PGDE Tandem Placement Project
Learning through Partnership
Research Report
Nik Bizas, Dr Lesley Reid
Edinburgh
July 2013
PGDE 2013
Page 1
Table of Contents
Executive summary ................................................................................................................................. 3
1. Introduction/ Purpose of research ..................................................................................................... 5
2. Methodology ....................................................................................................................................... 6
3. Analysis ............................................................................................................................................... 7
3.1. Collaborative working and student learning................................................................................ 7
3.1.2. In summary ........................................................................................................................... 9
3.2. Paired placements and student learning ................................................................................... 10
3.2.1. Collaborative teaching experience ..................................................................................... 14
3.2.2. Relationships with peers ..................................................................................................... 15
3.2.3. Relationships with mentor teachers ................................................................................... 16
3.2.4. Final comments/ suggestions ............................................................................................. 19
3.2.5. In summary ......................................................................................................................... 21
3.3. Benefits of collaborative working practices............................................................................... 22
3.4. Enablers & barriers to collaborative working ............................................................................ 23
Conclusions/ Recommendations .......................................................................................................... 24
Appendices............................................................................................................................................ 26
A1. Student teacher questionnaire ................................................................................................... 26
A2. Mentor teacher questionnaire ................................................................................................... 30
A3. Deputy Head questionnaire ........................................................................................................ 33
PGDE 2013
Page 2
Executive summary
This research was designed with an aim to address the issue of lack of communication about student
learning between university (Moray House) and schools in teacher education process leading to a
potential lack of integration of theory and practice in the student learning experience.
In order to address this issue in depth, the PGDE research team identified four main research
questions, each addressing a specific aspect of the above issue:
1. In what ways can collaborative working between schools and universities enhance student
learning on placement?
2. In what ways can paired placements enhance/ diminish student learning?
3. Can collaborative working practices bring reciprocal benefits to schools and universities?
4. What are the potential barriers and enablers to such collaborative working?
Following a research process during which the PGDE team discussed the process with key stakeholders
(deputy heads, mentor teachers, student teachers, university staff) it found that:
1. In summary, it appears that existing collaborative structures and processes (in the form of
cluster groups, meetings, points of contact and visits) between schools and the university
work satisfactorily for all actors involved, enhance the learning process both for students and
mentors in ways highlighted in Chapter 3.1 of the report and provide highly appreciated
support and information. Interviewees involved identified a number of actions that could be
applied to improve collaboration, but did not highlight significant gaps in existing processes;
in short, the common belief was that processes in place “work”, and that what is needed to
improve the collaborative and learning process are more of them – not different ones.
2. In general, student and mentor teacher experiences were positive. A number of concerns
were raised, mainly in reference to uncertainty on behalf of a number of interviewees about
whether the skills gained by the paired placement would be adequate for the final placement
which students were to undertake later. However, in general there was confidence that the
benefits gained from the paired placement process outweighed the hypothetical issues.
Despite the fact that student experiences were dependent on the mentor teacher and the
dynamics of their peer relationship, again, the rule was that there were no significant issues
in student-mentor collaboration. Additionally, despite differences in style and experience,
student teacher pairs managed to plan and teach collaboratively in an efficient and efficient
manner.
3. As far as schools are concerned, the process was described as a “win-win situation”. According
to an interviewee, the university benefited from this as well, as university tutors reap the
benefits of these learning conversations too. It is obvious, therefore, that the benefits to
schools from collaborative working practices are considerable and of great professional and
educational value.
4. According to interviewees, actions to strengthen support structures already in place such as
cluster group meetings, and initiatives such as tutor visits and meetings might act as potential
enablers to collaborative learning (this is more extensively outlined in Chapter 3.1).In general,
no potential barriers to collaborative learning were identified by either mentor teachers or
school management representatives- although, again, interviewees made suggestions that
could improve collaborative working and university-school communication.
PGDE 2013
Page 3
5. In addition to the above findings, this report also makes recommendations to the PGDE team
based on issues raised during the interview process, and relevant to concerns voiced by the
interviewees on the following issues:
 individual teaching time and implications for future placements,
 individual feedback,
 more clearly outlined and detailed processes,
 more active involvement in placement organisation, and
 increased support to schools.
PGDE 2013
Page 4
1. Introduction/ Purpose of research
This research was realised to address the issue of a lack of communication about student learning
between university (Moray House) and schools in teacher education process leading to a potential
lack of integration of theory and practice in the student learning experience.
In order to address this issue in depth, the PGDE research team identified four main research
questions, each addressing a specific aspect of the above issue:
5. In what ways can collaborative working between schools and universities enhance student
learning on placement?
6. In what ways can paired placements enhance/ diminish student learning?
7. Can collaborative working practices bring reciprocal benefits to schools and universities?
8. What are the potential barriers and enablers to such collaborative working?
By providing answers to these questions, the PGDE team aimed to:



