Changing the Traditional Structure and Function of a ...

Changing the Traditional Structure and Function of a Teacher Education Program: A comparative study. David Lynch and Richard Smith 2011

Abstract This article analyses common criticisms of pre-service teacher education programs and concludes that many of them are the effects of such programs and their logical underpinnings. An alternative program based on such criticisms and designed with a different logic is then described. Evidence that the alternative program overcomes some of the major enduring criticisms is presented. The article concludes with indicative principles that could form the basis of further research and for the reform of pre-service teacher education. Key Words: Teacher education, teacher training, successful teacher education programs, evidence-based teacher education, university/school partnerships Introduction Dooley and Villanueva, (2006, p. 225) argue that theoretical knowledge is not enough for preparing teachers. They say that theory must be grounded in practical experience and reflection. Similarly, Brouwer (2007, p. 21) summarises research that shows where student teachers’ practical experiences are closely linked to theoretical reflection, their inservice teaching competence is enhanced. Notwithstanding these remarks, Maandag, Deinum, Hofman and Buitink, (2007, p. 156) identify the lack of continuity in many teacher education programs. Continuity is blocked because of the deep-seated assumptions that the school is for practical experience, while the higher education institution is for theory, with scarcely any connection. Moreover, they say, there is “hardly any link between the university programme … and the actual profession”. They further state that higher education institutions and schools seem to have “great difficulty” in designing a training course in which there is an adequate relationship for the future teacher between theory and practice in the school and in the institutions (Maandag, Deinum, Hofman and Buitink, 2007, p. 167). Others have pointed out that there is little evidence that the theoretical, pedagogical content taught on campus is actually transferred to teaching practice (Allen, 2010; Korthagen and Kessels, 1999; Korthagen, Loughran and Russell, 2007). It is not

1

surprising that some commentators have concluded that teacher education has little impact on practice (Tryggvason, 2009, p. 270). In summary, there are considerable tensions in the relationships between schools and higher education training programs that exhibit different logics about the importance of the day-to-day work in school classrooms and the theoretical basis of such school-based activities (Spendlove, Howes, and Wake 2010, p. 65). The enormity of the issue is that the links between theoretical knowledge about pedagogy and day-to-day practice, the sine qua non of teaching, are most certainly compromised in professional preparation. It is almost as if the closer a student gets to the core knowledge and skill sets for teaching, the more the student learns about teaching and the more remote the on-campus preparation becomes. Moreover, if one acknowledges that teacher education programs have a responsibility to prepare teachers in innovative ways to deal with new socio-economic changes and challenges teachers will probably face in the future (Dooley and Villanueva, 2006, p. 226), then these discontinuities have serious implications not only for what is taught but how it is delivered (Smith, 2000). Taking these seemingly intractable issues together, this paper recounts an attempt to implement a teacher education program in an Australian university designed to overcome such obstacles. For the purposes of the paper, we refer to the new program as Program 2. The developers set out to change the traditional structure and function of a teacher education program for both internal ends and with the aim of having an impact on education, schooling and teaching (Smith and Lynch, 2010; Hattie, 2009; Dinham, et al, 2008; Fullan, 2007; Sachs and Groundwater-Smith, 2006; Darling-Hammond and Bransford, 2005). Based on extant critiques of teacher education and propositions about the social roles of teacher education in a Knowledge Society, the program was constructed on a knowledge, skill and mindset base different to that of the traditional 4-year teacher education program (Program 1). The stated intent was to graduate teachers who possessed the capability to achieve learning outcomes in students and who possessed a “futures orientation” that would enable them to play a leading role in transforming schooling. Organization and management approaches involving the university, employers and the teaching profession were aligned to those ends.

