1 / 32

Practicum Partnership

Practicum Partnership. SA Model of Practicum Partnership between Schools of Teacher Education. Presented at NAFEA Conference 2008 by Jenny Cox & Jane Mitchell – Tabor Adelaide, SA. “FINDERS / KEEPERS”. “Finders/Keepers”. RULES Game 1

lani
Télécharger la présentation

Practicum Partnership

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Practicum Partnership SA Model of Practicum Partnership between Schools of Teacher Education Presented at NAFEA Conference 2008 by Jenny Cox & Jane Mitchell – Tabor Adelaide, SA

  2. “FINDERS / KEEPERS”

  3. “Finders/Keepers” RULES Game 1 • FINDERS need to get rid of as many of their coloured cards as possible by exchanging them for a ‘blue’ KEEPERS card. • FINDERS may not exchange cards with another FINDER. • KEEPERS may choose whether or not they will exchange cards with FINDERS. • KEEPERS may or may not give reasons for not exchanging cards.

  4. “Finders/Keepers” RULES Game 2 • FINDERS may only swap cards with their designated KEEPER: A – yellow B – green C – red D – orange • Yellow, green and red FINDERS may approach orange FINDERS, to get permission to swap cards with D also. • KEEPERS – it may or may not be to your advantage to swap cards

  5. A Partnership is… …a formal agreement between two or more entities who work together in pursuit of common goals;1 …a relationship between individuals or groups that is characterized by mutual cooperation and responsibility, as for the achievement of a specified goal.2

  6. Partnering… with whom? • Pre-service Teachers • Sites – Mentor Teachers, Site Coordinators • University Liaison Staff • Governing bodies eg. Teachers Registration Board of South Australia, Department of Education and Children’s Services, Catholic Education, Lutheran Education Australia, Association of Independent Schools of SA

  7. Have you thought about… partnering with other universities/colleges?

  8. “The Enemy” What is your perception of other universities or colleges?

  9. “The Enemy” • Do you have an existing relationship with other providers (universities/colleges)? • Would you like more people ‘on your side’? • Do you want a bigger ‘voice’?

  10. SA Model of Practicum Partnership • The current group was established in 2000 • Teacher Education course providers in SA: • Flinders University • Adelaide University • University of South Australia • Tabor Adelaide • Established to discuss issues relating to Professional Experience arising from concerns voiced by sites

  11. SA Model of Practicum Partnership Concerns from Sites: • Receive multiple requests from several providers of Teacher Education • Variety of programs • Varying time frames of practicum (duration and the school term)

  12. SA Model of Practicum Partnership How can this process be rationalised? How can we limit the number of requests to sites?

  13. SA Model of Practicum Partnership Solution: • Allocate specific sites to each School of Teacher Education • Establish protocols between Schools of Teacher Education

  14. SA Model of Practicum Partnership So…. How was this achieved?

  15. SA Model of Practicum Partnership University/College representatives sat down and went through the list of all schools in the metropolitan and greater metropolitan areas and with: • Collaboration, • Cooperation, and • Compromise, were able to allocate sites to each university.

  16. SA Model of Practicum Partnership Initially, the primary schools were nominally placed with each provider depending on factors such as: • Relationships already established • Location • Specific course areas (eg. early childhood, language specialties, etc)

  17. Gawler Approximate area included in SA Practicum Partnership for professional experience in primary schools Murray Bridge Victor Harbor

  18. SA Model of Practicum Partnership This, however, was just a starting point. A letter of explanation about the new Practicum Partnership was sent to sites. The various school systems and sites themselves had, and still have, a choice about whether or not they would participate in the partnership arrangement and work with the nominated School of Teacher Education.

  19. SA Model of Practicum Partnership These arrangements were not designed to exclude access to a particular site by pre-service teachers from other providers, but to provide a framework around which we can be guided. The ‘home provider’ can approach the other providers as necessary for specific requests.

  20. SA Model of Practicum Partnership We aim to work with the other providers, not against them.

  21. SA Model of Practicum Partnership So what are the ongoing concerns of the Practicum Partnership?

  22. SA Model of Practicum Partnership Ongoing Concerns: • Review partnership sites – swapping, adding, deleting as required • Work with key stakeholders eg. DECS, TRB to ensure their requirements are being met as far as Professional Experience in concerned, and providing them periodically with statistics • Provide support for each other • Share information

  23. SA Model of Practicum Partnership Ongoing Concerns (cont): • We are a central body to which members and others can address issues • Review reporting procedures and changes to requirements • Brief other providers on major course changes which may affect them.

  24. SA Model of Practicum Partnership Currently, this partnership is intended for Primary placements only. It was deemed neither necessary nor practical at the initial set up of the partnership that secondary placements be approached in the same way due to the specific nature of student placement requirements with regard to subject majors. Some secondary schools, however, have chosen to work with just one or two universities for reasons outlined previously.

  25. SA Model of Practicum Partnership Positives: • Sites receive only one set of requests for placements to be considered each semester or year • Effective communication is established with one School of Teacher Education regarding practicum placements and management of the in-school program • Sites become familiar with the timing, structure, expectations, assessment and reporting of programs

  26. SA Model of Practicum Partnership Positives (cont): • Cost effective - time, money, emotional energy • Simplified processing of claims for payment of supervising personnel • Clustering of pre-service teachers in sites will facilitate effective practicum supervision and peer interaction • Schools of Teacher Education work together and not in competition so much which builds positive relationships

  27. SA Model of Practicum Partnership Positives (cont): • United voice when facing issues eg. Government requirement regarding the number of practicum days • All sites on the master list are approached each year – no site gets forgotten!

  28. SA Model of Practicum Partnership Negatives: • Site Supervisor might move to another school • Limited resources – allocated sites may not have the required placement eg. specific year level for a particular pre-service teacher • Site wanting to select which provider(s) they associate with • Some schools react negatively to the concept of being “owned”.

  29. SA Model of Practicum Partnership Conclusion: Overall, we have found that the benefits gained from this partnership far outweigh the time and effort taken to establish it. We have formed a collaborative, cooperative system where members are respected and encouraged. As a result of the Practicum Partnership, relationships have been strengthened between the sites and individual Schools of Teacher Education, and between the Schools of Education themselves.

  30. Group Session How might this model work for your situation? Arrange yourselves in State/Regional groups.

  31. Group Session Questions to Consider: • What is your current catchment area? • What would be your ideal working relationship with a school? • Who are the stakeholders in your particular region? • What impacts do your placements have on other universities/colleges? Eg. Regional areas • How much do other states impact on you? Do you really know? • Can the SA model be implemented in your particular circumstances?

  32. SA Model of Practicum Partnership References: • (2004-2008) Definition of Partnership [online] SVPM, Montreal http://www.spvm.qc.ca/EN/service/1_5_3_1_definition-partenariat.asp [Accessed 14 Nov 2008] • (2008) Definition: Partnership [online] Free Dictionary by Farlex Inc. http://www.thefreedictionary.com/partnership [Accessed 14 Nov 2008] • (2000-2008) Atlas of South Australia [online] Government of South Australia http://www.atlas.sa.gov.au/images/RRegMaps2Adelaide.jpg [Accessed 14 Nov 2008]

More Related