This article was downloaded by: [Universitat Politècnica de València]On: 29 October 2014, At: 01:14Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registeredoffice: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Action in Teacher EducationPublication details, including instructions for authors andsubscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/uate20

Learning from Sharing Cultures: Storiesfrom School-University PartnersPaulette Lemma a , Margaret Ferrara a & Luci Leone ba Central Connecticut State University , USAb Smith Elementary School , West Hartford , CT , USAPublished online: 06 Jan 2012.

To cite this article: Paulette Lemma , Margaret Ferrara & Luci Leone (1998) Learning from SharingCultures: Stories from School-University Partners, Action in Teacher Education, 19:4, 1-13, DOI:10.1080/01626620.1998.10462887

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/01626620.1998.10462887

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the“Content”) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis,our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as tothe accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinionsand views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors,and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Contentshould not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sourcesof information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims,proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever orhowsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arisingout of the use of the Content.

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Anysubstantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing,systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms &Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

Action in Teacher Education Winter 1998, Vol. XIX, No. 4. pp. 1-13

Learning from Sharing Cultures: Stories from School-University Partners

Paulette Lemma, Margaret Ferrara Central Connecticut State University

Luci Leone Smith Elementary School, West Hartford, CT

Abstract The article contains the stories of a university professor and a teacrrer-in-residence who

worked together in a school-university partnership and shared their work cultures. Teacher candidates who were placed at the school for a year-long internship also contribute their perspectives to the stories. Collectively, the stories reveal that partnerships provide learning opportunities for all involved as well as opportunities to share and shape new roles and relationships in teacher education.

We live in a world of differences. Our reference to differences has to do with different work cultures, specifically educational work cultures, and more specifically the cultures of public schools and state universities .

As part of restructuring the teacher education program at Central Connecticut State University, we have engaged in collaborative work with nearby schools. In many instances, these efforts have led to school-university partnerships which, in turn, have led to changing work norms. Teacher educators have reallocated their faculty responsibilities to include varied initiatives at school sites. Teachers from partnership schools are invited to share their expertise, both at their schools and at the university. We also started a Teacher-$-Residence program in which teachers who demonstrate leadership capacity and commitment to teacher education and school improvement serve part time as university faculty members while remaining part time at their schools.

This article captures the stories of a teacher-in-residence and a university teacher educator who worked together in a school- university partnership and shared their work cultures. The stories reveal that new ways of doing things often start with role ambiguity. One learning outcome of the initiative is that school-university partners can contribute to and learn from each other’s culture.

Constructing the Stories The stories of shared work cultures comes from multiple data sources. The

first source are the journals kept by the teacher-in-residence and the university professor about their roles in the partnership and the collaborative process. They drew upon these journals when composing their stories. Two other data sources, which were interpreted by an external evaluator, also contributed to the stories. The first are course evaluations completed by 20 teacher candidates enrolled in

1

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

itat P

olitè

cnic

a de

Val

ènci

a] a

t 01:

14 2

9 O

ctob

er 2

014

methods course taught jointly in the fall semester by the teacher-in-residence and the university facilitator; the second are interviews conducted with five of the 20 teacher candidates who remained at the school as student teachers the following semester who were jointly supervised by the school and university partners.

Setting the Framework Our School of Education and Professional Studies has been active in developing

school-university partnerships to serve prospective and experienced teachers. The value of partnerships has been widely advocated. The Holmes Group (1986), for one, visualized university-school networks as helping to improve student learning, revitalize veteran teachers, initiate prospective teachers, and provide a laboratory for research on teaching. Berg and Murphy (1992) support the idea of a school demonstrating exemplary teaching practices and providing supervision of student teachers, and a university creating school-based staff development opportunities for teachers. Most recently, these notions have been reinforced by the report offered by the National Commission on Teaching and America’s Future (1996) which states that the quality of teacher preparation is improved when there are direct connections between theoretical and research perspectives of university course work and what actually happens in classrooms.

Our teacher education program translated this literature into having university faculty and students teach and learn at local schools and becoming part of the school’s learning community. Our partnerships expected to foster working relationships that were mutually beneficial both to the university and the school site. We also expected that both groups of faculty would experience professional gains through their participation.