2

This paper focuses on a study of Program 2 at the time when its first graduates were produced. The major proposition of the study on which the paper is based was that a change in the rationale, content, and delivery of a pre-service teacher education program would result in different knowledge, behavioural, and attitudinal outcomes in graduates compared to those of the previous teacher education program then in place. The Context of Program 2 The design of Program 2 was motivated by three coincidental factors, namely the accumulated evidence of inadequacies of current teacher education programs in the teacher education literature, the insistence by state and national governments that in a “knowledge society”, education had a role to play in nation building, and an opportunity in the university’s planning cycle to replace an obsolete BEd program (Program 1). These conditions enabled the program designers to approach the task with a definite intent to make a decisive, dramatic change in the way teacher education was conducted at that university (Gladwell, 2002, p. 9). The idea of “disruptive innovation” (Christensen, 2003) captures the intent of developing a program that would eventually displace the established 4-year program. Program 2 designers resisted the faculty's normal practice of tinkering with the existing Program 1 program arrangements. They recognized that to do so would produce the predictable outcome of sustaining what the faculty already did, as had occurred many times in the past. Instead, they went to the profession and invited teachers, school heads, unions and professional organisations to play an equal but different role in creating a new program. Moreover, at that time, government teacher education and registration regulators controlled both teacher and teacher education program registration in ways that preserved and sustained the standard Program 1 approach. “Innovation” in that regulatory arrangement was defined by manipulating the components of the existing program in ways that left the logic untouched while elaborating procedural elements such as staffing ratios, teaching commencement weeks or unit sequences. The designers of Program 2 invited the regulators into early planning meetings and lobbied employers to gain support for overcoming the system inertia towards new ideas. Program 2 developers realised that the existing registration conditions tended to favour the market leaders. For smaller and newer universities, the traditional 4-year program

3

often created unsustainable cost structures, which in many newer universities, can result in a “fundamental misallocation of resources” (Rosen, 2011, p. 16). Leaving aside the resource implications, it was commonly agreed that the traditional model had serious defects. There are other factors too that underpin Program 1 in larger institutions that had to be overcome. Students tend to choose the traditional university experience associated with large urban Schools that champion research and publication. Yet, as Rosen (2011, p. 7) suggests, interacting with students is the loser while professors write up esoteric research papers for obscure journals or politik over which faculty will get tenure. Close professional collaboration between such university teacher education faculty and the teaching profession tends to be pressured by academic and scholarly demands on staff. Mindful of the pulling power of the large schools of education and the newness of Program 2, its developers created an advertising campaign based on the slogan of “First innovation in teacher education for 25 years” that sanctioned preparation for teaching in a less prestigious institution. In addition, Program 2 designers resolved to over-rule institutional and professional pressures to “benchmark” on Program 1 models. Instead, they opted for a new business model centred on formal partnership arrangements with local employers and the teaching profession. Moreover, together with teaching industry teams, they systematically attempted to resolve some of the core contradictions identified with Program 1 in the teacher education literature and in the experiences of teachers and teacher education staff. In doing so, they realised that critical emergent decisions would place Program 2 on the less popular side of certain ideological positions that punctuate the teacher education literature and discourse. While it is not the place in this paper to fully elaborate such positions, there are particular concepts in Program 2 that are disruptive of Program 1. More specifically, a defining feature was the emphasis on “pedagogy” and professional knowledge that provided a “futures” component, and the capacity to work in partnerships (see for example Smith and Lynch, 2010; Hargreaves, 2003; Smith, et al 2003; Marzano, Gaddy, Dean, 2000; Topper, 2000; Darling-Hammond, 2000; Wehmeyer, Palmer, Agran, Mithaug, & Martin, 2000).

