RE-ENVISAGING TEACHING PRACTICUM: FACTORS OF SCHOOL-UNIVERSITY PARTNERSHIP
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.61841/6407e591Keywords:
School-university partnership,, theory-practice gap, teaching practicum,, pre-service teacher education program.Abstract
School-university partnership prominence all over the world for the successful pre-service teacher education program. This paper highlight supportive factors of re-envisaging school-university partnership, contributes to the preparation of prospective teachers, during teaching practicum. The basic purpose behind the school-university partnership includes bridging the theory-practice gap, facilitating prospective teachers, and creating a cooperative atmosphere between two stakeholders during teaching practicum. The quantitative approach was used to collect data, through five points Likert scale from participants. Data were collected from one female institution by applying the purposive sampling technique. Prospective teachers of third and fifth semesters and their co-operative teachers participate in the study. Findings point out factors that enhance prospective teachers' learning and engagement during teaching practicum, it also indicates different ways to strengthen partnerships to bridge the gap between theory and practice. The study concluded that all identified factors of the school-university partnership are imperative and provide a baseline for the practicum process to prepare prospective teachers. All these factors should be used in teaching practicum to bridge the gap between theory and practice.
Downloads
References
1. Allen, J. M. (2009). Valuing practice over theory: How beginning teachers re-orient their practice in the transition from the university to the workplace. Teaching and teacher education, 25(5), 647-654.
2. Allen, J. M., Howells, K., & Radford, R. (2013). A ‘Partnership in Teaching Excellence’: ways in which one school-university partnership has fostered teacher development. Asia-Pacific Journal of Teacher Education, 41(1), 99-110.
3. Allen, J. M., & Peach, D. (2007). Exploring connections between the in-field and on-campus components of a preservice teacher education program: A student perspective. Asia-Pacific Journal of Cooperative Education, 8(1), 23-36.
4. Borko, H. (2004). Professional development and teacher learning: Mapping the terrain. Educational researcher, 33(8), 3-15.
5. Brandenburg, K., & Wiese, A. (2004). Endotoxins: relationships between structure, function, and activity.
Current topics in medicinal chemistry, 4(11), 1127-1146.
6. Bullough Jr, R. V., & Draper, R. J. (2004). Making sense of a failed triad: Mentors, university supervisors, and positioning theory. Journal of Teacher Education, 55(5), 407-420.
7. Butler, W. R. (2003). Energy balance relationships with follicular development, ovulation and fertility in postpartum dairy cows. Livestock production science, 83(2-3), 211-218.
8. CHOW, W. K. A., TANG, Y. F. S., & So, K. S. (2004). Mentoring others and developing self: Teacher learning and development. The Asia-Pacific Education Researcher, 13(1), 57-85.
9. Cole, A. L., & Knowles, J. G. (2008). Arts-informed research. Handbook of the arts in qualitative research, 55-70.
10. Dunne, M., Lock, R., & Soares, A. (1996). Partnership in initial teacher training: After the shotgun wedding. Educational Review, 48(1), 41-53.
11. Eraut, M. (2014). Developing knowledge for qualified professionals. In Workplace learning in teacher education (pp. 47-72): Springer.
12. Fairbanks, C. M., Freedman, D., & Kahn, C. (2000). The role of effective mentors in learning to teach.
Journal of Teacher Education, 51(2), 102-112.
13. Farah, A., Fauzee, O., & Daud, Y. (2016). A cursory review of the importance of teacher training: A case study of Pakistan. Middle Eastern Journal of Scientific Research, 21(6), 912-917.
14. Fatima, F. M., & Behlol, M. G. MENTORING PROSPECTIVE TEACHERS AT TEACHING PRACTICUM IN B. ED (HONS) 4 YEARS PROGRAM.
15. Feiman-Nemser, S. (1990). Conceptual orientations in teacher education: Citeseer.
16. Fletcher, G. P. (2000). Rethinking criminal law: Oxford University Press.
17. Galloway, D., & Edwards, A. (2014). Primary school teaching and educational psychology: Routledge.
18. Harman, K., & Koohang, A. (2005). Discussion board: A learning object. Interdisciplinary Journal of E- Learning and Learning Objects, 1(1), 67-77.
19. Hascher*, T., Cocard, Y., & Moser, P. (2004). Forget about theory—practice is all? Student teachers' learning in practicum. Teachers and teaching, 10(6), 623-637.