Establish a line of communication with all actors involved in the teacher education process,
and more specifically the paired placement process that was completed at the time this
research was designed
Address the identified aspects of the main identified issue, and
Provide a complete assessment of the situation based on testimonies from all involved actors
and highlight strengths, weaknesses, and the way forward.
This report is structured as follows:




Chapter 2 provides an insight on aspects of the methodology of this research
Chapter 3 addresses the research questions set above and provides answers via analysis of
interview data
The Conclusions chapter summarises the findings of this research and touches on emerging
points of action and issues to be addressed
The Appendix section contains the research instruments developed for this piece of research.
PGDE 2013
Page 5
2. Methodology
In order to ensure that this research replied to the questions set and covered the views of all actors
involved in the pair placement process, the following participants were identified and interviewed



12 student teachers
5 mentor teachers
1 deputy head
Research instruments were consequently developed with an aim to answer these questions using
input from selected participants.
Participants were informed of the aims and ethics of the research in advance of their participation,
and once their agreement was secured they signed relevant consent forms outlining research content
and dissemination aims. Interviews were recorded on tape following the explicit permission of all
participants.
Research findings are reported anonymously.
PGDE 2013
Page 6
3. Analysis
3.1. Collaborative working and student learning
In what ways can collaborative working between schools and universities enhance student learning
on placement?
Students were in general very happy with the support they received from Moray House, with some
even claiming that there is nothing more to do to improve support.
More specifically, students found great value in:



Cluster meetings (“highly helpful”) and the ability they offered students to see other people
and perspectives and learn from other pairs and mentors (as a student called it, “feeding off
one another”)
Tutor visits
The ability to approach tutors and the programme director
Students who felt that the support they received from the University could be improved suggested:







A third meeting in the end of the placement, where all pairs would discuss and sum up their
experiences
Specific guidelines (as opposed to the “rough” ones given) on roles & that would give a clearer
understanding of the process and outline e.g. joint planning, so that students would know by
the end of their placement what they were supposed to achieve and have fulfilled (student
mentioned that this issue made “everybody… nervous”)
The tutor visit could have been better programmed
More correspondence from the University (“feedback from meetings”)
More regular one to one sessions with mentor teacher/ tutor to discuss progress
A troubleshooting structure/ process that would allow students to air and deal with issues, if
required (as a student commented “what would
happen if it had not worked?”)
Processes with the specific aim to foster professional
relationships
Further to the last point, a student suggested that the
University could consider the establishment of workshops
where pairs could get together before going out on their
placement and discuss related issues. Another student
suggested “mock lesson sessions” before placement, which
he/she believed “would have been beneficial”.
“I have not much to do with
Moray House but it’s nice to
have a little bit more contact
with them to feel that there is
that support”.
Mentor teachers, with regard to cluster support sessions,
argued:

They were very helpful; mentor teachers’ anxieties was dealt with effectively and processes
were explained clearly, providing all required information- or extra opportunities for
clarification
PGDE 2013
Page 7






They allowed everyone to be honest and share their concerns
They allowed meeting other participants (students, mentors etc.)
They served as a support network from Moray House – a feature highly appreciated by a
mentor teacher
That is was interesting to learn about way that students had been told to plan
It was very helpful to hear from other (more experienced and competent) tutors what they
would do with this placement and what they were doing in preparation and planning –
especially for tutors less confident or not experienced enough. This comment was raised both
by a mentor teacher who had never team-taught before and by more experienced mentors
as well.
That sessions allowed mentor teachers to voice
their questions e.g. for “sequence planning” and
“I think it (cluster group
how applicable that is to real practice and how
sessions)
was
to
be
beneficial it is- this made one mentor teacher
applauded... they were trying
realise she was expecting more than what was
to create additional avenues
actually expected
into offering support and
Mentor tutors also highly appreciated tutor visits (“a nice
gesture”; “she [i.e. university visiting staff] was lovely and
very supportive”) and university staff approachability and
support.
making connections with the
schools... I think it’s to be
commended, but I’m not sure...
how much value I felt it had
overall”
Mentor teachers added that support received could have
been improved by:




A report following the tutor visit letting students
know “they are going the right way”
Potentially more tutor visits which would support students furthermore
Visits by Moray House staff to participating schools “to see what is going on” and
corresponding visits by school staff to the university, so there “is not that big gap”, there is
more interaction – emphasis was on classroom management, discipline and relevant issues
Better breakdown of day-to-day activities (mentioned by a mentor teacher who employed this
style of teaching and organisation)
The deputy head interviewed mentioned that it would have helped if the university had someone
speaking to schools in advance, and outlining the process and “allowing teachers the opportunity in
advance to asking questions” even though she did mention that it is very difficult to realise in
advance, given the nature of the reality of teaching.
Lastly, no issues with school management were noted.
PGDE 2013
Page 8
3.1.2. In summary
In summary, it appears that existing collaborative structures and processes (in the form of cluster
groups, meetings, points of contact and visits) between schools and the university work satisfactorily
for all actors involved, enhance the learning process both for students and mentors in ways highlighted
above and provide highly appreciated support and information. Interviewees involved identified a
number of actions that could be applied to improve collaboration, but did not highlight significant
gaps in existing processes; in short, the common belief was that processes in place “work”, and that
what is needed to improve the collaborative and learning process are more of them – not different
ones.
From a university perspective, the students involved in the project seemed to gain confidence to be
more adventurous in their teaching than might normally be expected from students at this stage of
their PGDE year. They seemed to benefit from opportunities to plan and teach collaboratively and to
full well supported.
PGDE 2013
Page 9
3.2. Paired placements and student learning
In what ways can paired placements enhance/ diminish student learning?
According to student feedback, the benefits of paired placements included:










Collaborative planning, which saved students time
and allowed them to “get things done quicker”
Collaborative working, which allowed for greater
“You’ve got a buddy... you’ve
engagement with pupils, gave students the
got someone else to share the
opportunity to support lower learners to a greater
trials and tribulations of
extent and made behaviour management easier
placement, and there are
Reflexive conversations (which a student called
many trials and tribulations”.
“fantastic”)
Reflexive practice, and feedback from peers and
mentor teacher
Confidence boosting, as the increased support that came from the paired placement seemed
to give students the “confidence to try things you wouldn’t on your own” and the willingness
to “take more risks” and “try things out”
More enjoyable experience
More creative experience
More supportive experience
Better workload management
Ability to examine and pick up different teaching styles from peers
Mentor teachers asked on the benefits of the paired placement replied in a largely similar manner
that:








Paired placements allowed for better, unbiased feedback and collaboration
The mixing of different teaching styles (e.g. “confident” and “reticent”) allowed students to
support each other and strengthen each other’s weak points, as well as pick up on different
skill sets
Sharing workloads made work easier for students (better workload management)
Student teachers, as a result of the above, felt and acted in a more creative and adventurous
manner
The process improved collaborative planning
Pupils loved the number of available teachers, and the attention they got
Students looked less stressed than some mentor teachers had been in their respective
placement
The paired placement process was “great for active learning” as pupils were getting
increased support and feedback
In general, mentor teachers and school management felt that students were ready to deal with final
placement, as

They had the ability to test their approach (“worked superbly well together”) and consider its
application in their future placement, and
PGDE 2013
Page 10

They were already thinking ahead, analysing and preparing for it.
With regard to the negative aspects of the paired placement experience, students mentioned:






Concerns for final placement, as the teaching time students had on their own was relatively
limited; in a student’s words, the next placement
was seen as “quite a jump”. Another student
commented that the issue of teaching time “needs
to be addressed”. A third student felt “put at a
[asked whether students are
disadvantage” because of lack of individual
ready
for
their
final
teaching.
placement]
Clash of personalities was considered a potentially
“yes because they have been
problematic issue (i.e. “getting on” with the
given an opportunity that
partner, mentor teacher or with both), which
others haven’t necessarily been
might lead to a problematic relationship and
given, and maybe they’ve
placement experience
gained from the other student
skills and qualities and they’ve
Issues with contribution to overall workload - a
witnessed and observed them
student voiced his/her concern that if one peer
doing things in a certain way
did not contribute
that they will then embed in
For one student, planning actually took
their own practice, and no,
‘unnecessarily’ longer
because I do not think that they
Additionally, the same student also mentioned
had
enough
practical
experience
within
the
that there was little support/ feedback from
classroom
because
it
was
a
his/her mentor teacher (more of a problem with
shared placement... because
his/ her own personal experience and not so much
they had to do everything [as a
of the middle placement experience in general)
The gap in the middle of the placement was
commented on negatively by a number of students, as it was a factor contributing to their
issue with lack of individual teaching time (as a student put it, the “programme would be fine
without a week’s holiday”.)
It is worth noting that most of the aforementioned problematic issues were explicitly identified as
“potential” and did not actually occur. The large majority of students who made reference to
potentially problematic relationships because of personality clashes did not seem to have experienced
such (with potentially one exception, as indicated above).
Mentor teachers, with regard to the negative aspects, stated that:

More time teaching alone would be highly beneficial for students (“a full week where it’s just
you”) and would make the process “smoother”. A mentor teacher argued that because
students were used to working with each other, she was not “sure they know what’s coming”.
Another mentor teacher argued this as well - she recognised that the paired placement took
pressure off students, but left students wondering whether they would cope with the work
on the final placement. These mentor teachers did recognise the rationale behind paired
placement. What one suggested was perhaps having another student in the same school in
order to have someone to talk to, but not in the same classroom – in other words, a peer
PGDE 2013
Page 11





assessment of a different form. Said mentor teacher did not think that her own students lost
out from the process - but was not sure that it would work like this for everyone.
Sometimes it felt that a lot of people were in the class- and that the mentor teacher felt that
she did not really have to be there
There were hypothetical drawbacks depending on the character of the students (related to
work ethic issues and relationships with other stakeholders e.g. school, pupils) which could
lead to potential clashes (similar to the point made by students on the clash of personalities).
Timetabling individual teaching was difficult – and a mentor teacher was afraid that the final
placement may be a “shock”, adding that she felt “guilty” that she could not timetable in
individual teaching
A mentor teacher had never team-taught before, had never seen another placement like this,
and was not sure if “spending a whole placement developing that skill [of collaborative
teaching] is worth it”. The mentor teacher was not sure about the likelihood of students
sharing resources and workload in actual classroom environments (e.g. single stage schools).
However, the same mentor teacher did mention that the skill of working with people has
many real-life professional applications, and in turn suggested considering a shorter duration
paired placement.
A mentor teacher felt there were not high enough expectations of students - as there would
be from an individual assessment (relating this to her own experience). She thus felt students
were not preparing adequately for their final placement.
The deputy head interviewed suggested that among the benefits of the paired placement were


the “buddy” system that helps students emotionally (with regard to loneliness felt by student
teachers) as well as professionally –on academic, emotional and mental well-being level
Collaborative planning (“trying things out” - what would “work” or not)
It was mentioned, however, that another deputy head involved in the process felt that the scheme
was not “quite enabling students to get as much teaching time as they normally would” – referring to
individual teaching time. This, she felt, fed down to the rest of the staff.
With regard to collaborative planning, it seemed that students developed the methods that suited
each pair better, adjusting to their peers’ timetable and capacity. Some of the benefits of collaborative
planning included:





Reflective conversations which helped students map their lesson plans, pool and bounce
ideas off each other and decide who would be the lead on which subject
Creativity and the opportunity to consider “bigger ideas” that a single person could not
easily consider
Increased confidence with regard to planning
Experiencing different approaches
Developing strategies for teaching (e.g. use of notebook)
No specific difficulties were faced by students while collaborative planning.
PGDE 2013
Page 12
Mentor teachers in general seemed to agree with the benefits on collaborative planning. One mentor
teacher specifically said that she saw the collaborative planning ability of her student teachers develop
throughout the placement.
The deputy head interviewed confirmed that students handled collaborative planning and teaching
“fantastically”- referring to the rainforest scenario and the lead-supporting roles agreed and
undertaken by student teachers during that. She added that “circle assessment” (bouncing ideas off
each other and planning and evaluating the lesson together, in an ongoing manner) is important for
students.
PGDE 2013
Page 13
3.2.1. Collaborative teaching experience
Students in general did not seem to follow any guidance on lead/ supporter roles throughout their
placement, but did use a lead/ support system in classes.
A student mentioned that his/her paired placement experience made him/ her want to “experiment
as much as possible”; this seemed to be the case with most student pairs, who demonstrated creativity
in paired teaching on the following themes:






Scottish explorers
Math
Rainforest
Rugby
Technology
Clay moulding
In general, students did not face any specific behaviour management issues, nor did they find that
there were specific types of lessons that were difficult to team-teach. One exception was language
(i.e. English) classes, where students did not feel that they were team-teaching.
Any concerns that students had with regard to child behaviour (e.g. pupils trying to play students off
against each other) did not materialise. One student, however, mentioned that behaviour
management is not really “an issue” when children “have 3 sets of eyes watching them”.
Students in general seemed to agree on the benefits of reflective practice on their paired placement,
mentioning that:


It was useful to analyse “what worked and what did not work”, as some lessons did not go as
planned and reflexive practice helped students analyse the situation
They got a “greater deal of reflection” by being with someone else (a recognition of the value
of peers), as it is interesting to “see yourself (i.e. your own practice) through another person’s
eyes”. Reflexion in turn helped students map out their next steps.
Verbal reflection appeared to be more common that written. A student added that immediate verbal
feedback (which could be provided by the ability to step in during a lesson) is very beneficial.
Some students even suggested they wanted more time for reflection, suggesting a structure that
would allow providing feedback on issues encountered at the end of every working day.
Reflection seemed to help most students explore theory through practice. Although some students
were able to identify connections between their practice and lectures they had received, this did not
seem to have happened explicitly for most (students characteristically used words such as
“informally”, “slightly” and “not explicitly” in their replies). A student mentioned, for example, that
they “may have talked about some things” from taught theory but had difficulty naming specific
theories discussed.
PGDE 2013
Page 14
3.2.2. Relationships with peers
When students were asked which qualities they are looking for in a peer, they indicated:












Flexibility (because of demanding planning schedules)
Communicativeness/ openness
Support
Feedback (“capable of giving specific constructive feedback”)
Honesty
Confidence in classroom
Willingness to debate
Openness to criticism (“thick skin” as a student called it)
Sense of humour
Easy-going nature
Ability to compromise
Challenging nature (“but tactfully so”)
This research also looked into whether students knew their peer before their paired placement and
how that affected the forming of their professional relationship. Again, the image here was mixed, as
roughly half of the students did not know their peer beforehand and half did (i.e. were in the same
colour group).
Student opinions on whether their personal relationship affected their professional relationship
were mixed:


Students who did know their peer before their placement argued that this made their
experience easier as they already knew the person that they were going into the placement
with.
Students who did not know their peer in advance equally believed that this fact had a positive
impact on their placement, as they argued that an existing friendship could have the potential
to complicate things (“too close a relationship”) by making students more restrained in their
professional feedback to their peer-friend. Interestingly, one of the students who did know
his/ her peer did add that “it might have been beneficial to go with a complete stranger”although the student did recognise the need to have a personal relationship with the peer
teacher.
In short, both categories of students identified benefits in both situations, thus indicating that prior
personal relationships do not necessarily affect the forming of professional relationships.
An interesting factor brought up by one of the students (and a number of mentor teachers) was time;
said student argued that the 5 weeks of the placement (1 of which was a week of holiday) were “too
little” to build professional relationships “on top of everything else”.
PGDE 2013
Page 15
3.2.3. Relationships with mentor teachers
With regard to their professional relationship with their mentor teacher, students gave a rather
mixed image. A number had the opportunity to develop a professional relationship with their mentor
teacher, due, in part, to




the interaction between the three (i.e. with the mentor teacher being in class to assess and
support),
the keenness of the mentor teacher to get involved,
common national heritage and
increased confidence created by the peer relationship (“having two of you made it much
easier”).
Other students however, did not feel that they had ample
opportunity to develop a professional relationship, as


the way the placement was structured (i.e. paired
teachers) allowed for more interaction with the peer
teacher, than the mentor (a point made by a number
of students, another of which added that on his/her
own “she would have more opportunities”)
the mentor teacher’s approach and/ or existing
workload did not allow for the desired development
of a professional relationship.
“it was not just me teaching
them, they were actually
teaching me, and it was good
to be an onlooker to see how
different children reacted to
different types of teachers”.
Mentor teachers interviewed mentioned that:




they found supervising and planning much easier (as students were doing a lot of the required
work) – more of a team relationship than a mentor-student relationship
They found the process challenging, adding that it was nice to see young students relatively
lacking in confidence to be happy enough to watch and evaluate each other. A mentor teacher
stressed that this taught students the importance of realistic and truthful evaluation of each
other
they had ample opportunity to share teaching expertise (as questions were freely asked and
suggestions were raised)
it was interesting to observe pupils’s response to different teaching styles
However, not all mentor teachers were happy with the process; some found their workload increased
(i.e. report-writing and individual feedback) although they did add that the advantages of the process
outweighed the disadvantages. A mentor teacher mentioned that she had to do more work because
there was duplication, as she sometimes had to discuss the same things twice with each student. It
needs to be noted, however, that the point about workload was not made by everyone- which means
that it was most probably down to the specific professional and not the case for everyone involved. A
mentor teacher, for example, argued that the three-way conversation process did not place any added
burden to her workload at all.
PGDE 2013
Page 16
With regard to opportunity to build a professional relationship:



Most mentor teachers identified many opportunities to observe teaching and set-up during
initial group work (first week) – something which required adaptability and flexibility on behalf
of the mentor teacher and which seemed to “work” for mentor teachers who tried it
Mentor teachers also identified opportunities to talk openly to each other
Some mentor teachers found it very difficult to bond with their students because of their
number, way of working and confidence. Students seemingly discussed and agreed on issues
before approaching the mentor teacher, and as a result did not really listen to feedback.
Another mentor teacher similarly mentioned that she did not have as much chance to have
dialogue with students as “there were two of them and a lot of the time it was a fait accompli”
(“they had done the work already”) and thus did
not have a full understanding of their thought
process.
Additionally, with regard to supporting individual student
learning, mentor teachers said that opportunities were
definitely there, as:



they could observe many lessons where students
were assuming a leading role allowing mentor
teachers to give them feedback on that
students had different styles and needs and thus
required “input in a different way”
a mentor teacher had the students observe her
teaching, then asked them how they would model
their teaching, and in turn observed them and took
bullet-points to give them pointers for next steps
“It was one of the most
enjoyable placements I’ve
had... and I think when it’s a
one to one, it’s often quite hard
to keep their chin up, to keep
them positive, whereas there
because there were three of us,
it was very easy, they were very
excited... very keen to keep
going... if you want to come
back and send me more I’ll take
them again!”
Feedback was received both individually and as a pair, but this was not consistent across placements.
For example, some students argued that they had not received enough individual feedback, while
other received feedback both individually and as a pair, which they found a “useful thing to take
forward”.
Similarly, students’ satisfaction with the impact of received feedback was mixed. Some students, for
example, argued that they had received “great feedback” and one argued that feedback during the
paired placement was a “privilege you wouldn’t have with solo placements”. Another student added
that his/her mentor teacher “made a conscious effort” to provide useful feedback to his/her practice.
Others, however, commented on the lack of individual, critical feedback and found that it was not
“rich enough”. A student who did receive individual feedback in the end of the placement argued that
“in essence” it was feedback on his/her pair.
Many mentor teachers would provide feedback to both students if needed and faced no issues with
that (student teachers did not mind that their colleague was listening to their feedback). Most mentor
teachers had no issues with individual student assessment, and teachers concerned about the issue
would observe students individually in order to provide individual feedback.
PGDE 2013
Page 17
There was, however, an issue with not knowing who did
what (which made it hard to assess written work for
example) which in turn made it harder for some mentor
teachers to assess and treat students as individuals (noticed
especially when writing the interim report). Mentor
teachers argued that “it was hard to pull them [i.e. student
teachers] apart because they were presented as a united
front”, and that they thus had an unclear idea of each
student teacher’s exact contribution and what their
individual weaknesses were (despite being happy with
students’ performance). These of course raised concerns
about the fairness of grading and the students’ adequate
preparation for the final placement. A mentor teacher
argued that this situation was potentially used by students
as an “excuse” for bad organisation.
“I always kind of felt that I
wasn’t supporting them very
well, that there just wasn’t
enough time to do everything
that I would have liked – and
it’s quite hard... differentiating
the reports, I can’t confidently
say how good their behaviour
management would be on their
own”
Individual feedback was thus not an easy task for every mentor teacher.
Although most mentor teachers asked did, a mentor teacher younger than her older, more
experienced student teachers said she did not have many opportunities to pass on teaching expertise
– in because of her reduced confidence and the age difference, although she did share some advice –
and the potential to help was there.
In general, mentor teacher- student teacher relationships worked for everyone and did not face any
insurmountable problems. Most mentor teachers were in general very happy with their students, to
the point of calling them “affable”. Even students with very different teaching styles (e.g. one was
formal, the other was laid back) taught well collaboratively and had positive responses from pupils as
well. Students also seemed to integrate well in their schools and participate in school meetings and
wider school life.
PGDE 2013
Page 18
3.2.4. Final comments/ suggestions
What was interesting was that students in general, despite worries about their upcoming placement
(which a number voiced explicitly), were satisfied with the middle placement and found it enjoyable
and educative (as a student put it, “far more positive than expected to be”). A student even said that
he/she is a “big advocate” of the process and added that he would be happy to “be cited as an
advocate and help people” with their middle placements in the future. Additionally, a student
considered his/her paired placement experience as an asset to her CV, as he/she was aware that “it’s
good to have collaborative teaching experience in your bio”.
Students’ main concerns were both hypothetical, and will
need to be addressed by the PGDE team in the future (more
on this in the Conclusion/ Recommendations chapter).
“Future placements will feel
Students themselves suggested the introduction of a
lonely”.
mechanism that will deal with both issues (i.e. concerns
about future placement and individual teaching time,
concerns about the successful pairing of people with
different strengths/ potential clashes). It needs to be
mentioned, however, that no students reported any significant issues with their pairs, regardless of
differences in character, teaching style and prior acquaintance.
A student wrote back to us following his/ her interview and added:
“I forgot to mention one thing today while I was talking to you though! I think it might have been
useful for students to have been given some sort of understanding as to how co-teaching might look
like in the classroom. I am aware that there are quite a lot of teaching approaches with the co-teaching
scenario and on reflection it might have been beneficial to have had some information about it
beforehand. This would have given us a better understanding of how it might look as it may have
helped some students who found, or may find, the paired placement more difficult.”
Interestingly, a mentor teacher said that she considered her student teachers “fully-qualified” and
“teachers already”, even though they were half way through their course, and stated that she would
be happy to work with them on a more permanent basis – although she did mention that these
particular student teachers had other life and work experiences which might have helped with their
performance as well.
In one case, it was noticed that pupils had difficulty identifying who the teacher was - despite
appreciating increased attention and support - and teachers switching roles confused them (e.g. one
teacher started activity, another finished it, and second one might not be as good). According to a
mentor teacher, pupils tended to lean towards one teacher because one was friendlier and one was
more authoritative. However, this worry was dismissed by another interviewee, who dismissed
potential worries about pupils being adversely affected by paired teaching, “as there is a multitude of
teachers working with children now, they are used to having them coming over and teaching them”.
The interviewee argued that this process can only support and help as pupils nowadays have different
professionals to listen to and work with and the initiative is modelling how people work in partnership
and take each other’s views into consideration.
PGDE 2013
Page 19
A mentor teacher, lastly, stressed that in this process it’s important to think about the child’s
perspective “because at the end of the day that’s the most important thing”... if they are gaining from
it, maybe that’s a good idea”.
PGDE 2013
Page 20
3.2.5. In summary
In general, student and mentor teacher experiences were positive. The paired placement experience
seemed to enhance student learning and offer increased opportunities for reflection, professional
development and confidence boosting. A number of concerns were raised, mainly in reference to
uncertainty on behalf of a number of interviewees about whether the skills gained by the paired
placement would be adequate for the final placement which students were to undertake later.
However, in general there was confidence that the benefits gained from the paired placement process
outweighed the hypothetical issues.
Despite the fact that student experiences were dependent on the mentor teacher and the dynamics
of their peer relationship, again, the rule was that there were no significant issues in student-mentor
collaboration. Additionally, despite differences in style and experience, student teacher pairs
managed to plan and teach collaboratively in an efficient and efficient manner.
PGDE 2013
Page 21
3.3. Benefits of collaborative working practices
Can collaborative working practices bring reciprocal benefits to schools and universities?
The placement experience per se seems to have had a positive impact on mentor teachers in
schools, as it:



Challenged their practice and way of thinking and gave them “more to think about”
Taught them the importance of “realistic and truthful evaluation”
Enabled learning conversations to go on, providing back up and support to mentor teachers
as well because there is “an additional person there” who helps as “sometimes teachers can
feel quite lonely as mentor teachers”.
As far as schools are concerned, the deputy head interviewed argued that
“we have got more people in, more support provided for benefit of pupils, school benefits as well”
and in short it is a “win-win situation”. According to the interviewee, the university benefits from this
as well, as university tutors reap the benefits of these learning conversations too.
It is obvious, therefore, that the benefits to schools from collaborative working practices are
considerable and of great professional and educational value.
Fro a university perspective , the opportunity to ‘open up’ the process of teacher education to
participating mentor teachers was very beneficial. The paired nature of the tandem placements
seemed to open up potential for more creative and confident teaching on the part of student teachers.
However, the mentoring potential of the class teacher may not have been optimised due to some
uncertainty around feedback processes and procedures.
PGDE 2013
Page 22
3.4. Enablers & barriers to collaborative working
What are the potential barriers and enablers to such collaborative working?
According to interviewees, actions to strengthen support structures already in place such as cluster
group meetings, and initiatives such as tutor visits and meetings may act as potential enablers to
collaborative learning (this is more extensively outlined in Chapter 3.1).
In general, no potential barriers to collaborative learning were identified by either mentor teachers
or school management representatives- although, again, interviewees made suggestions that could
improve collaborative working and university-school communication. These included the need for
clearer advice on how to feedback effectively to pairs of students about their teaching, both
independently and together.
PGDE 2013
Page 23
Conclusions/ Recommendations
In short, there was widespread agreement that paired placements in the PGDE teacher training
process brought a number of very significant strengths to both student and mentor teachers.
A number of weaknesses in the paired placement process
were highlighted as well, yet most interviewees who raised
these stressed their hypothetical nature. Actual examples
of problematic issues were few and most issues were dealt
with efficiently and in time, thus proving the generally
effective and non-problematic nature of the paired
placement process.
It was also confirmed that university-school collaborative
practices provide benefits to both student and mentor
teachers, and that interviewees involved actually identified
the need for increased collaboration and relevant
initiatives. No existing or significant barriers to collaborative
working were identified in this research.
“The students I visited went in
with a lot more doubts than
they were showing half way
through- they said no, we had
a lot of doubts, we actually
think it’s working really well...
it was a great experience ”.
Based on these findings, as well as issues raised during interviews, this report thus makes the following
recommendations:



PGDE 2013
Individual teaching time and implications for future placements: as this was probably
the most important issue raised by mentors and students alike, it is recommended that
the PGDE team addresses and alleviate this concern for future students before upcoming
paired placements, preferably by using the example of successful final placements
undertaken by students who had undergone the paired placement process and outlining
the benefits of the process. Students suggested the introduction of a mechanism that
would deal with such concerns, and it is important that the PGDE team acknowledges this
and examines in what form this could be introduced.
Individual feedback: Some mentor teachers made very valid points about the nature of
student assessment in the paired placement process, and how it created problems with
regard to assessing students’ strengths and weaknesses individually and assessing the
amount of work each of them was putting on planning and preparation. Although this was
not stressed in such fashion by every mentor teacher, it still raises concerns about the
fairness and usefulness of the feedback process. It is thus recommended that the PGDE
team work with mentor teachers in order to address these concerns and develop a
process that will allow for fair, more accurate student-specific feedback that will highlight
individual strengths and weaknesses and thus contribute more effectively to students’
professional development.
More clearly outlined, detailed process: Interviewees made a point of knowing more
about the process and getting more information. There were also potential (e.g.
hypothetical clash of personalities resulting from a potentially unsuccessful pairing) and
real (e.g. concerns about feedback, mentor-student teacher relationships, classroom
presence, interaction with pupils) issues identified that interviewees felt might adversely
affect the placement process. It is thus recommended that such feedback is examined and
Page 24


PGDE 2013
considered by the PGDE team, and action is taking to provide guidance and put in place
processes that will pre-emptively and explicitly address all identified issues for future
placements.
More active involvement in placement organisation: some mentor teachers felt that
their workload was increased because of the paired placement process. Although this did
not seem to be a widespread issue, as some teachers did not face such problems, it would
nevertheless be recommended to ascertain whether the PGDE team can make sure that
by getting more actively involved in organising paired placements, it addresses issues such
as this (a point connected to the previous recommendation about a more clearly outlined,
detailed process).
Increased support: While mentor and student teachers were happy with the level of
support they had from the university, there was demand for more initiatives such as visits,
meetings, opportunities for contact etc. Just as interview interviewees did, the author of
this report recognises that the PGDE team has a specific workload which may forbid its
members from increasing placement-related activities. That said, the PGDE team will need
to consider this issue (as it constitutes an enabler to collaborative working) as well as the
feasibility of acting on these points.
Page 25
Appendices
A1. Student teacher questionnaire
1. What do you see as the benefits and drawbacks of the paired placement experience of the middle
placement?
2. Tell me how you went about collaborative planning on placement? What were the positives of that?
Were there any difficulties?
COLLABORATIVE TEACHER EXPERIENCE
3. I would like us to talk about how you managed collaboratively teaching lessons. Did you follow
guidance on lead/supporter teacher roles throughout the placement? Did that change towards the
end of the placement?
Tell me about a lesson where you felt that collaborative teaching was successful. Why do you think it
was successful?
PGDE 2013
Page 26
4. Are there any class or behaviour management issues that you want to talk about? Were there any
types of lessons that were difficult to team-teach?
5. What opportunities for reflexive practice did the paired placement enable? Can you distinguish
between opportunities for verbal and written reflection?
6. Did reflection help you explore theory through practice?
PGDE 2013
Page 27
RELATIONSHIP WITH PEER
7. What qualities would you look for in a successful peer teacher relationship? Please give an example
of when your peer displayed this quality.
8. Did you know your peer before your paired placement? How do you think that affected/ would
affect (depending on reply) the forming of professional relationships between peers?
RELATIONSHIP WITH TEACHER
9. Compared with your infant placement, did you have sufficient opportunity to build a professional
relationship with your mentor teacher?
PGDE 2013
Page 28
10. How did you receive feedback during your paired placement? Individually or as a pair? How
would you describe its impact?
11. How would you describe the support you receive from the university? What could have
improved this?
12. Anything else you would like to talk about in relationship to your paired placement?
PGDE 2013
Page 29
A2. Mentor teacher questionnaire
1. What do you see as the benefits and drawbacks of the paired placement experience of the middle
placement?
2. In what ways was supervising paired students different to having a single student in your classroom?
3. Was there sufficient opportunity for you to share your own teaching expertise with students?
4. Were there sufficient opportunities for you to support individual student learning?
PGDE 2013
Page 30
5. Were there any issues around individual student assessment?
6. What benefit did you receive from the cluster support sessions led by university tutors that focused
on planning and teaching?
PGDE 2013
Page 31
7. What do you think could have improved the support you received from the university?
8. Do you feel students are adequately prepared for their final placement?
9. Anything else you would like to talk about that we have not covered yet?
PGDE 2013
Page 32
A3. Deputy Head questionnaire
1. What do you see as the benefits and drawbacks of paired placements for mentor teacher learning?
2. What do you see as the benefits and drawbacks of paired placements for student teacher learning?
3. Have there been issues with school management regarding the organisation of paired placements?
4. Could you please talk about your impressions of how the students managed collaborative planning
& collaborative teaching?
PGDE 2013
Page 33
5. Do you have any reservations about this way of working?
6. Would you support the idea of 1 paired placement during the PDGE programme?
PGDE 2013
Page 34
7. What do you think could have improved the support you received from the university?
8. What do you see as potential barriers to this form of collaborative working?
9. Anything else you would like to talk about that we have not covered yet?
PGDE 2013
Page 35