The Backdrop The site of this study is a magnet school initiated in response to a Connecticut

State Department of Education’s report for interdistrict cooperation to desegregate public schools. With a state grant secured to renovate an existing school building, a joint task force of educators, parents and community members drawn from two adjacent towns began to develop a mission and educational focus for the school whose quality and program would excite parents and attract children from both districts. An important component of the plan included the establishment of partnerships with other institutions. Central Connecticut State University became one of the school’s early partners, which led the way for the professor to be named to the task force and, later, to become the university facilitator of the Magnet School’s partnership.

Now in its sixth year, the partnership began when the school had three classroom teachers, one foreign language teacher, two paraprofessionals, and a part-time library-media specialist, who later became the teacher-in-residence. The school has since grown to include classrooms from kindergarten through grade six. However, the framework developed by the task force in that first year still provides the basis for the school’s integrated and thematic curriculum model that emphasizes science, technology, and global studies, with problem solving and inquiry as the core of the curricular structure. 2

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

itat P

olitè

cnic

a de

Val

ènci

a] a

t 01:

14 2

9 O

ctob

er 2

014

The work of the school-university partnership began as the school prepared to open its doors in September, 1992 when the Magnet School staff and a team of university faculty from various departments (teacher education, educational leadership, physics, mathematics, and technology) jointly investigated the most effective strategies for helping young children learn. Starting that year and continuing into the present, the school-university partnership has targeted each year a specific student learning focus and has structured professional development sessions to study and implement strategies related to the focus. In the school’s second year, the partnership initiated a process for becoming an exemplary and cooperative site for the preparation of future teachers. Since then, each fall the school has hosted teacher candidates in a methods course co-instructed by university and school partners, and each spring has mentioned student teachers who remain at the school for a year-long internship.

This backdrop provides a context for the reflective stories that follow. The stories were composed over the first years of the partnership by the teacher-in-residence, the university facilitator, and the teacher candidates at the Magnet School.

The Teacher-in-Residence Tells Her Sto y My work as a library media specialist has led to encounters with a number of

interesting characters in children’s literature. One of my favorites is Mr. Plumbean from Daniel Pinkwater’s The Big Orange Splot. Mr. Plumbean strongly believes people should be who they are and follow their dreams. By acting on his beliefs, he changes his part of the world for the better. In my role as teacher-in-residence, 1 have tried to “be who I am:” an elementary school teacher, a library media specialist and an advocate for children and education. I have served on many district level K-12 curriculum committees and have been active at the local and state level for improving education. My dream is to see quality, racially integrated education. Through participation in a school-university partnership, I have come to recognize and appreciate the potential schools offer as a training grounds for a larger, enhanced community of learners and teachers.

Role of Teacher-in-Residence. In early September, the university facilitator and I clarified my instructional

role to include anchoring teacher candidates to the school, facilitating discussions regarding theory and practice, and offering my expertise in language arts and the resources provided by library-media specialists. Because I had been involved with the school from the outset, I could provide examples and illustrate how theory is applied in the Magnet School classrooms. Teacher candidates had many opportunities to experience for themselves theory in practice as they worked directly with Magnet School students and teachers. When they worked with Magnet School youngsters, it was always within the context of the school’s curriculum.

From the start, I wove children’s literaturefiction and nonfiction-into as many experiences as time allowed, hoping teacher candidates would see the value and limitless opportunities for learning afforded by quality children’s books. The Big Orange Splot was read when we talked about diversity and respect for individuals.

3

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

itat P

olitè

cnic

a de

Val

ènci

a] a

t 01:

14 2

9 O

ctob

er 2

014

A math discussion, centered around conservation of number, led me to share She1 Silverstein‘s poem Smart.. The issue of gender equity prompted the reading of Robert Munsch’s The Paperbag Princess. Because of the teacher candidates’ desire to learn about the school’s anti-bias curriculum and the scope and genres of children’s literature, I presented substantive lessons based on my expertise in these fields, which helped me gain a sense of ownership for the course.

On a personal level, I shared my views about life-long learning and the importance of ongoing professional development. I talked about the reading I do, the places and people I go to for information and ideas, and the importance of collaboration with others. I also shared how we plan as a staff, how we work out logistics necessary to implement a complex school-wide program and how we support each other.