20. Ingersoll, R. M. (2012). Beginning teacher induction what the data tell us. Phi Delta Kappan, 93(8), 47- 51.
21. Kemp, J. W., Livingstone, D., & Bloomfield, P. R. (2009). SLOODLE: Connecting VLE tools with emergent teaching practice in Second Life. British Journal of Educational Technology, 40(3), 551-555.
22. Korthagen, F. A. (2001). Linking practice and theory: The pedagogy of realistic teacher education: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publishers.
23. Korthagen, F. A., & Kessels, J. P. (1999). Linking theory and practice: Changing the pedagogy of teacher education. Educational researcher, 28(4), 4-17.
24. Kuh, L. P. (2012). Promoting communities of practice and parallel process in early childhood settings.
Journal of early childhood teacher education, 33(1), 19-37.
25. Lock, R. H., Lee, S.-H., Theoharis, R., Fitzpatrick, M., Kim, K.-H., Liss, J. M.Walther-Thomas, C. (2006). Create effective mentoring relationships: Strategies for mentor and mentee success. Intervention in School and Clinic, 41(4), 233-240.
26. Masood, F., & Behlol, M. G. Learning and Practicing of Innovative Pedagogical Skills of Prospective Teachers’ In Teaching Practicum At B. ED (Hons) Elementary Program.
27. Moir, E., & Gless, J. (2001). Quality induction: An investment in teachers. Teacher Education Quarterly, 28(1), 109.
28. Nasser-Abu Alhija, F., & Wisenbaker, J. (2006). A Monte Carlo study investigating the impact of item parceling strategies on parameter estimates and their standard errors in CFA. Structural Equation Modeling, 13(2), 204-228.
29. Parsons, M., & Stephenson, M. (2005). Developing reflective practice in student teachers: Collaboration and critical partnerships. Teachers and teaching, 11(1), 95-116.
30. Radford, J., Bosanquet, P., Webster, R., Blatchford, P., & Rubie-Davies, C. (2014). Fostering learner independence through heuristic scaffolding: A valuable role for teaching assistants. International Journal of Educational Research, 63, 116-126.
31. Schon, D. (1983). 1983, The reflective practitioner: How professionals think in action. New York: Basic Books.
32. Schön, D. W. (2015). Teaching artistry through reflection-in-action.
33. SOARES, M. S. A., & OLIVEN, A. C. (2002). BRASIL Coordenação do Aperfeiçoamento de Pessoal de Nível Superior. A educação superior no Brasil. Brasília, DF: CAPES.
34. Taylor, S. J. (2008). Modelling financial time series: world scientific.
35. Tietjens, M. (2001). Sportliches Engagement und sozialer Rückhalt im Jugendalter: Eine repräsentative Surveystudie in Brandenburg und Nordrhein-Westfalen.
36. White, S., Bloomfield, D., & Cornu, R. L. (2010). Professional experience in new times: Issues and responses to a changing education landscape. Asia-Pacific Journal of Teacher Education, 38(3), 181-193.
37. Zeichner, A., & Levin, N. (1993). Collection efficiency of gunshot residue (GSR) particles from hair and hands using double-side adhesive tape. Journal of Forensic Science, 38(3), 571-584.
38. Zeichner, K., & Liu, K. Y. (2010). A critical analysis of reflection as a goal for teacher education. In
Handbook of reflection and reflective inquiry (pp. 67-84): Springer.
Downloads
Published
Issue
Section
License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
You are free to:
- Share — copy and redistribute the material in any medium or format for any purpose, even commercially.
- Adapt — remix, transform, and build upon the material for any purpose, even commercially.
- The licensor cannot revoke these freedoms as long as you follow the license terms.
Under the following terms:
- Attribution — You must give appropriate credit , provide a link to the license, and indicate if changes were made . You may do so in any reasonable manner, but not in any way that suggests the licensor endorses you or your use.
- No additional restrictions — You may not apply legal terms or technological measures that legally restrict others from doing anything the license permits.
Notices:
You do not have to comply with the license for elements of the material in the public domain or where your use is permitted by an applicable exception or limitation .
No warranties are given. The license may not give you all of the permissions necessary for your intended use. For example, other rights such as publicity, privacy, or moral rights may limit how you use the material.
