This article was downloaded by: [University of Newcastle (Australia)]On: 06 October 2014, At: 11:35Publisher: Taylor & FrancisInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registeredoffice: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Journal of Early Childhood TeacherEducationPublication details, including instructions for authors andsubscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/ujec20

Partnered Placements: Creating andSupporting Successful CollaborationAmong Preservice TeachersLouise Ammentorpa & Lauren Maddena

a Department of Elementary and Early Childhood Education, TheCollege of New Jersey, Ewing, New Jersey, USAPublished online: 19 May 2014.

To cite this article: Louise Ammentorp & Lauren Madden (2014) Partnered Placements: Creating andSupporting Successful Collaboration Among Preservice Teachers, Journal of Early Childhood TeacherEducation, 35:2, 135-149, DOI: 10.1080/10901027.2014.905805

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10901027.2014.905805

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the“Content”) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis,our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as tothe accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinionsand views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors,and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Contentshould not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sourcesof information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims,proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever orhowsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arisingout of the use of the Content.

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Anysubstantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing,systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms &Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

Journal of Early Childhood Teacher Education, 35:135–149, 2014Copyright © National Association of Early Childhood Teacher EducatorsISSN: 1090-1027 print / 1745-5642 onlineDOI: 10.1080/10901027.2014.905805

Partnered Placements: Creating and SupportingSuccessful Collaboration Among Preservice Teachers

LOUISE AMMENTORP AND LAUREN MADDEN

Department of Elementary and Early Childhood Education, The College of NewJersey, Ewing, New Jersey, USA

Recent calls for change in teacher preparation programs stress the importance of fieldexperience and the need for preservice teachers to have ample opportunities for peercollaboration and feedback. The paired placement model, with two preservice teachersworking with one cooperating teacher, has shown to provide many benefits. However, thestrategies for developing successful partnerships in the context of a required course arenot fully understood. This article presents a study of early childhood and elementarypreservice teachers’ perspectives on the peer and faculty related factors that con-tribute to the success (and lack of success) of their partnerships. The article concludeswith effective strategies for teacher educators to consider in creating and supportingfield-based peer partnerships.

In 2010, The National Council for Accreditation of Teacher Education (NCATE) issued areport, Transforming Teacher Education Through Clinical Practice: A National Strategyto Prepare Effective Teachers. The report calls for the current model for the education ofteachers to be “turned upside down,” with renewed focus on clinical experiences. The reportdiscusses the importance of preservice teachers experiencing collaborative cultures, withplenty of opportunity for feedback and peer review of their practice. Furthermore, the reportstates that in addition to expertise in content and how to teach it, programs need to prepareteachers to be “innovators, problem solvers and collaborators” (p. 5). Likewise, the NationalAssociation for the Education of Young Children (NAEYC) Standards for Initial &Advanced Early Childhood Professional Early Childhood Professional Preparation (2011)stresses that preservice teachers’ practice should be informed by continuous collaborativelearning experiences.

The emphasis on collaboration is both theoretical and practical. It is based on theunderstanding that learning is socially situated and constructed in interaction with others(Lave & Wenger, 1991; Rogoff, 1990; Vygotsky, 1978). In the Reggio Emilia approach,for example, teaching and learning is considered a collaborative process. Teachers work inpairs—planning, teaching, and reflecting cooperatively (Cadwell, 2003; Edwards, Gandini,& Forman, 2011).

Within the field of early childhood education, especially outside of the elementaryschool setting, there is often more than one teacher in the room. Even in contexts withonly one head teacher, early childhood educators work closely with specialists and the

Received 12 March 2013; accepted 14 January 2014.Address correspondence to Louise Ammentorp, Department of Elementary and Early Childhood

Education, The College of New Jersey, 2000 Pennington Rd., Ewing, NJ 08628, USA. E-mail:ammentor@tcnj.edu

135

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f N

ewca

stle

(A

ustr

alia

)] a

t 11:

35 0

6 O

ctob

er 2

014

136 L. Ammentorp and L. Madden

families of the children in their care (NAEYC, 2011). Within elementary schools, earlychildhood teachers work with aides, instructional assistants, inclusion teachers, and spe-cialists daily. Thus, collaboration skills are critical for teaching in today’s classrooms. Yet,despite the recognition of the importance of developing field-based collaborative skills inpreservice teachers, the field component of teacher preparation programs overwhelminglytends towards a model of isolation, placing one preservice teacher with one cooperat-ing teacher during their field (clinical) placements (Bullough et al., 2003; Gardiner &Robinson, 2009).