During the methods cou.rses at the Magnet School, I was both an observer and participant. I observed the various teaching models of the university professor. As part of the instructional team, I always had opportunities to participate in discussions with students. Often times, we met in rotating small groups, with each of the instructors serving as a group’s facilitator. We provided coaching on lesson planning and implementation. We also provided formative assessments when the teacher candidates tried out their lessons by teaching a small group of students. After these direct and authentic experiences, we facilitated reflective discussions.

During the spring semester, my role changed from instructor to that of supervisor. This new role allowed me to work more closely and individually with five student teachers. I participated in weekly seminars that involved the student teachers, the staff, and the university facilitator. I conducted pre- and post-observation conferences with the student teachers, observed them delivering lessons, collected data, and helped the student teachers analyze their development. Since I was also working as the library media specialist, I was able to gather books and materials commensurate with each student teacher’s special project.

Back on the university campus, I participated in two projects: 1) the writing of a monograph on elementary education, which eventually provided the rationale for elementary teaching standards for beginning teachers in Connecticut, and 2) the redesign of the university’s teacher education program. In my work on the monograph, I attempted to be a voice for teachers in the trenches and an education advocate, addressing school issues that concern me and other teachers. In my work on the program redesign committee, I attempted to bring what I know about the attitudes, skills, and knowledge-base necessary for a teacher to meet the needs of today’s students in preparation for the twenty-first century. Since my responsibilities as the school’s library-media specialist continued on a part-time basis, needless to say, it was a busy year for me.

Insights into learning. As teacher-in-residence, I had the opportunity to work within a larger context of the education field. The scope of my work enabled me to expand my theoretical framework, augment my colleagueship and enhance my

4

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

itat P

olitè

cnic

a de

Val

ènci

a] a

t 01:

14 2

9 O

ctob

er 2

014

critical discourse. My knowledge of concurrent district-level, university, state, and national initiatives to improve education also increased. Although I remained involved with one elementary school, I became part of a larger, enhanced community of learners that reaped many benefits due to the school-university partnership.

These insights evolved through direct experiences, just as my understanding of the role of teacher-in-residence developed. Perhaps, being the first person in any newly conceived role brings a certain amount of ambiguity. The role of teacher-in- residence did not come with a clear job description. With no clear rules, I first took direction from the university team with whom I worked who did everything they could to make me feel like an equal partner. I did sense that some faculty in the School of Education seemed skeptical about the role of a teacher-in-residence. I admit now that my initial feelings were one of nervousness and uncertainty, quite a contrast to my school persona where I am considered articulate and knowledgeable. Perhaps, because of the nebulous nature of the position, I began by seeking permission to get involved in various projects that piqued my interest. I learned in time that an expected norm of the university culture is to initiate action. Although in an early journal entry, I wrote, “I’m not sure what’s expected of me nor do I feel a sense of competence,” a later one indicated my emergent views on the university culture. In this entry, I wrote, “I’m finding that there are lots of ways I can immerse myself in projects I care about. It’s great that I can act on my beliefs about teaching and learning.” As my confidence grew about sharing my knowledge about teaching and education, so did my feelings that I was an essential member of the team. I began to volunteer for committees, to raise questions, and to offer my opinions at faculty meetings; I also found myself working longer hours on campus.

I also learned to facilitate the development of teacher candidates. Though they are adults, developmentally, they are beginners in the teaching profession. At first, I had difficulty knowing what to expect of them. I would be surprised, sometimes, by what they did not know and what they chose to focus on. Without being acclimated to teaching at a university, I found my teaching repertoire at this level was limited. For example, when planning my first lesson on anti-bias curriculum, I was unable to predict their breadth and depth of knowledge in this area. Also, when the teacher candidates approached me about course requirements they found overwhelming, I found myself checking with the university professor because I was not sure how to respond to their concerns. “Were we asking too much of them?” Over time, I learned how to gauge their developmental needs and capacities and I became more confident in monitoring my lesson planning and my interactions with them.

My university experiences validated much of what I know and believe about elementary teaching and learning. My hopes for the future of systemic reform in education also grew. The experiences leave me a better elementary school teacher, library-media specialist, teacher educator, and a stronger and more effective advocate for children and education.

5

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

itat P

olitè

cnic

a de

Val

ènci

a] a

t 01:

14 2

9 O

ctob

er 2

014

The University Facilitator Tells Her Sto y I began my first year of teaching in a third grade classroom in a small town of

rural Pennsylvania. Twenty-some years later I am still a teacher. For fifteen years, I taught young children; now I teach adult learners how to teach young children. My teaching is more than standing in front of a class of university students. It is important to me that I model good teaching, embedded in a theoretical frame and reflective practice.

