practices. London: Routledge.Department for Education. 2010. The Importance of Teaching. The Schools White Paper.
London: The Stationery Office.Department for Education. 2011. Training Our Next Generation of Outstanding Teachers:
Implementation Plan. https://www.education.gov.uk/publications/eOrderingDownload/DFE-00083-2011.pdf.
Di Paola J. 2008. Report of the Teacher Employment Working Group. Edinburgh: ScottishGovernment http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Resource/Doc/242958/0067605.pdf.
Dickson, B. 2011. “Beginning Teachers as Enquirers: M-Level Work in Initial Teacher Edu-cation.” European Journal of Teacher Education 34 (3): 259–276.
Donaldson, G. 2011. Teaching Scotland’s Future, Report of a Review of Teacher Educationin Scotland. Edinburgh: Scottish Government. http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Resource/Doc/337626/0110852.pdf.
Elmore, R. 2009. Instructional Rounds in Education: A Network Approach to ImprovingTeaching and Learning. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Scottish Executive. 2001. Report of the First Stage Review of Initial Teacher Education.Edinburgh: Deloitte and Touche.
Furlong, J., O. McNamara, A. Campbell, J. Howson, and S. Lewis. 2008. “Partnership, Pol-icy and Politics: Initial Teacher Education in England under New Labour.” Teachers andTeaching 14 (4): 307–318.
Goodlad, J. 1994. Educational Renewal. Better Teachers, Better Schools. San Francisco, NC:Jossey-Bass.
Grossman, P., K. Hammerness, and M. McDonald. 2009. “Redefining Teaching, Re-ImaginingTeacher Education.” Teachers and Teaching 15 (2): 273–289.
HM Inspectorate of Education (HMIE). 2005. Student Teacher Placement within Initial Tea-cher Education. http://www.hmie.gov.uk/documents/publication/stpite.html.
Hobson, A. J., P. Ashby, A. Malderez, and P. D. Tomlinson. 2009. “Mentoring BeginningTeachers: What We Know and What We don’t.” Teaching and Teacher Education 25 (1):207–216.
Holmes Partnership. 2007. The Holmes Partnership Trilogy: Tomorrow’s Teachers. NewYork, Peter Lang: Tomorrow’s Schools. Tomorrow’s Schools of Education.
HonerØd Hoevid, M., and J. Conroy. 2008. “Research in Teacher Education.” EuropeanEducational Research Journal 7 (4): 451–458.
Hulme, M. 2011. “Histories of Scottish Teacher Education – Sources for Research.” ScottishEducational Review 34 (1): 41–55.
Hulme, M., and I. Menter. 2011. “South and North – Teacher Education Policy in Englandand Scotland: A Comparative Textual Analysis.” Scottish Educational Review 43 (2):70–90.
Imig, D., D. Wiseman, and S. Imig. 2011. “Teacher Education in the United States of Amer-ica, 2011.” Journal of Education for Teaching: International Research and Pedagogy 37(4): 399–408.
Johnston, D. 2010. “‘Losing the Joy’: Student teachers’ Experiences of Problematic Relationswith Host Teachers on School Placement.” Teacher Development 14 (3): 307–320.
Kontoniemi, M., and O. Salo. 2011. Educating Teachers in the PISA Paradise. Jyvaskyla,University of Jyvaskyla: Perspectives on Teacher Education at a Finnish University.
Korthagen, F. A. J., J. Kessels, B. Koster, B. Lagerwerf, and T. Wubbels. 2001. Linking The-ory and Practice: The Pedagogy of Realistic Teacher Education. Mahwah, NJ: LawrenceErlbaum.
Levine, M. (ed.). 1992. Professional Practice Schools: Linking Teacher Education andSchool Reform. Colchester, VT: Teachers College Press.
Loughran, J. 2008. “Toward a Better Understanding of Teaching and Learning about Teaching.”In Handbook of Research on Teacher Education: Enduring Questions & Changing Con-cepts, edited by M. Cochran Smith, S. Feiman-Nemser, D. J. McIntyre and K. E. Demers,1177–1182. New York: Routledge.
Journal of Education for Teaching 571
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Nat
iona
l Pin
gtun
g U
nive
rsity
of
Scie
nce
and
Tec
hnol
ogy]
at 1
4:51
20
Dec
embe
r 20
14
Mattsson, M., T. Eilertson, and D. Rorrison (eds.). 2011. A Practicum Turn in TeacherEducation. Sense: Rotterdam.
McIntyre, D. 1990. “Ideas and Principles Guiding the Internship Scheme.” In The OxfordInternship Scheme: Integration and Partnership in Initial Teacher Education, edited byP. Benton, 17–34. London: Calouste Gulbenkian Foundation.
McIntyre, D. 2005. “Opportunities for a More Balanced Approach to ITE: Can We LearnAgain from Research and Other Experience?” Scottish Educational Review 37: 5–19.
Menter, I. 2008. “Teacher Education Institutions.” In Scottish Education. 3rd ed., edited byT. Bryce and W. Humes, 817–825. Edinburgh: University Press.
Menter, I., V. Baumfield, M. Carroll, B. Dickson, M. Hulme, K. Lowden, and W. Mallon.2012. Glasgow West Teacher Education Initiative Evaluation Report. Glasgow: Univer-sity of Glasgow.
Menter, I. and M. Hulme. 2012. “Teacher Education in Scotland – Riding out the Reces-sion?” Educational Research (Special Issue: Teacher Education: The Impact of the GlobalRecession). 54 (2): 149–160.
