The professional learning of student teachers during initial teacher education (ITE) is clearly complex, and the contribution of school staff in ITE is desirable (Brisard et al, 2005; Samaras & Gismondi, 1998). The development of collaborative partnerships, which recognise the expertise of both the schools and university, and are fostered on trust and mutual respect, has been encouraged in many countries (Furlong et al. 2000; Sachs, 2003; Moran et al, 2009; Jeffrey & Tobias 2009). Such a partnership may help create professional “hybrid spaces” in which “academic and practitioner knowledge...come together in new less hierarchical ways in the service of [student teachers, teachers and teacher educators]” (Zeichner, 2010: 89). Collaborative partnership requires universities to relinquish their hegemony over the construction and dissemination of knowledge (Zeichner, 2010) in favour of co-learning and co-enquiry for professional development.

In comparison with developments in other countries (eg. USA), partnership in ITE in Scotland remains relatively underdeveloped (Brisard et al, 2005), a position reflected in one of the key recommendations of the recent Review of ITE :

“New and strengthened models of partnership among universities, local authorities, schools and individual teachers need to be developed. These partnerships should be based on jointly agreed principles and involve shared responsibility for key areas of teacher education” (Donaldson, 2011, p.91).

This paper reports on research undertaken to investigate a Government funded pilot placement partnership project involving a Scottish University and six local authority partners, and builds on activities piloted in the Scottish Teachers for a New Era project (Robson et al, 2009).  The project was centred on the fieldwork experiences of a cohort of undergraduate BEd (Primary) students in their 3^rd and 4^th year of studies: the partnership being built on collaborative tripartite relationships between student, tutor and ‘supporter’ teacher.    

The research aimed to :

(i) critically investigate the implementation and effectiveness of the models of partnership adopted,  with a view to informing future policy and practice ;

(ii) explore the influence of collaborative partnership-based approaches on the professional development of all partners.

British Educational Research Association (2011). Ethical Guidelines for Educational Research. BERA, London. Brisard, E., Menter, I., and Smith, I. (2005). Models of Partnership in programmes of initial teacher education: A systematic literature review. GTCS, Scotland Donaldson, G. ( 2011). Teaching Scotland’s Future. Report of a review of teacher education in Scotland. Edinburgh: Scottish Government. Furlong, J., Barton, L., Miles, S., Whiting, C. and Whitty, G. (2000). Teacher education in transition – Reforming professionalism? Buckingham: Open University Press. Jeffrey, J. and Tobias, R. (2009) Circle of Enquiry: partnership researchers’ perspective on school-university collaborative processes. AERA Annual Conference, San Diego. Mertens, D. (2005). Research and Evaluation in education and psychology. Integrating diversity with quantitative, qualitative and mixed methods. Thousand Oaks, CA. Sage. Moran, A., Abbott, L., and Clarke, L. (2009) Reconceptualizing partnerships across the teacher education continuum. Teaching and Teacher Education, 23, 952-958. Robson, D., Fitzpatrick, R., and Shanks, R. (2009) Continuing Professional Development and Support through Early Career Transitions. BERA Annual Conference, Manchester. Rose, D., Sullivan, O. (1996) Introduction to Data Analysis for Social Scientists, 2nd Edition. Birmingham: Open University Press Sachs, J. (2003). The activist teaching profession. Buckingham: Open University. Samaras, A. , and Gismondi, S. (1998) Scaffold in the field: Vygotskian interpretation ina teacher education program. Teaching and Teacher Education 14, 7, 715 – 733. 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