Moreover, I study teaching. My research, my writing, my service and professional activities are all geared to the world of teaching and learning. The interdependence that exists among the areas of teaching, scholarly activity, and professional service demands that my teaching inform my research and my research inform my teaching. I see this interdependence as the hallmark of working in a professional school of education, to connect the complexities of professional practice to scholarly ethics and disciplined inquiry. My professional agenda is focused on developing teaching practitioners, beginning and veteran teachers alike, who have both the ability and disposition to inquire into the ethical and theoretical bases of their teaching.

Role of University Facilitator. I have played many roles in the school-university partnership. I have served

as teacher, leader, facilitator, collaborator, learner. My previous experiences made the teaching role come naturally. Yet, even teaching took on a newness when I prepared to teach the general elementary education methods course at the Magnet School. I taught this course on campus for a number of years and realized I needed to reconsider its emphasis and structure if it was to be taught effectively at the school. For the first time, I would be able to provide explicit connections between the theoretical or research-based course content directly to what was being practiced in classrooms. If planned effectively, teacher candidates could have immediate opportunities to link their course work to their developing practice. This meant getting the Magnet School teachers involved with our teaching. Synchronizing the course content to the Magnet School activities required careful planning and organization. When changes were necessary, it meant that our course plans would change rather than the teachers’ plans. Although this created problems for us as instructors, we realized we needed to be empathic to the demands placed on the teachers.

The course was redesigned to follow a structure: (1) presenting and discussing theories and methods of teaching; (2) planning specific lessons and teaching small groups of Magnet School students; and (3) reflecting on teaching performance and learning outcomes, using theory as the guide to reflection. The structure was created so that teacher candidates would have opportunities to reflect on how planning and teaching affect learning. We reasoned the teacher candidates at the Magnet School would see the benefits of this structure even though it meant added assignments and time at the school. We predicted that they would compare their assignments with their peers who were taking the “same” course on campus. In anticipation of some balking on their part, we “sold” the Magnet School as an

6

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

itat P

olitè

cnic

a de

Val

ènci

a] a

t 01:

14 2

9 O

ctob

er 2

014

invaluable experience, especially in the highly competitive job market.

Teaching the course with a Teacher-in-Residence also meant new opportunities- and challenges. I knew that teacher candidates would value her experiential-based knowledge of teaching and her expertise in the area of children's literature. We needed ways to demonstrate how her knowledge connected to the research, principled-based view of knowledge I presented. I also knew that the teacher-in- residence could provide important contextual information as the teacher candidates became part of the school, its teachers, and learners. We needed to "make time" for her to share her knowledge. Time was also necessary for her to be perceived as an equal partner and instructor. In a course that was already "packed with content and experience, this was not easy. We planned, made decisions, made mistakes, and learned together.

Revisiting a prior role of classroom teacher was in store for me as I joined in teaching the elementary school children. After jointly planning with a group of teacher candidates a lesson that was part of the school's thematic unit, we, the instructors, served as a teaching model for the same group of candidates. Teaching the planned lesson to fifteen multi-age students (K-3) as seven teaching candidates looked on was then followed by self analysis and reflection. This gave my teaching a whole new perspective!

I revisited another role when I began supervising the five teaching candidates who remained at the school following the on-site methods course. My study of supervision has led me to believe in a style of supervision that uses questioning and reflection to challenge thinking and promote inquiry about teaching performance and learning outcomes. At another university where my primary role was university supervisor, I had worked hard to develop this style. Although my study of supervision had continued, it had been four years since I last supervised student teachers. This meant retooling my supervisory skills-and, this time, in a school in which 1 had a personal investment and was perceived as a partner. This was sure to have implications as I tried on again the role of supervisor. Additionally, I wanted to provide some mentoring to the teacher-in-residence as she learned the skills of supervision. She and I decided that we would jointly supervise all of the student teachers, rather than each of us working individually with specific teacher candidates.

Being the university facilitator of the partnership made up only a small percentage of my university responsibilities, much smaller than the time invested in it. On the university campus, I continued to teach two graduate level courses and to coordinate the elementary and early childhood program. Other faculty duties continued as well, such as advising students and serving on committees. Regardless of the gains made, both to the structuring of the school and the restructuring of teacher education, I never felt I had enough time to do everything.

