Linking Theory and Practice Through Partnerships

  • Gail ChittleboroughEmail author
  • Mellita Jones


This chapter reports on the important role of establishing partnerships between universities and primary schools to provide the opportunities for school-based teaching that engages pre-service primary teachers in an authentic experience of science classroom teaching and learning. It is argued that partnerships present a mechanism through which teacher educators can best enact praxis—the linking of theory and practice, in their science teacher education courses. Evidence from the STEPS project is drawn upon to demonstrate ways in which partnerships between universities and schools provide an authentic basis for pre-service teachers, teachers, and teacher educators to explore the application of theoretical ideas that underpin effective science teaching practice. Examples of partnership practice illustrate ways in which partnerships enable the successful application of pedagogical content knowledge through pre-service teachers’ planning, implementing and assessment of a learning sequence in science, and reflecting on their teaching. The important role of establishing partnerships between universities and primary schools to provide this school-based teaching and learning opportunity is acknowledged. Moreover, the essential role of the science teacher educator is recognized, as it is the teacher educator who provides active leadership for the effective connection between theory and practice that ultimately builds pre-service teacher confidence and competency to teach science. These elements of linking theory and practice through partnerships culminate in the chapter’s conclusion where the Interpretive Framework model is introduced, to aid thinking and planning around how universities and schools can work together in effective partnerships.


Partnerships Theory–practice nexus Interpretive Framework School-based Teacher educator Pedagogical content knowledge Communities of practice Pre-service teachers 


  1. Akkerman, S. F., & Bakker, A. (2011). Boundary crossing and boundary objects. Review of Educational Research, 81(2), 132–169. Scholar
  2. Berry, A., Nilsson, P., Van Driel, J., & Carlson, J. (2017). Analysing science teachers’ pedagogical content knowledge: A report on the second PCK summit. In Proceedings from the ESERA 2017 Conference. Dublin, Ireland: Dublin City University. August 21–25, 2017. Accessed September 10, 2017
  3. Darling-Hammond, L. (2006). Constructing 21st-century teacher education. Journal of Teacher Education, 57(3), 300–314. Scholar
  4. Gess-Newsome, J. (2015). A model of teacher professional knowledge and skill including PCK: Results of the thinking from the PCK summit. In A. Berry, P. Friedrichsen, & John Loughran (Eds.), Re-examining pedagogical content knowledge in science education (pp. 28–42). New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  5. Gess-Newsome, J., Taylor, J. A., Carlson, J., Gardner, A., Wilson, C., & Stuhlsatz, M. A. M. (2017). Teacher pedagogical content knowledge, practice, and student achievement. International Journal of Science Education. Scholar
  6. Goodrum, D., Hackling, M., & Rennie, L. (2001). The status and quality of teaching and learning of science in Australian schools: A research report. Department of Education, Training and Youth Affairs: Canberra.Google Scholar
  7. Hobbs, L., Chittleborough, G., Jones, M., Kenny, J., Campbell, C., Gilbert, A., et al. (2015). School-based pedagogies and partnerships in primary science teacher education: The Science Teacher Education Partnerships with Schools (STEPS): Project. Sydney, Australia: Office for Learning and Teaching. Retrieved from
  8. Howitt, C. (2007). Pre-service elementary teachers’ perceptions of factors in an holistic methods course influencing their confidence in teaching science. Research in Science Education, 37(1), 41–58.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Jones, M., Hobbs, L., Kenny, J., Campbell, C., Chittleborough, G., Herbert, S., et al. (2016). Successful university-school partnerships: An interpretive framework to inform partnership practice. Teaching and Teacher Education, 60, 108–120. Retrieved from
  10. Korthagen, F., Loughran, J., & Russell, T. (2006). Developing fundamental principles for teacher education programs and practices. Teaching and Teacher Education, 22, 1020–1041.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Loughran, J. (2002). Effective reflective practice: In search of meaning in learning about teaching. Journal of Teacher Education, 53(1), 33–43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Loughran, J., Berry, A., & Mulhall, P. (2012). Understanding and developing science teachers’ pedagogical content knowledge [electronic resource] (2nd ed). Rotterdam, Boston: Sense Publishers.Google Scholar
  13. Lynch, D., & Smith, R. (2012). Teacher education partnerships: An Australian research-based perspective, Australian Journal of Teacher Education, 37(11), 132–146
  14. Mintzes, J. J., & Wandersee, J. H. (2005). Research in science teaching and learning: A human constructivist view. In J. J. Mintzes, J. D. Novak, & J. H. Wandersee (Eds.) Teaching science for understanding: A human constructivist view (pp. 60–94). Burlington, MA: Elsevier Academic Press, c2005.Google Scholar
  15. Rossner, P., & Commins, D. (2012). Defining ‘enduring partnerships’: Can a well worn path be an effective, sustainable and mutually beneficial relationship. Queensland College of Teachers.Google Scholar
  16. Shulman, L. (1986). Those who understand: Knowledge growth in teaching. Educational Researcher, 15(2), 4–14.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Shulman, L. (2015). PCK: Its genesis and exodus. In A. Berry, P. Friedrichsen, & J. Loughran (Eds.), Re-examining pedagogical content knowledge in science education (pp. 3–13). New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  18. Teacher Education Ministerial Advisory Group (TEMAG). (2014). Action now: Classroom ready teachers. Retrieved from
  19. Van Driel, J. (2015). Pedagogical content knowledge in teacher education in Encyclopaedia of science education (pp. 736–737).
  20. Van Driel, J., & Berry, A. (2012). Teacher professional development focusing on pedagogical content knowledge. Educational Researcher 41(1), 26–28. Accessed September 11, 2017
  21. Wenger, E. (1998). Communities of practice, learning, meaning and identity. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Whitcomb, J. (2003). Practice matters: Reflections on the importance of teacher educator’s practice. In D. M. McInerney & S. Van Etten (Eds.), Research on sociocultural influences on motivation and learning: Sociocultural influences and teacher education programs (pp. 15–33). Charlotte, NC: Information Age Publishing.Google Scholar
  23. Wilson, R. E., Bradbury, L. U., & McGlasson, M. A. (2015). Integrating service-learning pedagogy for pre-service elementary science teachers’ identity development. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 26(3), 319–340.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Deakin UniversityBurwoodAustralia
  2. 2.Australian Catholic UniversityBallaratAustralia

Personalised recommendations