4

Simon (1981) had already noticed the lack of attention paid to pedagogy in the UK and his observations were followed up by Alexander (2004) and Blogger (2006). Program 2 designers had also formed a view that there was an emphasis on “curriculum development” at the expense of pedagogy in conventional Australian teacher education. They determined to reverse teacher education practices that concentrated on “curriculum” (planning) so that the moment of “doing teaching” was postponed to the subjective preferences of the individual teacher, later. Moreover, Program 2 designers were progressively influenced by accumulating empirical research such as that of Marzano (1998) and Hattie (2009) that indicates “everything seems to work” in teaching, but some things work “best”. In short, Program 2 was designed so that the content, and the execution of the program became more directly focussed on pedagogical matters rather than assuming that they would look after themselves during “prac”: what Program 2 designers generally thought was an unstructured, haphazard, and largely unseemly use of resources that by and large was judged to be unsatisfactory by both student teachers and their school-based supervisors. Let us be clear on this. Program 1 followed the conventional pathway of practicums arranged in schools in which student teachers were allocated to available supervisors/mentors. Experience had shown that this model ensured that the fit between what was learned on campus and the actual experiences of student teachers was a game of chance. It followed that Program 2 was intentionally designed to connect “theory” and “practice” so that student teachers could not avoid a demonstration of their understanding and application of professional knowledge, especially ‘pedagogical strategies’, during and after different kinds of workplace experience periods. The implication was that Program 2 had to work with school mentors who not only knew the content of the student teacher’s on-campus coursework but also had a commitment to implement agreed pedagogical strategies. The core characteristic of Program 2 was the establishment of a “partnership” with participating schools and employers as proposed by Furlong et al (2000, p. 8): … the commitment to develop a preparation program where students are exposed to different forms of educational knowledge, some of which come from school, some of which come from higher education or elsewhere. In such a Program the (school) teachers are seen as having equally legitimate, but perhaps

5

different bodies of knowledge to those of the university. The arrangement required all participants in the production of Program 2 teacher graduates to know and be able to work with the same theoretical and applied agenda. The partners jointly developed the fundamental ideas and policies for the program from the beginning, thus ensuring that schools and the university were “on the same page” and committed to it. The partnership with this attribute was the core of Program 2 and without it, the model would not function1. Following Stephenson (1992, p. 2), the partnership aimed to produce graduates with known capabilities, including: … an all round human quality, an integration of knowledge, skills, personal qualities and understanding used appropriately and effectively - not just in familiar and highly focussed specialist contexts but in response to new and changing circumstances (emphasis added). Stephenson (1999, p. 2) provided a way of teasing out the reproductive power of the teaching workplace from a more futures-oriented practice. The former is characterised by familiar problems for which there are familiar solutions, the apparent timelessness of schools and teaching. In the futures-oriented mind-set, the world is radically different (Bentley, 1998; Davis & Botkin, 1995). Program 2 was constructed with the anticipation that a teacher graduate would face new technologies, new kinds of global labour markets, the universalism of popular culture, the need for self-assertion and different life prospects depending on often unpredictable forces. Faced with these change certainties, Program 2 designers placed heavy emphasis on a professional capability characterised by courage, planned risk taking, imagination, intuition and creativity (Stephenson, 1999), as well the more usual capacity to work in existing school and teacher practices. In this way, Program 2 set out to graduate teachers who were both “workplace ready”, yet would have a cache of “new” knowledge and skills that fitted them to participate and take a leading role in changing the school system. This cache of knowledge and skills is referred to as a “futures orientation”.

1

Allen’s (2008) research described the breakdown that occurs when the university and school staff go their own ways.

6

Unpacking Program 2’s distinctive structural and organisational arrangements and thus providing an on-the-ground perspective of the program, six key and inter-related components are revealed. These components are; partnership, new knowledge, defined graduate outcomes, the use of performance based and in-school tasks, a compulsory internship and the use of a common pedagogical framework. Table 1 illustrates these Program 2 components in contrast to Program 1. Table 1: Comparison of Programs 1 and 2 Key Component Partnership

Program 1   

Defined Program Learning Outcomes

  

New Knowledge

  

