The School–University Nexus and Degrees of Partnership in Initial Teacher Education

Figures & data

Figure 1. Continuum of school-university co-operation in Norway (Smith 2016, 28).

Table 1. Representations of partnership practice (Adapted from Jones et al. 2016, 16).

	A. Purposes	B. Institutional Structures	C. Nature of Partnership	D. Linking theory with practice
Connective	Engagement based on provision of curriculum or other service need.	Partnership activities are short-term and opportunistic and sit within existing structure.	Both partners provide short-term services with a focus on one partner’s needs but with mutual benefits and value for all.	Both partners recognise schools as important sites for PSTs to link theory and practice
Generative	Partners recognise opportunities for mutual professional learning.	Partnership activities are considered long term and are planned and catered for in the teacher education and school programmes	Partners jointly plan the structure of the school-based practices to the benefit of both.	Opportunities exist for both partners to reflect on practice that may be linked to theory.
Transformative	Partner involvement based on active professional learning	Partnerships are embedded in the ongoing structures and practices of the institutions.	Partners take joint responsibility for mutually agreed practices and outcomes that are embedded in their respective core outcomes.	Both partners engage explicitly in reflective inquiry guided by theories of professional identity development

Table 2. Summary of school types included in the study and related codes.

School	School type	Code
1	Voluntary Secondary School /DEIS/Co-Educational	S1
2	Voluntary Secondary School /Non DEIS/Non-Fee-Paying/All Girls	S2
3	Voluntary Secondary School /Non DEIS/Non-Fee-Paying/All Boys	S3
4	Voluntary Secondary School /Non DEIS/Fee-Paying /Co-Educational	S4
5	Voluntary Secondary School /Non DEIS/Fee-Paying /All Boys	S5
6	ETB: Community College/DEIS/Co-Educational	S6
7	ETB: Community College/Non DEIS/Co-Educational	S7
8	Community and Comprehensive School/Non DEIS/All Girls	S8
9	Community and Comprehensive School/Non-DEIS /Co-Educational	S9
10	Community and Comprehensive School /DEIS/Co-Educational	S10

Table 3. Participant type and codes.

Participant	Code
Co-Operating Teacher	CT
Student Teacher	ST
School Leader	SL
University Tutor	UT

Smith, K. 2016. “Partnerships in Teacher Education-Going Beyond the Rhetoric, with Reference to the Norwegian Context.” CEPS Journal: Center for Educational Policy Studies Journal 6 (3): 17–36.

 Google Scholar

Jones, M., L. Hobbs, J. Kenny, C. Campbell, G. Chittleborough, and A. Gilbert. 2016. “Successful University-school Partnerships: An Interpretive Framework to Inform Partnership Practice.” Teacer Education 60: 108–120. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2016.08.006.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar