This article was downloaded by: [George Mason University]On: 17 December 2014, At: 19:52Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number:1072954 Registered office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street,London W1T 3JH, UK

Asia-Pacific Journal ofTeacher EducationPublication details, including instructions forauthors and subscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/capj20

Connecting Classroomsin Pre-service Education:Conversations for learningSue Graham a & Christina Thornley aa University of Otago , New ZealandPublished online: 09 Jun 2010.

To cite this article: Sue Graham & Christina Thornley (2000) ConnectingClassrooms in Pre-service Education: Conversations for learning, Asia-PacificJournal of Teacher Education, 28:3, 235-245, DOI: 10.1080/713650697

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/713650697

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of allthe information (the “Content”) contained in the publications on ourplatform. However, Taylor & Francis, our agents, and our licensorsmake no representations or warranties whatsoever as to the accuracy,completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Anyopinions and views expressed in this publication are the opinions andviews of the authors, and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor& Francis. The accuracy of the Content should not be relied upon andshould be independently verified with primary sources of information.Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims,proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilitieswhatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly inconnection with, in relation to or arising out of the use of the Content.

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private studypurposes. Any substantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution,reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in any

form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms & Conditions of accessand use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Geo

rge

Mas

on U

nive

rsity

] at

19:

52 1

7 D

ecem

ber

2014

Asia-Paci® c Journal of Teacher Education, Vol. 28, No. 3, 2000

Connecting Classrooms in Pre-service Education:conversations for learning

SUE GRAHAM & CHRISTINA THORNLEY, University of Otago, New Zealand

ABSTRACT Many students enter pre-service education programmes believing that their prac-

tical learning experiences will occur in schools and that their theoretical learning experiences will

occur in the university or college setting. Research shows that frequently student teachers retain

this perception throughout their programmes without acknowledging the interplay of theory and

practice in their learning. Through the use of communication technologies, student teachers

participating in the Bachelor of Teaching degree at the University of Otago are encouraged to

make connections between the activities in their university-based classes and those of classrooms

in primary schools. Frequent dialogue through fax, audio-conference and e-mail between

student teachers based in the university and children and their teachers in classrooms enables

them to access the thinking of children and teachers, and provides additional opportunities to

theorise their practice and practise their theory. Student teachers are provided with a range of

opportunities to explore the potential of information technologies in education while interacting

with children and teachers beyond the traditional practicum experience. The use of technology

to connect student teachers to learners in classrooms challenges the conventional teacher

education curriculum.

Introduction

With the introduction of the Bachelor of Teaching degree in 1998 at the University ofOtago came the opportunity to design a learning environment and a curriculum forstudents that would prepare them as critically re¯ ective primary school teachers. Fromthe outset, the degree was divided into strands to include subject studies, educationstudies, curriculum studies and the practicum. The responsibility for the design of thesubject studies and education studies strands was placed with the existing academicstaff members of the University. The major area of design responsibility for the newlyappointed professional staff was that of the curriculum studies and practicum papers.Recent experience as primary school teachers dominated their beliefs and knowledgeabout curriculum design and effective learning environments. Their desire to emulatethe interactive pedagogies of their colleagues in schools in¯ uenced their approach toboth the content and processes employed in the planning and teaching of these papers.

The degree structure re¯ ected a traditional model of teacher education, with blockpracticum placements in schools occurring on either side of university semester papers.The restrictions of this arrangement provided the challenge to design a curriculum thattranscended the boundaries of the school and university settings. It was perceived thatinformation technology would provide opportunities to develop links between peopleworking and learning in schools and the University. This article examines the mannerin which the technology was utilised to develop conversations between children,student teachers and teachers in universities and schools.

ISSN 1359-866X print; ISSN 1469-2945 online/00/030235-11

Ó 2000 Australian Teacher Education Association

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Geo

rge

Mas

on U

nive

rsity

] at

19:

52 1

7 D

ecem

ber

2014

236 S. Graham & C. Thornley

Constructing a Socially Interactive Curriculum for Student Teachers

For many teachers, the recent New Zealand curriculum reform experiences had led toincreasing feelings of frustration, fuelled by their perceived exclusion from the curricu-lum development process (Thornley, 1999). This process had resulted in their receiving® ve new national curriculum statements for classroom implementation in 7 years,precluding space and agency for teacher critique. Some teachers believed that there hadbeen insuf® cient attention to their role as curriculum constructors, rather that they wereexpected to implement the documents unquestioningly. The curriculum had beenportrayed in New Zealand, as in the UK, as a `given’ rather than a `social artifact’

(Goodson, 1993). The professional staff members designing the Bachelor of Teachingpapers determined that a teacher’ s ability to study and re¯ ect upon curriculum practicemay, in fact, free them from their role of teacher as technician, a routinized andtrivialized deliverer of predestined packages’ (Goodson, 1994, p. 7). They believed thatthe student teachers required a programme to encourage critical practice and the abilityto adapt the curriculum in response to the children’s needs, and further, that theseneeds would be identi® ed from an authentic engagement with children as individuals.The goal of the Bachelor of Teaching graduate pro® le, which identi® ed a studentteacher as having the ability to `continually interrogate the curriculum and viewthemselves as curriculum makers in collaboration with their students, their colleaguesand the wider school community’ , demanded socially interactive and critical curricu-lum approaches. Such socially-oriented learning approaches required student teachersto experience `instruction as enacted practice’ (Koschmann 1996, p. 16) in acollaborative learning environment.

In their matrix of three curriculum orientations, Kemmis et al. (1998) identify arange of topics and the stances re¯ ected through each orientation. Aspects of thesocially critical strand focusing on interactive dialogue support a notion of conversationas a means to implement a curriculum that is responsive to children. The teacher±student relationship casts the teacher as `coordinator with an emancipatory aim, [and]involves students in negotiation about common tasks and projects’ (Kemmis et al.,1998, p. 143). The knowledge is seen to evolve from a co-construction of sociallysigni® cant experiences and dialogue. For Freire (1998), the students’ world-viewconstitutes an indisputable cornerstone for the construction of their learning experi-ences. For student teachers, `Their learning lies in their seeking to become involved inthe student’ s curiosity’ (p. 17). Accessing this world-view is dependent upon theestablishment of a `dialogical relation’ . The challenge in a socially interactive teachereducation curriculum is to provide opportunities for student teachers to understandhow they may in fact establish such relations with children from within a universityenvironment (see Fig. 1).

Bridging Theory and Practice, Connecting the School and University Settings

Teacher education research examining student teachers’ perceptions of their learning inthe school and university settings frequently illustrates the dichotomy that exists forthem. In identifying their views of knowledge acquisition, student teachers invariablyrelate theory to the university setting and practice to the school settings. For thisreason, they are unlikely to make the links between the two facets of their newlyaccumulated knowledge, experiencing dif® culty in their attempts to relate theory totheir teaching practicum. `Prospective teachers need help in forging theory± practice

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Geo

rge

Mas

on U

nive

rsity

] at

19:

52 1

7 D

ecem

ber

2014

Connecting Student Teachers with Classrooms 237

FIG. 1. Constructing a socially interactive curriculum for student teachers.

links’ (Tom, 1997, p. 141). Kane (1995) identi® ed the challenge for teacher educatorsin this respect to be:

to bridge the gulf between thinking and practice, and thereby facilitate thepre-service student’s ability to link the propositional knowledge of theiruniversity based courses and the procedural knowledge of their developingclassroom practice. (Kane, 1995)

While this problem initially may be viewed as knowledge in different settings, Burbules(1993) suggests that discussions of theory and practice are erroneous when consideredsimply in this manner. He warns that such discussions may promote a perception of`two realms of activity when what they actually indicate is the gulf that exists betweenthe two groups of people engaged in different (potentially related) endeavours’ (p. 16).Further, these discussions may prioritise one over the other `among those who deni-grate the value of the ivory tower and assume that experience and a make-it-up as yougo attitude can substitute for academic learning’ (p. 17).

Drawing on ® ndings of related research, it is apparent that overcoming the di-chotomy requires more than simply linking theory and practice by using informationtechnology to connect those people in the university and school settings. The develop-ment of a mutual respect between these people and the provision of accessibleknowledge acquisition opportunities are essential elements of productive learningexperiences. Therefore, it requires the development of a communication process for theparticipants, as described in Burbule’ s conception of dialogical relations:

It (only) assumes that people are committed to a process of communicationdirected toward interpersonal understanding and that they hold, or are willing

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Geo

rge

Mas

on U

nive

rsity

] at

19:

52 1

7 D

ecem

ber

2014

238 S. Graham & C. Thornley

to develop some degree of concern for, interest in and respect toward oneanother. Within this relation there is a great deal that people, howeverdifferent they might be, can do to pursue ways of speaking with and under-standing one another. (Burbules, 1993, p. 25)

Dialogue developed in this manner allows knowledge building to occur betweenlearners of different ages in school and university settings. It encourages reciprocalconversations between student teachers, children and teachers as each respects theauthority of others’ knowledge. This approach elevates the status of children in thelearning partnership with student teachers and teachers. The use of technology enablesall participants to be connected from their previously isolated settings, and createsdifferent opportunities for learning. Scardamalia & Bereiter (1994) highlight the advan-tage of using information technology to expand opportunities for classroom discourse:

In knowledge-building discourse more knowledgeable others do not standoutside the learning process (as teachers often do) but rather participateactively. Further, the knowledge of the most advanced participant does notcircumscribe what is to be learned or investigated. (p. 274)

In the Bachelor of Teaching degree, conversations between participants in the univer-sity and school settings were created and the traditional learning environments weremerged.

The Learning Environment as a Conversational Domain

In practicum experiences, student teachers are challenged to transfer what they havelearned to unique school and classroom situations. Spiro et al. (1992) consider that thisability, `cognitive ¯ exibility’ , is acquired through a learning environment in whichinformation is presented in different ways and from multiple perspectives. Linearmodels of teaching through reading or lectures are insuf® cient to convey the contentand pedagogical knowledge required for student teachers to learn the complexities ofteaching. Spiro & Jehng (1990) describe learning domains that have the featuresof content complexity and irregularity of application contexts as `ill-structureddomains’ and state that the goals of learning shift from:

(a) the attainment of super® cial familiarity with concepts and facts to the mastery ofmore important aspects of conceptual complexity, and

(b) from knowledge reproduction to knowledge use (transfer and application). (p. 165)

Therefore, the development of a learning environment in which student teachers applytheory to practice in both settings requires a more ¯ exible view of the classroom spaces.It requires the establishment of a communication culture and the desire to advanceunderstanding. Within this framework, it is no longer acceptable to use only thetraditional university lecture setting, one that is devoid of children’ s and teachers’

voices. Equally, it is no longer acceptable for teachers to work in the isolation of theirschool classrooms, where the theory underpinning their practice is inaccessible to thestudents. This necessitates the creation of a meaningful and authentic curriculumthrough which opportunities are provided for participants to engage in conversation.Socially critical curricula (Kemmis et al., 1998) weaken the boundaries of thetraditional learning environment.

In the Bachelor of Teaching, the technology was used to rede® ne the boundaries ofschools and university. Student teachers were encouraged to converse with children,

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Geo

rge

Mas

on U

nive

rsity

] at

19:

52 1

7 D

ecem

ber

2014

Connecting Student Teachers with Classrooms 239

peers and teachers as part of their learning. Their curriculum explored simple andcomplex problems and involved an active problem-solving process in which studentteachers built on prior understandings to construct new meanings from diverse experi-ences. This supports the proposition that, as learners re¯ ect on these meanings andbuild their own interpretations of the world, they will have more ownership of thosethoughts, therefore making them less likely to degenerate over time (Jonassen, 1996).

Applebee’s (1996) notion of curriculum as conversation is one approach that informsthe issue of developing a curriculum that addresses the theory and practice dichotomy.In Applebee’ s examples of high school English programmes, teachers provide thequestions to initiate the long-term learning conversations. Through this modelling,the students evolve their own questions for ongoing critical discussion. He identi® es:

the problem of curriculum planning then, is the problem of establishing aconversational domain and fostering relevant conversation within it. (p. 44)

Learning through knowledge-building discourses across settings allows student teachersto translate the `knowledge-out-of-context ’ into `knowledge-in-action’ . Through con-versation with children and teachers, their role is transformed from passive to activeparticipation and their learning from isolated to contextually situated.

Technology for Developing Knowledge-building Discourses

While information technology is creating new opportunities for children and teachers inclassrooms, various instructional strategies have been employed to introduce studentteachers to educational technologies. Frequently, `computer literacy’ courses are of-fered, attempting to inform students about instructional technology. These skills-basedcourses are open to the same criticism of inauthenticity as those conducted in thetraditional classrooms where children learn facts and rules out of context. The ap-proach adopted by the Bachelor of Teaching degree was to model the infusion oftechnological applications into the curriculum. As Tom (1997) states:

The program faculty and curriculum of a teacher education program shouldmodel the image(s) and skills of teaching that the faculty desires to fosteramong students in the program. (p. 97)

Within the curriculum studies strand, the provision of access to information technologywas seen as a natural extension and ¯ exible learning device for prospective teachers.This practice was consistent with the same kinds of rich learning environments that areadvocated for children in their classrooms, where learning experiences are situated inauthentic activities.

The technology used in the Bachelor of Teaching programme initially was compara-tively simple. While the intention was to use effective technology for communication,it was important that its use would not cause a sense of failure and despair amongst thetechnologically tentative and frequently computer illiterate participants. The use of thefax machine, e-mail, and a speaker-phone for audio-conferences allowed studentsaccess to basic equipment which, as teachers, they would be expected to use effectivelyin a classroom to support the curriculum.

Ease of access from the university setting was essential, as it was believed that thecon® dence of students would develop through acquaintance and frequent use. Audio-conferencing required a speaker-phone plugged into the telephone line in the universityclassroom, while the schools used either a conventional telephone if the conversationwas with one person, or a speaker-phone when talking with a class. The fax machine

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Geo

rge

Mas

on U

nive

rsity

] at

19:

52 1

7 D

ecem

ber

2014

240 S. Graham & C. Thornley

was situated in the university classroom along with a set of computers for e-mail access.The location of this equipment in the classroom minimised organisational problems,provided ease of access and ensured frequent usage.

A Conversation Curriculum for Student Teachers

Learning from Children

The following experiences were designed to enable the student teachers to learn fromchildren by participating in conversations with them, re¯ ecting on these events, anddiscussing the implications for themselves as teachers with their peers.

An Introductory Audio-conference

The audio-conference was set up with Year 3 and 4 children prior to a series of visitsto a school where the students worked with a Year 1 child. The goal was to assist thestudent teachers to establish dialogue with young children in order to learn about orallanguage interactions and children’s literacy learning.

In preparation for these visits, principles and techniques of questioning and conver-sation were discussed in the university class and questions were generated to ® nd outabout aspects of being a pupil at this school. Student teachers quickly became aware ofthe effectiveness (or otherwise) of particular types of questions. Frequently, questionswere asked which children responded to with very short answers, which were subse-quently followed by silence. In the absence of visual clues as a prompt for furtherinteraction, student teachers were often unsure of how to continue the conversation.

It was obvious that some communication features were highlighted by the audio-con-ference and many student teachers were directly in¯ uenced by the dif® culty of estab-lishing conversation with someone unknown. They recognised that skill was required todesign questions which would invite a good response, and they became aware of theneed to respond verbally in a manner that would help establish ongoing conversation.

After the audio-conference, there were opportunities, in the university classroom, torevisit the episode and examine it immediately. It was possible to discuss techniques forconversation and to rehearse alternative ways of responding to both the predictable andunexpected responses that the children had given. Different forms of questioningtechniques were considered and the purposes and consequences explored.

Written Communication by Fax or Letter

Prior to the series of visits to learn about language with Year 1 children, studentteachers also wrote a letter of introduction to the child or children with whom theywould work. Some student teachers had not anticipated how this contact would affectthe children, nor were they aware of the value that the written communication providedas a starter for conversation during their initial meeting with their assigned buddy:

I started the session by asking if they had received the letters sent. They both showed

me and were very excited about receiving mail. In my letter I had written that I was

going to bring photos of my dog and cat and Emily was very eager to see them. Alex

was surprised to see a photo of my cat and dog cuddled up together as he thought cats

and dogs hated each other. By questioning I discovered all his experiences of cats and

dogs living in the same home together, not being one of success. This proves to me

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Geo

rge

Mas

on U

nive

rsity

] at

19:

52 1

7 D

ecem

ber

2014

Connecting Student Teachers with Classrooms 241

that children learn through their own experiences and our job is to open the way to

new learning for them. I hadn’t realised just how important the letters were to them.

The next letter I send will thank them both and have a copy of the wall chart

included. (Student teacher)

When we got there the ® rst thing he said was, `I got your letter’ and then he showed

me where he had stuck it into his story book and written a story about `Miss Johnston

and Spot coming to visit’ . I was so touched that a simple letter could mean so much

to a young 5 or 6 year old boy but I didn’t express it enough, I simply read the story

and said it was great. Looking back on it now I wish I got Jonathon to read the story

to me and we could have talked more about it which would have shown how much

I appreciated his work. (because of this I wrote a letter that night saying how much

I enjoyed working with him and posted it the next morning.) (Student teacher)

Most children were excited by the written contact and were motivated to write backimmediately, which gave additional purpose to the written language programme of theclass. The students shared this excitement when they received their replies in theuniversity classroom. The establishment of dialogue between these learning partnerswas viewed to be powerful by the student teachers, who gained insight and access to thethinking of children through the actual experience. As a consequence of the experience,they added to their understanding of children as learners.

Audio-conference: children’s perception of mathematics

This audio-conference was conducted as part of the student teachers’ curriculummathematics programme. The aim was to introduce them to the notion that childrenhave ideas and understandings about their mathematics learning, and that they applytheir knowledge in an integrated manner within the in¯ uence of other curriculum areas.The student teachers had been introduced to theoretical issues and appeared somewhatunconvinced that children whose mathematics programme encouraged problem-solv-ing and the practical application of mathematical concepts to their everyday life wouldbe enthusiastic in their approach to mathematics.

The impact of the ® rst question, the answer to which the students at universityobviously could not see, was impressive. In response to `How many people really lovedoing maths?’ 24 of the 27 hands were raised. This positive response from childrenindicated that mathematics teaching had obviously changed since most students werethemselves primary school pupils. It left questions in the minds of students about howthe teacher’s approach must be different from that experienced in their own schoolingexperience, and which understandings and skills they would need to develop to createtheir own classroom environment where children could adopt such positive attitudes tomathematics. This experience reinforced their theoretical knowledge and contributedto student teachers modifying their thinking about mathematics.

For the university teachers, the excitement came from watching the student teachers’

faces:

I couldn’ t believe how they became so intent in their listening when children started

talking. The children’ s responses especially about how they used maths in their every

day lives at home, in the playground and at school were so varied. We couldn’t have

given the students that understanding without the children’s voices. It made our work

and what we were saying real. (University teacher)

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Geo

rge

Mas

on U

nive

rsity

] at

19:

52 1

7 D

ecem

ber

2014

242 S. Graham & C. Thornley

The children’ s voices gave life and reality to the theoretical concepts introduced earlierin university classes.

E-mail

This project aimed to develop personal skills for using e-mail, and through its use, tomake a learning link between the university classroom and a classroom in schools. Eachstudent was allocated a child whom they did not know and with whom they wererequired to establish communication through e-mail.

The e-mail dialogue became a major assignment for students and created opportuni-ties for them to learn more about children and to gain an appreciation of the realitiesof classroom programmes, including the management of information technology forchildren. The students were challenged to reconsider their assumptions about thefollowing.

School and classroom life:

I assumed that her lack of replies meant that she was not interested in responding,

or perhaps just too busy. I assumed that she would get the messages, but later I found

out that the school only had one computer so she may never have received them. My

assumption of school life there was based on my previous experiences at other schools,

so in future I will try not to assume that all schools are the same. (Student teacher)

Their role and responsibility in the learning partnership with children:

I have this feeling that just because this assignment is ® nished, I can’t say `OK

Jackie, you have served your purpose, now it’ s over.’ This doesn’ t sit right with me.

How will this make the children feel who have taken part? Will they understand and

feel OK about not hearing from their buddies any more? Is it OK for us teacher

trainees, to ® nish something just when it suits us, because it no longer counts as

marks? As I look around me, I am wondering at this stage of our training, if we are

really thinking about the children, and the impact our actions (or lack of) have on

them. Everything we do, everything we say, our body language etc all play a

signi® cant part in in¯ uencing children’ s learning. We need to cherish each contact

and respect the opportunities these children have given us to help us to build onto our

learning as well as the children’s learning. (Student teacher)

Taking risks as learners:

I can see some teachers would give up or not even try anything different because of

the problems that may occur. If the teacher was not of the critical re¯ ecting breed of

teacher, maybe the willingness to try new things would be lost. This `new stuff’

(because it’ s outside the norm and comfort zones) would be put in the too hard basket

and they would just stick to what is tried and known.

I think it is good for all of us to continually do activities outside our comfort zones.

After all that is what we ask children to do every day. (Student teacher)

Establishing effective conversations with children:

It has also made me think about how hard it is for children to try and communicate

with someone they hardly know. Not only is it hard for the children but also for us.

However I think this was what was so good about the assignment, the fact that we

were given a student to interact with who we had never met and therefore had to ® nd

something that we had in common. In the classroom especially when you are an

observer there are some children who you may ® nd it really hard to talk/work with

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Geo

rge

Mas

on U

nive

rsity

] at

19:

52 1

7 D

ecem

ber

2014

Connecting Student Teachers with Classrooms 243

and therefore although you know you shouldn’t, you tend to avoid them. (Studentteacher)

Email allowed us to communicate and get to know children without preconceived

ideas about these children and their learning, abilities and life. (Student teacher)

The following student’s desire for contact with schools and children was heartening.Her belief in the potential of information technology to develop the communicationprocess was demonstrated through the class audio-conference that she organised duringher practicum. While she recognised the ongoing bene® ts of working between settings,there was little evidence yet that she is linking her theoretical and practical learning:

I found it good to have a link with a student and a school. At times it seems we are

doing more theory than practical and it was good to have a real life contact with a

living studentÐ even if in my case it was limited! It did give me an insight into the

everyday workings of a classroom from a student point of view, which was good.

(Student teacher)

Conclusion

The use of technology provided opportunities for conversations not otherwise availableby connecting the community of learners, the children, student teachers and teachers,by extending the walls of the university classroom. The usual face-to-face communica-tive cues were not present using this technology for dialogue, so that the content of themessage and the language used to convey meaning became paramount and a reciprocityin roles was created. The notion that children could become the `more knowledgeableothers’ through the use of technology was supported throughout the student teachers’

curriculum. Traditional roles were questioned as the technology was used to grantagency to anyone in the role of `expert’ , irrespective of their age and status. Studentteachers recognised that their own ideas and understandings of teaching and schoolsrequired further examination as a result of the communication experiences. Thedawning realisation that their preconceived assumptions based upon their ownschool experiences would be challenged highlighted the need for varied experiences incommunicating with people in schools.

While the technology was used to link the settings, the linking of the participants ineffective learning conversations was not an inevitable outcome. It became apparent thata culture for conversation needed to be developed to link the people and theirknowledge. The dialogue in a `pedagogical communicative relation’ (Burbules, 1993)provided opportunities for new understandings for all participants. The student teach-ers’ comments reinforced that it could not be assumed that the participants had theexperience and skill to establish the learning conversations, or that they shared acommon language to allow this to occur. Heshusius (1995, p. 121) identi® ed thedif® culties in establishing conversation and listening to children as the outcome ofpersonal boundaries: it is about boundaries we habitually draw around the self in orderto keep ourselves separate and distinct from the other’ . For student teachers makingconnections with others beyond the self, particularly from outside their peer group, theestablishment of effective conversation had to be learned. The consequent issues wereutilised by university teachers for ongoing discussion and further learning. As thestudent teachers learned about the complexities of teaching and children as learners, itwas necessary to model questions and language for effective conversation. Similarly,

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Geo

rge

Mas

on U

nive

rsity

] at

19:

52 1

7 D

ecem

ber

2014

244 S. Graham & C. Thornley

it was necessary to provide scaffolds to facilitate the student teachers’ learningconversations that would help them in forming rede® ned relationships.

The student teachers certainly needed to know `what buttons to push’ to make thetechnology function, but for the communicative process to function effectively it wasessential that they were aware of the need to develop language skills to engage incurricular conversations which could connect them with other learners. The technologyused was simple. It was deliberately chosen to introduce ® rst-year student teachers toeducational technology and to establish them as participants within a communicationculture. This technology was available in schools and the university classroom. As wepredicted, some student teachers experienced it as unfamiliar and overwhelming,although it was within the scope which they would be expected to use as teachers intheir classrooms. Its potential immediacy, ¯ exibility and availability were dependentupon the technical and management considerations which facilitate thecommunication, and which remained in¯ uential in the underlying effectiveness of itsuse.

