Representing Partnerships Practices

  • Christine RedmanEmail author
  • Coral Campbell


A range of partnership types is explored in this chapter. The purposes and characteristics of a partnership determine the degree to which a partnership needs to be embedded within the partner organisations. This chapter presents the ‘Representing Partnerships Practices’ (RPP) element of the Interpretive Framework. The RPP is useful to guide thinking about the desired nature of a particular partnership. The RPP recognises that a range of purposes, intended outcomes and commitments that can be afforded by partnerships, and that all have a value, which is determined by how it meets the needs of each partner. In the RPP, partnerships are described as being Connective, Generative or Transformative. Examples of practice are used to illustrate the opportunities, benefits and possible limitations of each of these partnership typologies in affecting quality learning outcomes for the different partner stakeholders. At all levels of partnership, it is important to ensure that the partnership itself is managed and fostered.


Partnership practices Connective Generative Transformative Science teacher education Interpretive framework Primary science Pre-service teachers 


  1. Argyris, C., & Schön, D. A. (1996). Organisational learning II: Theory, method and practice. Asia Pacific Journal of Human Resources, 36(1), 207–209.Google Scholar
  2. Australian Council of Deans of Education (ACDE). (2004). Submission to the Victorian Parliamentary Inquiry into the suitability of pre-service teacher training in Victoria.Google Scholar
  3. Darling-Hammond, L. (2000). How teacher education matters. Journal of Teacher Education, 51(3), 166–173.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Goodrum, D., Hackling, M., & Rennie, L. (2001). The status and quality of teaching and learning of science in Australian schools: A research report. Canberra: Department of Education, Training and Youth Affairs.Google Scholar
  5. Howitt, C. (2007). Pre-service elementary teachers’ perceptions of factors in an holistic methods course most influencing their confidence in teaching science. Research in Science Education, 37(1), 41–58.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Jones, M. (2008). Collaborative partnerships: A model for science teacher education and professional development. Australian Journal of Teacher Education, 33(3), 61–76.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Kenny, J. (2010). Preparing primary teachers to teach primary science: A partnership-based approach. International Journal of Science Education, 32(10), 1267–1288.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Kenny, J. (2012). University-school partnerships: Pre-service and in-service teachers working together to teach primary science. Australian Journal of Teacher Education, 37(3), Article 6.Google Scholar
  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. McLean Davies, L., Anderson, M., Deans, J., Dinham, S., Griffin, P., Kameniar, B., et al. (2013). Masterly preparation: Embedding clinical practice in a graduate pre-service teacher education program. Journal of Education for Teaching: International research and pedagogy, 39(1), 93–106. Scholar
  12. McNamara, S., Jones, M., & McLean, K. (2007). Stories in ICT professional development: Report from the Victoria project. In C. Reading (Ed.), Partnerships in ICT learning study: Case studies (pp. 139–158). Canberra: Department of Science, Education and Training.Google Scholar
  13. Murphy, C., Beggs, J., Carlisle, K., & Greenwood, J. (2004). Students as ‘catalysts’ in the classroom: The impact of co-teaching between science student teachers and primary classroom teachers on children’s enjoyment and learning of science. International Journal of Science Education, 26(8), 1023–1035.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Smith, C. (2011). Evaluating the quality of work-integrated learning curricula: A comprehensive framework. Higher Education Research & Development, 31(2), 247–262.Google Scholar
  15. Tytler, R. (2007). Re-imagining science education: engaging students in science for Australia’s future. Australian Education Review, 51. Australian Council for Educational Research. Retrieved from
  16. Ure, C., Gough, A., & Newton, R. (2009). Practicum partnerships: Exploring models of practicum organisation in teacher education for a standards-based profession. Accessed November 3, 2017, from

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.University of MelbourneMelbourneAustralia
  2. 2.Deakin UniversityWaurn PondsAustralia

Personalised recommendations