Insights into learning. The last two years have proven to be challenging and fulfilling. They have

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

itat P

olitè

cnic

a de

Val

ènci

a] a

t 01:

14 2

9 O

ctob

er 2

014

affected the way I think and interact with schools. They have affected my views of teacher education, as well. As a partnership facilitator, I have been immersed in school reform, albeit in one school, from both a theoretical and practical perspective. Making no claims to generalizability, I have witnessed how hard it is to make real change happen-and how change is possible when dedicated and thoughtful teaching practitioners collaborate to make it happen. I have also been immersed in reforming teacher education at CCSU. My small steps in this one partnership has helped me witness first-hand the possibilities of creating a seamless continuity to professional development. Qualitatively, a different kind of development occurs when communities of educators-composed of beginning and veteran teachers, university and school practitioners, teachers and administrators-share their expertise to learn from each other and take action in the real setting of a school. All of the participants make strides. The teacher candidates have multiple sources to draw upon as they sort through the teacher they want to be. Because they are involved in the school’s total culture, and not just that of one classroom, they are perceived as colleagues. They also learn to perceive themselves as “part of the team.” The teachers become more conscious of their teaching practices because they are serving as models for these beginning teachers; they are active inquirers into their own teaching and the learning process. The Teacher-in Residence has opportunities and sanctioned time to engage in thoughtful reflection and give words to her tacit knowledge. The university professor broadens her lens on teacher education by working with teachers and children who are engaged in the joy and challenges of public education. She also can study school reform up-close and demonstrate her commitment by actively contributing to the school’s learning environment.

I’ve learned the necessity of dialogue and action for school change to happen; I have learned the hours it takes for people of different work cultures to bridge language gaps and gain real acceptance and understanding. My experiences convince me, more than ever, that meaningful partnerships forge a connection between research-based and principle-based knowledge, represented by the university, and experienced-based knowledge generated daily in schools by teaching practitioners. I have seen how all educators can profit from the stimulation of guided reflection and disciplined inquiry into the purposes and outcomes of teaching. I am convinced that partnerships are viable means to create larger communities of teacher educators to foster learning about teaching and education.

The Voice of the Teacher Candidates The teacher candidates who participated in the on-site methods courses

evaluated their experiences at the end of the semester. Sixteen of the twenty responded to an open-ended question which asked them to discuss their reactions to the on-site program. Eleven of the 16 (69%) felt it was valuable “to use the theoretical, research based ideas the same day, or soon after learning them, with children.” Their comments included: “There were strong connections between what we were learning about in class and what we participated in;” and ”having a school to ’practice in’ made me able to apply what I learned in my classroom to the students’ classrooms.” One added, “Our professors worked well together

8

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

itat P

olitè

cnic

a de

Val

ènci

a] a

t 01:

14 2

9 O

ctob

er 2

014

and complemented each other and really did a good job ‘modeling’ what it’s like to be effective teachers.” One of the teacher candidates who appeared with the Teacher-in-Residence at a state public hearing felt she had participated in a “model” teacher education program. ”I believe the partnership has provided us with theory in the classroom as well as a variety of direct experiences with children. This has afforded us the opportunity to self-assess our teaching practices, and monitor and adjust them appropriately. Overall, we‘ve gained confidence and honed our abilities to be the kind of reflective practitioners we hope to be in the field.’’

During the second semester, the five student teachers who remained at the school were asked to share their perceptions on what the teacher-in-residence as a supervisor had added to their experiences, what the university facilitator contributed; and the impact of being involved in a co-supervision experience. The following excerpts of the interviews summarize their, responses.

Teacher-in-Residence as Supervisor. For four student teachers, the teacher-in-residence was someone who would

be there “to get things off my chest,” ”to just listen,” and ”to help me see something positive after a bad day.’’ When the discussion turned to specifics: ”What does the teacher-in-residence do specifically as part of her supervisory role?” the student teachers reported various supportive roles. One student teacher recalled how the teacher-in-residence had observed in class on ”the very worst day.’’ “Afterwards, the teacher-in-residence helped me see the positive aspects of the lesson.” Another recalled how the teacher-in-residence, as the school’s Library Media Specialist, continued to gather resources and be on site more often than the university facilitator. “When I can’t get Professor A., I can find Ms. B. and it is great to hear her perspective.”

Student teachers’ perceptions of the university facilitator as supervisor. When asked “what does the university facilitator add to your experience?”

the responses generally turned to her style of supervision. ”She set high expectations for each of us, expected us to be professional, and created a sense of ’respectful apprehension’ when she went into the classroom for an observation.

The student teachers found it difficult to describe the university facilitator without contrasting her to that of the teacher-in-residence. ”The teacher-in- residence adds more information and is more open to picking out positives and providing direct feedback - ’I like this and I like that’.” ”Professor A makes us think it out when we take part in pre- and post-observation conferences. She makes us get right down to business.” Another student teacher added, ”Professor A. helps me see what I am doing that is not working. So, I feel lucky and yet, at times, scared.”

“She expects a lot from us. It’s good.” This comment was consistent from the student teachers. “Professor A. has high expectations for us to do well in our classrooms.” This expectation, three student teachers believed, was driven by more than a desire for them to be successful. One student teacher commented,

9

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

itat P

olitè

cnic

a de

Val

ènci

a] a

t 01:

14 2

9 O

ctob

er 2

014

”The Magnet School is a partnership, and Professor A. wants it to be successful. We all feel the pressure to make the school work; we feel the pressure of working in a new program.’’

Student teachers’ reactions to having two supervisors. The student teachers reacted positively to having two supervisors. ”I thought

it would be harder and crazy, but now I think it is helpful. At first, they both observed together and I was scared. Now it is easier when they switch supervision so I only have one to work with at a time. I get two perspectives and two sets of suggestions.”

“The experience is unique,” another student teacher reflected, ”but it works to my advantage.” She explained, ”I talked to one of my friends who is being supervised in the traditional way-supervisor and cooperating teacher. The supervisor tells the student teacher how wonderful she is. The teacher tells the student teacher all the areas she needs to improve. In contrast, we know we are doing something right because all of them (Professor A, Ms. B., and the cooperating teachers) work together. We also know when we can do it better.”

On a more practical side, one of the student teachers felt that having two supervisors was preparation for the ”real world.” “In real life, we will have different assessors who are looking for different things. Here, we had two supervisors who pooled their observation information. I like it because it is one more person to provide formal, objective assessment-ne more to help us learn how to be better teachers.’’

On the flip side, the student teachers found some negatives to the combined experience. The most frequently cited problem was that of miscommunication. ’Trofessor A. and Ms. B. sometimes had different expectations and this confused us.” Another student teacher believed the problem lay in the novelty of the program. ”The communication was not at its most efficient in the beginning. Part of the problem is that the program is new and many things are being done for the first time.” Eventually, it seems communication problems were resolved. “We used many ways to communicate with each other, our cooperating teachers, and our supervisors. The supervisors met with the teachers and with us each week. We also used journals to dialogue with their supervisors.”

What was not resolved was the pressure of being observed and supervised frequently. “We are always under the microscope. Sometimes, having both of them here is too much. Sometimes, we just want to be left alone.”

Learningfrom sharing cultures After careful deliberation, the teacher-in-residence and the university facilitator

combine their voices to share what they have learned through their joint experiences. Their reflections are captured in this last section.

As we thought about preparing for another year of the partnership, we felt we could resolve some of the problems of the past year just from having some practice

10

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

itat P

olitè

cnic

a de

Val

ènci

a] a

t 01:

14 2

9 O

ctob

er 2

014

”under our belt.” Other specific learning led to deliberate changes. For example, more attention is needed to portraying our team work, being consistent with our supervisory styles, and making our expectations clear. Also, discussions need to take place around the complementary roles of the teacher-in-residence, university facilitator, and cooperating teachers and our shared expectations for the teacher candidates. We know the value of good communication and can make more efforts to model that this is happening.

When this experience was tried for the first time, we did not anticipate all the challenges that arose from being involved in the school culture - rescheduling because of snow days, dealing with cooperating teachers’ absences, and adapting to changes in the school program. We now feel more prepared for these situations, but continue to accept the reality that in school-university partnerships, some learning takes place “on the spot.” We need to be ready to respond, rather than react, and we need to help teachers candidates do the same. Living with ambiguity and multiplicity is a real part of two cultures joining to form a partnership. Another reality is that working in a partnership involves risk taking, problem solving, and trouble shooting - three inherent features in the joining of cultures.

