Authors
- Baklashova Tatiana Aleksandrovna PhD in Pedagogy, Associate Professor
Annotation
The relevance of the study is due to the potential and importance of schooluniversity partnership in the context of growing criticism of the teacher education quality
in different countries of the world. Developed school-university partnership allows graduate student teachers to gain practical skills, provides a successful start to their professional activity. In this regard, it is important to study foreign experience of school-university partnership, to compare domestic and foreign school-university partnership’ models to identify and justify their invariants and specifics. The main methods used in this research were comparative and descriptive ones, as well as the method of the informal interviews. The author analyzed and compared normative and methodological documents on organizing practicum for graduate student teachers of two universities (Kazan Federal University (Russia) and the University of Glasgow (Scotland)), planned and conducted informal conversations with mentors, tutors of students, as well as designers of programs and methodological support for practicum. This paper determines the features, attributes and characteristics of the school-university partnership models according to such parameters as professional and social responsibility of school-university partnership participants, their interaction within its framework and functional duties; the curricula aspect and the procedural one of the student teachers practicum; the assessment of practicum’s results. The author identified and justified the invariants and specifics of Russian and Scottish models of graduate student teachers’ practicum. This paper’s materials could help to improve the school-university partnership models.
How to link insert
Baklashova, T. A. (2022). COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS OF SCHOOL – UNIVERSITY PARTNERSHIP MODELS: PRACTICUM OF STUDENT TEACHERS Bulletin of the Moscow City Pedagogical University. Series "Pedagogy and Psychology", 16(1), 162. https://doi.org/10.25688/2076-9121.2022.16.1.09
References
1.
1. Darling-Hammond, L. (2000). How teacher education matters. Journal of teacher education, 51(3), 166–173. http://doi.org/10.1177/0022487100051003002
2.
2. Furlong, J., Cochran-Smith, M., & Brennan, M. (Eds.). (2013). Policy and politics in teacher education: International perspectives. Routledge.
3.
3. Panina, T. S., & Vavilova, L. N. (2011). The state and prospects of development of modern pedagogical education. Professional education in Russia and abroad, 4, 45–51. URL: https://www.elibrary.ru/download/elibrary_17030453_88487374.pdf
4.
4. Darling-Hammond, L., & Baratz-Snowden, J. (2007). A good teacher in every classroom: Preparing the highly qualified teachers our children deserve. Educational Horizons, 85(2), 111–132.
5.
5. Mellita, J., Hobbs, L., Kenny, J., Campbell, C., Chittleborough, G. D., Gilbert, A., Herbert, S., & Redman, C. (2016). Successful university-school partnerships: An interpretive framework to inform partnership practice. Teaching and Teacher Education, 60, 108–120. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2016.08.006
6.
6. Korthagen, F. (2001). Teacher education: A problematic enterprise. In Linking practice and theory (pp. 17–35). Routledge.
7.
7. Zeichner, K. (2010). Rethinking the connections between campus courses and field experiences in college-and university-based teacher education. Journal of teacher education, 61(1–2), 89–99. http://doi.org/10.1177/0022487109347671
8.
8. Vanassche, E., & Kelchtermans, G. (2014). Teacher educators’ professionalism in practice: Positioning theory and personal interpretative framework. Teaching and Teacher Education, 44, 117–127. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2014.08.006
9.
9. Grossman, P., Hammerness, K., & McDonald, M. (2009). Redefining teaching, re‐imagining teacher education. Teachers and Teaching: theory and practice, 15(2), 273–289. http://doi.org/10.1080/13540600902875340
10.
10. Craven, G., Beswick, K., Fleming, J., Fletcher, T., Green, M., Jensen, B., Leinonen, E., & Rickards, F. (2014). Action now: Classroom ready teachers. Teacher Education Ministerial Advisory Group. https://www.aitsl.edu.au/docs/default-source/default-documentlibrary/action_now_classroom_ready_teachers_accessible-(1)da178891b1e86477b58fff-00006709da.pdf?sfvrsn=9bffec3c_0
11.
11. Darling-Hammond, L. (2012). Powerful teacher education: Lessons from exemplary programs. John Wiley & Sons.
12.
12. OECD, 2014. Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. TALIS 2013 results: An international perspective on teaching and learning.
13.
13. Patrick, C., Peach, D., Pocknee, C., Webb, F., Fletcher, M., & Pretto, G. (2008). The WIL (Work Integrated Learning) report: A national scoping study. Queensland University of Technology.
14.
14. Darling-Hammond, L. (2005). Teaching as a profession: Lessons in teacher preparation and professional development. Phi delta kappan, 87(3), 237–240. http://doi.org/10.1177/003172170508700318
15.
15. Russell, T., & Korthagen, F. (1995). Teachers Who Teach Teachers: Reflections on Teacher Education. London: Routledge.
16.
16. Darling-Hammond, L. (2006). Constructing 21st-century teacher education. Journal of teacher education, 57(3), 300–314. http://doi.org/10.1177/0022487105285962
17.
17. Zeichner, K. M., & Liston, D. P. (2013). Reflective teaching: An introduction. Routledge.
18.
18. Ure, C., & Gough, A. (2009). Practicum Partnerships: Exploring Models of Practicum Organisation in Teacher Education for a Standards Based Profession: Final Report. Sydney: Australian Learning and Teaching Council.
19.
19. Masalimova A. R. (2013). Corporate training of mentors. Kazan: Print-Service XXI century.
20.
20. Rennie, L. J., Goodrum, D., & Hackling, M. (2001). Science teaching and learning in Australian schools: Results of a national study. Research in Science Education, 31(4), 455–498. http://doi.org/10.1023/A:1013171905815
21.
21. Furlong, J., & Barton, L. (2000). Teacher education in transition. London: Open University.
22.
22. Kruger, T., Davies, A. C., Eckersley B., Newell, F. & Cherednichenko, B. (2009). Effective and sustainable university-school partnerships: Beyond determined efforts by inspired individuals. Canberra: Teaching Australia.
23.
23. Jackson, A., & Burch, J. (2018). New directions for teacher education: Investigating school/university partnership in an increasingly school-based context. Professional development in education, 45(2), 1–13. http://doi.org/10.1080/19415257.2018.1449002
24.
24. Ferraz, O. L., Vidoni, C., & Boas, M. V. (2021). Bridging the gap between theory and practice: the impact of school–university partnership in a PETE program. Sport, Education and Society, 26(7), 788–799. http://doi.org/10.1080/13573322.2020.1851182
25.
25. Heinz, M., & Fleming, M. (2019). Leading Change in Teacher Education: Balancing on the Wobbly Bridge of School-University Partnership. European Journal of Educational Research, 8(4), 1295–1306. http://doi.org/10.12973/eu-jer.8.4.1295
26.
26. Nikolaeva, M. V. (2018). School-university partnership in the training of primary school teachers in the implementation of the main professional educational program at the master’s degree level. Proceedings of the Volgograd State Pedagogical University, 2(125), 123–128.
27.
27. Zemlyanskaya, E. N., & Bezborodova, M. A. (2021). Modeling of practical training of students-teachers in the conditions of school-university partnership. Pedagogy. Questions of theory and practice, 6(1), 26–29. http://doi.org/10.30853/ped210018