University centric arrangements Periodic practicum meetings Informal and traditional arrangements Unit of study related Set by individual unit lecturers Graduation readiness achieved when all units of study have been ‘passed’ and certified by the unit lecturer. Selected, sourced and sequenced by individual unit lecturers Heavily ideological basis Content drawn from clusters such as; Psychology; Sociology; Curriculum development

Program 2         





 



Pedagogical Framework



Performance based assessment tasks



Internship



Various theories and pedagogic positions espoused Essays, examinations and projects Illumination focus

 

Non existent A final 6 week practicum

       

Program centric arrangements Mutual benefit outcomes for schools and the university Strategy meetings Equal yet different contribution to be made by partners Service agreements Program wide and stipulated Informs teaching content, unit assessment and graduation readiness Set by ‘the partnership’ Graduation readiness determined by yearly ‘professional reviews’ of students comprising partner representatives Four knowledge clusters: Futures; Pedagogy; Networks and Partnerships; and Essential Professional Knowledge. Clusters developed in collaboration with classroom teachers and various industry stakeholders as well as being scoped by a transdisciplinary literature Strongly futures-orientated, enterprising and entrepreneurial flavour Heavily influenced by research, so as to avoid promulgating ‘yet another good idea’ and to ensure professional knowledge elements are based on what the research indicates ‘works’ for all students Very strong emphasis on pedagogic strategies. Common evidence based pedagogic framework Explicitly development Mandated requirement that graduates achieve learning outcomes in students Assessment regimes occur in a school during a practicum Performativity focus Compulsory One complete school term Transition from student to teacher

The Study

7

In order to test the efficacy of theory and its application to regular teacher education requirements, one of the authors (Lynch, 2004) undertook an evaluative investigation of Program 2. To reiterate, the guiding research question was: “Does an emphasis on Workplace Readiness and Futures Orientation in a teacher education program, organised as a Partnership with the teaching industry, generate new capabilities in graduate teachers compared to those of a previous teacher education program. In simpler terms, the study was an exercise in comparing and contrasting Programs 1 and 2. The full description and discussion of the methodological approach used in the study appears in Lynch (2004). Here we summarise the main components and relevant details. The study used a Likert scale questionnaire and semi-structured interviews aimed at determining the capability of graduating Program 2 and Program 1 students and their school-based mentors. There were 221 graduating students, 91% female and 9% male, approximating the enrolment ratios in the programs. 61.2% were 25 years or younger a little over 21% of the respondents were 36-45 years. 54% were enrolled in the Program 1. The majority of students in both programs were enrolled in either Early Childhood Education or Primary (Elementary) strands. There were 153 mentors, and there were no location, age, gender, age or degree statistical differences between them. Most mentors were interviewed. They included those who had mentored only a Program 1 graduate student; those who had mentored only a Program 2 graduate student; and those who had mentored both a Program 1 and 2 graduating student recently. Analysis of variance (ANOVA) and t-tests were performed on both the student and mentor data. A factor analysis was performed on the student data, followed by a path analysis in order to specify which variables define each factor. A number of results of interest to this paper were found. First, Program 2 graduating students rated their preparedness and their attitudes to preservice education higher than graduate students from Program 1. Second, mentors were well-versed in the requirements of workplace readiness, but had few insights about futures orientations. They dwelt on the familiar problems faced in schools and the future was perceived as a time when there would be larger numbers of similar problems. Few had “solutions” to present problems and instead attributed them to “society” and “the system”.

