Advertisement

Visionary Practice

  • Linda HobbsEmail author
  • John Kenny
Chapter

Abstract

This chapter draws on the insights in previous chapters to present two visions for the use of partnerships in teacher education and the applicability of our STEPS Interpretive Framework as a language to inform and describe partnership work, and to show how education-focused partnerships can be set up to work most effectively in a range of other contexts. A discussion follows of how this framework contributes to the literature on partnerships follows as do some suggestions for limitations of their use.

Keywords

Partnership model Interpretive Framework Educational and non-educational contexts Limitations 

References

  1. ACEN (2015). National strategy in work integrated learning in university education. Australian Collaborative Education Network. Retrieved September 2015 from http://cdn1.acen.edu.au/wp-content/uploads/2015/03/National-WIL-Strategy-in-university-education-032015.pdf.
  2. AITSL. (2017). Accreditation of initial teacher education programs. Guideline: Primary specialisation (Program Standard 4.4). Melbourne: Australian Institute for Teaching and School Leadership. Available online from https://www.aitsl.edu.au/tools-resources/resource/guideline-primary-specialisation.
  3. Australian Institute for Teaching and School Leadership. (2015). Accreditation of initial teacher education programs in Australia, standards and procedures. Melbourne: AITSL.Google Scholar
  4. Kenny, J., Hobbs, L., Speldewinde, C., Jones, M., Campbell, C., Gilbert, A., et al. (2015). Establishing school university partnerships to teach science-does what worked for us work for you? Proceedings of the European Science Education Research Association: Engaging learners for a sustainable future (pp. 2029–2040, 31 August–4 September 2015), Helsinki, Finland. ISBN 978-951-51-1541-6.Google Scholar
  5. Kruger, T., Davies, A., Eckersley, B., Newell, F., & Cherednichenko, B. (2009). Effective and sustainable university-school partnerships: Beyond determined efforts by inspired individuals. Canberra: Teaching Australia–Australian Institute for Teaching and School Leadership Limited.Google Scholar
  6. Oliver, B. (2015). Redefining graduate employability and work-integrated learning: Proposals for effective higher education in disrupted economies. Journal of Teaching and Learning for Graduate Employability, 6(1), 56–65.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Peach, D., Cates, C., Jones, J., Lechleiter, H., & Ilg, B. (2011). Responding to rapid change in higher education: Enabling university departments responsible for work related programs through boundary spanning. Journal of Cooperative Education and Internships, 45(1), 94–106. This file was downloaded from http://eprints.qut.edu.au/46451/.
  8. Sveningsson, S., & Alvesson, M. (2003). Managing managerial identities: Organizational fragmentation. Discourse and Identity Struggle. Human Relations, 56(10), 1163–1193.Google Scholar
  9. Teacher Education Ministerial Advisory Group (TEMAG). (2014). Action now: Classroom ready teachers. Retrieved from http://www.studentsfirst.gov.au/teacher-education-ministerial-advisory-group.
  10. TEQSA. (2016). Work integrated learning guidance note. The Tertiary Education Quality and Standards Agency (TEQSA). Available online from http://www.teqsa.gov.au/sites/default/files/GuidanceNote_WorkIntegratedLearning%201.0.pdf.

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Deakin UniversityGeelongAustralia
  2. 2.University of TasmaniaLauncestonAustralia

Personalised recommendations