Menter, I., M. Hulme, D. Elliot, and J. Lewin. 2010. Literature Review on Teacher Educationin the 21st Century. Edinburgh: Scottish Government Social Research.
Menter, I., M. Hulme, J. Murray, A. Campbell, I. Hextall, M. Jones, P. Mahony, R. Procter,and K. Wall. 2010. “Teacher Education Research in the UK: The State of the Art.” RevueSuisses Des Sciences De l’education 32 (1): 121–142.
Moore, G. E. 1993. Principia Ethica. 2nd ed. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Moyles, J., and D. Stuart. 2003. Which School-Based Elements of Partnership in Initial Tea-
cher Training in the UK Support Trainee teachers’ Professional Development? ResearchEvidence in Education Library. London: EPPI-Centre, Social Science Research Unit.
NCATE. 2010. Transforming Teacher Education through Clinical Practice: A National Strat-egy to Prepare Effective Teachers. Washington, DC: National Council for the Accredita-tion of Teacher Education.
Niemi, H., and R. Jakku-Sihoven. 2006. In the Front of the Bologna Process: Thirty Years ofResearch-Based Teacher Education in Finland. http://www.see-educoop.net/education_in/pdf/workshop/tesee/dokumenti/monografija/Finland.pdf.
O’Hear, A. 1988. Who Teaches the Teachers? London: Social Affairs Unit.OECD. 2005. Teachers Matter: Attracting, Developing and Retaining Effective Teachers.
Paris: OECD.OECD. 2011. Building a High Quality Teaching Profession: Lessons from around the World.
Paris: OECD.Ozga, J., P. Dahler-Larsen, C. Segerholm, and H. Simola (eds.). 2011. Fabricating Quality in
Education: Data and Governance in Europe. Routledge: London.Ozga, J., and R. Jones. 2006. “Travelling and Embedded Policy: The Case of Knowledge
Transfer.” Journal of Education Policy 21 (1): 1–17.Ravitch, D. 2007. “Challenges to Teacher Education.” Journal of Teacher Education 58(4):
269–273.Rizvi, F., and B. Lingard. 2010. Globalizing Education Policy. London: Routledge.Robinson, W. 2004. Power to Teach; Learning through Practice. London: Routledge.Sahlberg, P. 2012. Finnish Lessons: What Can the World Learn from Educational Change in
Finland? New York: Teachers’ College Press.Sapir, E. 1934. “Symbolism.” In Encyclopaedia of the Social Sciences, edited by E. R. A. Selig-
man, 492–495. New York: Macmillan.Scottish Executive 2005. Review of Initial Teacher Education Stage 2. Report of the Review
Group. Edinburgh, Scottish Executive. http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Resource/Doc/920/0012210.pdf.
Scottish Executive Education Department (2001) A Teaching Profession for the 21st Century,Edinburgh: SEED. http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Resource/Doc/158413/0042924.pdf.
Scottish Funding Council. 2010. Circular: Intake Targets for the Controlled Subjects inHigher Education Institutions for Academic Year 2010-11. http://www.sfc.ac.uk/web/FILES/CircularsSFC0510/sfc0510.pdf.
Scottish Government 2008. Concordat between the Scottish Government and Local Govern-ment. http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Resource/Doc/923/0054147.pdf.
Slater, J., and R. Ravid (eds.). 2010. Collaboration in Education. London: Routledge.
572 J. Conroy et al.
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Nat
iona
l Pin
gtun
g U
nive
rsity
of
Scie
nce
and
Tec
hnol
ogy]
at 1
4:51
20
Dec
embe
r 20
14
Smith, I., E. Brisard, and I. Menter. 2006. “Partnership in Initial Teacher Education 1990-2005.” Scottish Educational Review 3: 20–31.
Smith, G., and S. Exley. 2006. “The Influence of Overseas Examples on DES Policy-Makingfor the School System in England, 1985-1995.” Oxford Review of Education 32 (5):575–597.
Snoek, M., and E. Moens. 2010. “Looking at Things from a Slight Distance. Learning Out-comes from Research Conducted by Teachers.” Paper presented at the International Pro-fessional Development Association Annual Conference, Birmingham, November 26–27.
Tatto, M. T. (ed.). 2007. Reforming Teaching Globally. Didcot: Symposium Books.Teaching and Learning Research Programme (TLRP). 2007. Principles into Practice. http://
www.tlrp.org/pub/documents/Principles%20in%20Practice%20Low%20Res.pdf.Ulvik, M., and K. Smith. 2011. “What Characterises a Good Practicum in Teacher Educa-
tion?” Education Inquiry 2 (3): 517–536.Ure, C. L. 2010. “Reforming Teacher Education through a Professionally Applied Study of
Teaching.” Journal of Education for Teaching: International Research and Pedagogy 36(4): 461–475.
Weiss, B. D., G. Hart, D. L. McGee, and S. D’Estelle. 1992. “Health Status of IlliterateAdults: Relation between Literacy and Health Status among Persons with Low LiteracySkills.” The Journal of the American Board of Family Practice/American Board of Fam-ily Practice 5 (1): 257–264.
Wiener, L. 2007. “A Lethal Threat to US Teacher Education.” Journal of Teacher Education58 (5): 274–286.
Journal of Education for Teaching 573
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Nat
iona
l Pin
gtun
g U
nive
rsity
of
Scie
nce
and
Tec
hnol
ogy]
at 1
4:51
20
Dec
embe
r 20
14