8

Third, most mentors believed their Program 2 students were “workplace ready”, namely they were able to develop and maintain effective relationships with students and others, possessed relevant professional knowledge sets associated with teaching and had personal attributes that underpin teacher work. Few mentors of considered that their final year Program 1 student was “workplace ready”. Mentors who had both a Program 2 and a Program 1 student commented that the longer Program 2 periods of systematic school experience almost guaranteed workplace readiness in their student teachers. Fourth, mentors remarked that Program 2 graduating students were generally open to change and “new situations” and that this was underpinned by a sound knowledge of what was happening in the world of education. Program 1 mentors indicated that their students did not have a detailed understanding of the future. This kind of comment was not just directed at content in Program 1, but reflects a general predisposition to reproduce the past. Fifth, both Program 2 students and their mentors rated Program 2 teaching capabilities at a higher level than Program 1 graduates. Sixth, the majority of Program 2 students were deemed by mentors to have demonstrated key teaching outcomes, in contrast to Program 1 students. The former were rated as able to deliver learning outcomes for all learners. In particular, it was evident that program 2 students possessed a repertoire of teaching strategies that they knew how to implement. Seventh, the majority of mentors believed that preparing new teachers is a joint responsibility of the schools and universities. They welcomed more contact with “the university” and a strengthening of a school-university partnership where there is equality of input. They are not enthused by the university assuming professional dominance or by the setting up of arrangements by “remote control”. In summary, mentors rated Program 2 program higher than Program 1 on closer contact with a university, increased amounts of time spent by a student teacher in a school, a knowledge and skill base in student teachers that reflect workplace readiness, scope for the mentor to vary prescribed tasks according to criteria, and the opportunity to make an input into a teacher education partnership. Opportunity for such input was only identified in Program 2. Mentors perceived that Program 2 student teachers were better

9

prepared than those in Program 1 for both the immediate teaching work and developments into the future. Conclusions While the population numbers in the study were small, and while Program 2 was in the early stages of its implementation, we interpret these findings to mean that a teacher preparation program that prepares graduates for the knowledge industries, is driven by a systematic rationale, has a strong focus on pedagogical work, and has content and delivery mechanism that embrace these elements is likely to succeed better than programs without these elements. The findings of the study and these data-based propositions confirm the apparent inadequacies of teacher education programs identified in the literature namely, the gap between theory and practice (Smith, 2000), the hierarchy of knowledge assumed by universities (Tom, 1997) and the fragmentation of workplace experience (Emihovich, 1999; Ramsey, 2000; Smith, 2000). The independent Ingvarson et al (2005) study of Programs 1 and 2, conducted under the auspices of the Australian Council for Education Research, confirmed the Lynch study findings. A model such as Program 2 goes some way towards confronting the apparent inadequacies of teacher education programs identified in the literature because it takes the inadequacies and attempts to solve them. Thus, overcoming apparent gaps between theory and practice (Smith, 2000) are built into the program; the hierarchy of the teacher education knowledge base assumed by universities (Tom, 1997) is challenged; and the myriad difficulties around the pragmatics of workplace experience, the relevance to teachers of theoretical knowledge, and the various reform agendas in schooling that flow from social change (Emihovich, 1999; Ramsey, 2000; Smith, 2000) are systematically dealt with in measures designed to overcome them. Of particular importance in Program 2 is the closing of the different loops in the university and the schools logic, especially around workplace readiness capabilities. Mentors consider that “managing student behaviour in a classroom” and dealing with “constant change” and “time constraints” constitute a large portion of a teacher’s expertise. These “teacher-centred activities” have, as Stephenson (1999) argues, a competency or backward-looking focus rather than capability or futures outlook. In this cultural milieu, classroom teaching tends to be a recurrent cycle of solving familiar

10

problems in familiar ways (Abbott & Ryan, 1998; Dimmock, 2000; Hood, 1999; Lynch & Smith, 2002). It can be concluded that unless school mentors and university staff share a “futures orientation” aimed at developing new capabilities in graduates so that they can solve new problems, new teachers will have little opportunity to experience, explore and perfect these capabilities during their fieldwork experiences. They will be agents for reproducing the past. Finally, this study lends weight to the proposition that increasing exposure to the “practical” environment of the schools and the “experience” of teachers alone are insufficient for producing effective teachers. Similarly, It can be argued that teachers alone are insufficient for the repositioning of schools or the education system demanded by policy initiatives universally. This conclusion places a heavy strategic importance on the theoretical element of “partnership”, its features and its implications for schools and universities. The concept of partnership requires detailed design and logistical finesse if it is to deal with the findings of the teacher education literature. Neither schools nor universities nor their associated accreditation agencies are fit for the purpose of developing tomorrow’s teachers, locked as they are into yesterday’s assumptions, mindsets

and operating

principles. If this proposition has only part veracity, it still implies that a major overhaul of the arrangements in place in Australia and probably elsewhere, is long overdue. These features were recognised in Program 2 program even if they were not fully operationalized at the time of the cited studies. Since then, we have developed a fuller treatment of the theoretical elements of “syndication” (????) that shows how teacher education could be provided under different structural conditions, a different mindset and very likely, at less cost.

References Abbott, J. & Ryan, T. (1998). Making the Case: Understanding the Disconnects that Explain Why Good Schools Will Never be Good Enough to Meet the Learning Needs of Children in the 21st Century. House of Commons Parliamentary Monitor, May. 1998.

11

Alexander, R. (2004) Still no pedagogy? Principle, pragmatism and compliance in primary education. Cambridge Journal of Education, 34, 1, pp.7-33. Allen, J. (2008). The “Theory-Practice Gap”: Turning Theory into Practice in a Pre-Service Teacher Education Program. Unpublished thesis submitted in the Faculty of Arts, Humanities & Education, Central Queensland University, in fulfilment of the requirements of the degree of Doctor of Philosophy, p. 246. Bentley, T. (1998). Learning Beyond the Classroom: Educating for a Changing World. London: Routledge. Blogger (2006) Why no pedagogy in Ireland? A Reflection on an essay : Why no pedagogy in England. August 25. Located at http://education-inireland.blogspot.com/2006/08/why-no-pedagogy-in-ireland.html Brouwer (2007) Alternative teacher education in the Netherlands 2000–2005. A standards based Synthesis. European Journal of Teacher Education, 30, 1, pp. 21–40. Christensen, C., Raynor, M. E. (2003) The Innovator's Solution: creating and sustaining successful growth. Boston, Mass.: Harvard Business School Press. Darling-Hammond, Linda (2000) ‘Teacher Quality and Student Achievement: a review of State Policy Evidence’, Education Policy Analysis Archives, January 2000, Vol 8, No 1. Davis, S. & Botkin, J. (1995). The Monster Under the Bed: How Business Is Mastering the Opportunity of Knowledge for Profit. New York: Touchstone. Dimmock, C., (2000). The Learning Focused School. London: Falmer Press. Dinham, S., Ingvarson, L., & Kleinhenz, E. (2008) Investing In Teacher Quality: Doing What Matters Most. Business Council of Australia, April, 2008. Dooly, M., Villanueva, M. (2006) Internationalisation as a key dimension to teacher education. European Journal of Teacher Education, 29, 2, pp. 223–240. Fullan, M., (2007) The New Meaning of Educational Change. Teachers College Press. New York. Furlong, J., Barton, L., Miles, S., Whiting, C. & Whitty, G. 2000, Teacher Education in Transition: Reforming Professionalism? Open University Press, Buckingham, Philadelphia. Gladwell, M. (2002) The Tipping Point: How little things can make a big difference. Back Bay Books. New York. Darling-Hammond, L. & Bransford, J., (edt.). (2005), Preparing Teachers for a Changing World, San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Emihovich, C. (1999). Teacher Education in America: Reform Agendas for the 21st Century. Educational Policy, 13(2), 329-331

12

Hargreaves A. (2003), Teaching in a Knowledge Society, Berkshire: Mcgraw Hill Education. Hattie, J. (2009). Visible Learning: A synthesis of over 800 meta-analyses relating to achievement. London: Routledge. Hood, D. (1999, July 28). Address to the Pacific Vision Conference, paper presentation. New Zealand Ministry of Pacific Island Affairs Conference. Auckland. Retrieved 7th July, 2002 from: www.21learn.org Ingvarson, L., Beavis, A., Danielson, C., Ellis, L., Elliott, A. (2005) An Evaluation of the Bachelor of Learning Management at Central Queensland University. Final Report. Australian Council for Educational Research. Korthagen, Russell, T., & Loughran, J.J. (Eds.) (2007). Enacting a Pedagogy of Teacher Education: Values, relationships and practices. London: Routledge. Korthagen and Kessels, (1999). Linking Practice and Theory: The pedagogy of realistic teacher education. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Inc. New Jersey. Lynch, D. & Smith, R. (2002). Australian Schooling: What Future? Unicorn On-Line Refereed Articles, 17. Retrieved 9th July, 2004 from: http://www.austcolled.com.au/resourcespage.html, Lynch, D. (2004). A Comparison of the BLM and the BEd programs in the context of a Knowledge Economy. Unpublished Doctor of Education thesis, Central Queensland University: Noosa. Maandag, D.W., Deinum, J.F., Hofman, A. & Buitink, J. (2007) Teacher Education in Schools: an international comparison, European Journal of Teacher Education, 30, 2, 151-173 Marzano, R.J., Gaddy, B. B., & DEAN, C. (2000). What works in classroom instruction. Aurora, CO: Mid-continent Research for Education and Learning. Marzano, R. (1998). A Theory-Based Meta-Analysis of Research on Instruction. Aurora, CO: Mid-continent Regional Educational Laboratory. Ramsey, G. (2000). Quality matters - Revitalising teaching: critical times, critical choices. Report of the Review of Teacher Education, NSW Department of Education and Training, Sydney. Rosen, A. (2011) Change.edu: Rebooting for the new talent economy. Kaplan Publishing: Dubai Sachs, J., & Groundwater-Smith, S. (2006). The changing landscape of teacher education in Australia. Teaching and Teacher Education. 15(2), 215-227. Simon, B. (1981) Why no pedagogy in England? in: B. Simon & W. Taylor (Eds) Education in the eighties: the central issues. London: Batsford, pp. 124–145. Smith, R. (2000). The Future of Teacher Education: Principles and Prospects. Asia-Pacific Journal of Teacher Education, 28(1). 7-28.

13

Smith, R., Lynch, D., & Mienczakowski, J. (2003). The Bachelor of Learning Management and Capability: Why we do not prepare teachers anymore. Change: Transformations in Education, 6(2), Retrieved from: http://ses.library.usyd.edu.au/bitstream/2123/4497/1/Vol6No2Article2.pdf Smith, R., & Lynch, D. (2010). Rethinking Teacher Education: Teacher education in a knowledge age. Sydney: AACLM Press. Spendlove, D., Howes, A., Wake, G. 2010. Partners in Pedagogy. European Journal of Teacher Education. Vol. 33, no. 1: 65–77 Stephenson, J. (1992). Capability and Quality in Higher Education. In J. Stephenson & S. Weil (Eds.), Quality in Learning: A Capability Approach to Higher Education. London: Kogan Page. Stephenson, J. (1999). Corporate Capability: Implications for the Style and Direction of Work-based Learning. Retrieved 7th July, 2003 from: www1.11e.mdx.ac.uk/iclml.asp Tom, A. (1997). Redesigning Teacher Education. Albany, New York: State University of New York Press. Topper, A.G. (2000). Teachers' beliefs about technology, teaching, learning, and their role in shaping plans for classroom technology use. USA: GVSU School of Education. Available [email protected] Tryggvason, M-T. (2009) Why is Finnish teacher education successful? Some goals Finnish teacher educators have for their teaching. European Journal of Teacher Education. Vol. 32, No. 4, 369–382. Wehmeyer, M. Palmer, S., Agran, M., Mithaug, D., & Martin, J. (2000). Promoting causal agency: The self-determined learning model of instruction. Exceptional Children, (66)4, 439-453.

14