For a partnership to succeed, it is almost as if individual cultures need to be suspended and a new one created that is built upon a shared vision. We needed to be cocreators of this new culture in which we tested innovations, solved problems, and found ways to consolidate our learning. We needed to take time for reflection, collaboration, and building positive relationships and clear understanding of our goals. It helped that we were involved in structured activities that put us in close contact and provided opportunities for knowing each other beyond superficial niceties. Moreover, we made time to get away from both the school and the university which was particularly helpful for forming strong bonds of respect and friendship. We learned to share responsibilities and operate from an equitable and trusting relationship, each of us seeing our expertise as ways to encourage and empower the other. We both were willing to take on new roles and were committed to making the partnership work.

Finally, we openly admit that we approached this study with a sense of humility and pride. We were proud of the success of the partnership but we were also humble because we were unsure of what we would find out about ourselves - from our self-study and from the perceptions of our students. When we looked over our writings, we realized we indeed had grown. We had developed a strong spirit of collegiality with one another - the teacher-in-residence and the university facilitator; the teacher candidates with each other and with their instructors and the classroom teachers; the university partners with the school partners -- and had grown into a community of learners.

Most importantly, we learned that our voices are different, both from each other and from that of the teacher candidates. For example, the teacher-in-residence saw the partnership as a wonderful opportunity to learn about teaching and about the university. ”At times, I felt awed by the experience but learned gradually that my

1 1

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

itat P

olitè

cnic

a de

Val

ènci

a] a

t 01:

14 2

9 O

ctob

er 2

014

school-based knowledge was a valuable piece to the success of the partnership.” Comparatively, the university facilitator felt challenged by her new roles and, overall, felt she was successful in carrying them off. Moreover, she felt the partnership strengthened her knowledge base on teacher education. Nonetheless, she never took her acceptance as a partner for granted and always recognized the tenuous nature of collaboration and reciprocity. “I felt I needed to exercise caution in voicing concerns because of their potential for threatening the partnership or lessening my credibility with the school’s staff, teachers, and teacher candidates. I needed to figure out how to apply my expertise to this specific context and I needed the good sense to know when to act and when to speak, and when to sit back and let others take the lead.”

On the other hand, as the “professionals,” we have a sense of caution in our reports, tending to highlight stories of success over stories of struggle. The teacher candidates, more open with their feelings and criticism, tended to “speak their minds.”

In the end, the stories have color, reserve, and are multi-dimensional. A key insight is that it is unlikely that one person can see and tell the full story of shared work cultures. Collectively, the stories reveal that the partnership provided learning opportunities for all involved as well as opportunities to share and shape new roles and relationships in teacher education. We look forward to continuing our partnership stories.

Paulette Lemma is professor and chair of Teacher Education at Central Connecticut State University. She also coordinates CCSU’s Professional Development School Network which highlights her interest in action research and school-university partnerships.

Margaret Ferrara, associate professor of Teacher Education at Central Connecticut State University and Director of the Office of Clinical and Laboratory Experiences, has research interests in school-university partnerships and meaningful field experiences.

Luci Leone served as CCSU’s first Teacher-in-Residence. She now is the Library- Media Specialist at Smith Elementary School in West Hartford, CT where she enjoys working full-time again with children, teachers, and parents.

12

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

itat P

olitè

cnic

a de

Val

ènci

a] a

t 01:

14 2

9 O

ctob

er 2

014

References

Berg, M. & Murphy, D. (1992). Can we mass produce a college/school partnership for professional practice? Action in Teacher Education, XIV (l), 57-61.

Goodlad, J. (1991). Why we need a complete redesign of teacher education? Educational Leadership, 49 (3), 4-6,8-13.

The Holmes Group (1986). Tomorrow’s teachers: A report of the Holmes Group. East Lansing, MI: Holmes Group, Inc.

Munsch, R. (1980). The paperbug princess . Toronto, Canada, Annick Press Limited .

National Commission on Teaching and America’s Future, Summary Report (1996). What matters most: Teaching for America’sfuture. NY, NY.

Pinkwater, D. (1977). The big orange splot. NY, Hastings House. Silverstein, Shel. (1974). “Smart” in Where the sidewalk ends. N. Y., Harper & Row.

13

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

itat P

olitè

cnic

a de

Val

ènci

a] a

t 01:

14 2

9 O

ctob

er 2

014