The initial goal of using information technology to bridge the theory± practice dividethrough linking the two settings was further developed through the approach adoptedin the curriculum studies papers of the Bachelor of Teaching degree. The intention wasto use these activities not just as a conduit to talk across barriers, but to establishlearning conversations between participants. At the end of the ® rst year of the pro-gramme, it was not possible to say how the student teachers’ views of theory andpractice had been altered by the communication. The planned introduction of increas-ingly complex technology throughout the years will provide a challenge to the studentteachers in mastering the technology. However, the success of the interactions willcontinue to be dependent on the skill of the participants to develop complex conversa-tions for learning. Already, however, the learning conversations between the peoplewithin the university and school settings have created new partnerships for conversationand knowledge building.

They [the students] might know more because they are older, but sometimes they

know less than us. (Girl, age 8, audio-conference participant)

Everybody knows something different. (Boy, age 8, audio-conference participant)

Bringing the voices of children and teachers into the University has enabled studentteachers to examine theoretical concepts and newly acquired knowledge about teachingand learning in contexts of real classrooms, whilst engaged with those people mostrelevant to teachingÐ the children.

Correspondence: Christina Thornley, School of Education, University of Otago,Dunedin, New Zealand.

REFERENCES

APPLEBEE, A.N. (1996) Curriculum as Conversation: transforming traditions of teaching and learning

(Chicago, IL, University of Chicago Press).BURBULES, N.C. (1993) Dialogue in Teaching: theory and practice (New York, Teachers College Press).FREIRE, P. (1998) Teachers as Cultural Workers: letters to those who dare to teach (Boulder, CO, Westview

Press).GOODSON, I.F. (1993) The devil’s bargain: educational research and the teacher, Education Policy

Analysis Archives, 1(3), pp. 1± 9.GOODSON, I.F. (1994) Studying Curriculum: causes and methods (Buckingham, Open University Press).

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Geo

rge

Mas

on U

nive

rsity

] at

19:

52 1

7 D

ecem

ber

2014

Connecting Student Teachers with Classrooms 245

HESHUSIUS, L. (1995) Listening to children: `what could we possibly have in common?’ From concernswith self to participatory consciousness, Theory into Practice, 34, pp. 117± 123.

JONASSEN, D.H. (1996) Computers in the Classroom: mindtools for critical thinking (Englewood Cliffs, NJ,Prentice-Hall).

KANE, R. (1995) The preservice practicum: the enduring partnership, paper presented at the Second

National Conference in Practical Experiences in Professional Education, Gold Coast, Australia.KEMMIS, S., COLE, P. & SUGGETT, D. (1998) Orientations to curriculum, in: E. HATTON (Ed.)

Understanding Teaching, 2nd edn (Sydney, Harcourt Brace).KOSCHMANN, T. (1996) Paradigm shifts and instructional technology: an introduction, in:

T. KOSCHMANN (Ed.) CSCL: theory and practice of an emerging paradigm (Hillsdale, NJ, Erlbaum).SCARDAMALIA, M. & BEREITER, C. (1994) Computer support for knowledge building communities,

Journal of the Learning Sciences, 3, pp. 265± 283.SPIRO, R. & JEHNG, J. (1990) Cognitive ¯ exibility and hypertext: theory and technology for the

nonlinear and multidimensional traversal of complex subject matter, in: D. NIX & R. SPIRO (Eds)Cognition, Education and Multimedia: exploring ideas in high technology (Hillsdale, NJ, Erlbaum).

SPIRO, R.J., FELTOVICH, P.J., JACOBSON, M.J. & COULSON, R.L. (1992) Cognitive ¯ exibility, construc-tivism, and hypertext: random access instruction for advanced knowledge acquisition in ill-structureddomains, in: T. M. DUFFY & D. H. JONASSEN (Eds) Constructivism and the Technology of Instruction:

a conversation, pp. 57± 76 (Hillsdale, NJ, Erlbaum).THORNLEY, C. (1999) Professional development for training or professionalism? Curriculum and

Teaching, 14, pp. 123± 136.TOM, A.R. (1997) Redesigning Teacher Education (New York, State University of New York Press).

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Geo

rge

Mas

on U

nive

rsity

] at

19:

52 1

7 D

ecem

ber

2014