The more collaborative model of partnering two preservice teachers with one cooperat-ing teacher has shown to yield numerous benefits including: collaborative problem solving,risk taking and innovation in lesson plans, emotional support, classroom management sup-port, and learning vicariously by watching the errors and successes of their peers (Baker& Milner, 2006; Bullough et al., 2002, 2003; Gardiner & Robinson, 2009, 2011; Smith,2004). These partnerships, however, are not without challenges. For example, personalityclashes and competition between partners can negatively impact the placement experience.As Gardiner and Robinson (2009) point out, collaboration is not automatic and commu-nication skills are often not directly taught in preservice programs. Furthermore, in thevast majority of these studies, the preservice teachers voluntarily participated in partneredplacements, it was not a mandatory part of their teacher education program. When part-nered placements are part of a course, teacher educators face additional challenges as theytry to negotiate the logistics of partnering all the students in the course within the first weekor two of the semester.

Purpose of the Study

Our experience teaching early childhood and elementary education courses with a pairedfield component motivated this research. In our teacher education program, students arepartnered for their field placements during three semesters in their sophomore and junioryears.1 Each semester we find ourselves challenged with the task of pairing preserviceteachers together with different (and sometimes conflicting) personalities, work ethics, aca-demic levels, second majors, social skills, etc. When pairing students, we wonder whichfactors are most important to consider, especially since these decisions are made based onthe limited knowledge of the preservice teachers gathered in the first few days or weeks ofa semester. We spend hours in the beginning of each semester putting the pairing puzzletogether, trying to find the “right” match for everyone and a balance for the class as a whole,especially for the “difficult” students. Sometimes we feel as though we sacrifice the strongor easygoing preservice teacher to balance the domineering or weaker students.

We developed this project to gain insight into student perspectives on their part-nership experience and to discern strategies for developing and maintaining successfulpartnerships, particularly when student partnerships are a part of a required course, ratherthan a voluntary program or research study. Our research questions include: (a) Whatare the benefits and drawbacks of paired placements according to preservice teachers?;(b) What are common challenges preservice teachers’ face in their partnerships?; (c)What factors do they identify as contributing to a successful partnership?; and (d) Whatsuggestions do preservice teachers have for faculty in creating and developing effectivepartnerships?

1It should be noted that our program uses a single student-teaching placement structure aftercompleting three pre–student-teaching paired placements.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f N

ewca

stle

(A

ustr

alia

)] a

t 11:

35 0

6 O

ctob

er 2

014

Partnered Placements 137

The Paired Placement Model

The use of the paired placement model within our teacher education program began yearsbefore we joined the department. We accepted it as a logistical and practical arrangementand didn’t consider its conceptual or pedagogical rationale. Although we teach our studentsabout the importance of collaboration, differentiating instruction and purposefully planningpartnered work, it wasn’t until we began our research that we fully grasped the potential ofthe partnership model as a learning tool for our students. We found that the paired placementmodel poses numerous benefits, and also challenges, for preservice teachers and faculty.

Benefits of Paired Placements

The paired placement model provides preservice teachers with the opportunity to learnthe value of working with a partner (Bullough et al., 2002), develop collaboration skills(Gardiner & Robinson, 2009), and develop a positive attitude towards collaboration(Nagappan et al., 2003). Preservice teachers in paired placements can assist one another’sdevelopment by explaining, reflecting, discussing experiences and ideas, as well as provid-ing encouragement (e.g., Bullough et al., 2002, 2003; Gardiner & Robinson, 2009, 2011;Wilson & Edwards, 2009; Wynn & Kromrey, 1999). Smith (2004) found that the scaffold-ing provided by a peer is less intimidating then mentor support as it is not related to anassessment. When preservice teachers observe their peers acting as lead teachers, they areable to learn from their peers’ mistakes and successes. Similarly, understanding and learn-ing from each other’s strengths and weaknesses in the classroom helps preservice teachersdevelop high level thinking skills (Wilson & Edwards, 2009). Wynn and Kromrey (1999)found that preservice teachers can often receive insufficient feedback from their cooperatingteacher in the single placement model. However, with peer placements, preservice teacherstake on the role of peer coaches and are able to learn from mistakes and get ideas for theirown lessons. As a result, peer coaching was found to have a positive effect on preserviceteachers’ teaching experience and professional growth (Wynn & Kromrey, 1999).

Collaborating with a partner in a field placement, evidence suggests, creates amore friendly and supportive environment for preservice teachers (Smith, 2004). Whilepreservice teachers in single placements sometimes report feeling isolated and alone, thosein paired placements can offer each other support and companionship (Bullough et al.,2002). Wilson and Edwards (2009) explain that preservice teachers may feel vulnerablein single field placements, while a peer provides a sense of security and belongingness.This security fosters an ability to confide in one another about their experience, and helpsthe preservice teachers to concentrate and perform their tasks more efficiently. Supportand understanding provided by peers can also result in preservice teachers feeling lessstress about their experiences (Wynn & Kromrey, 1999). This relationship can also encour-age risk-taking and innovation in the classroom (Wilson & Edwards, 2009). Gardiner andRobinson (2009) found that preservice teachers supported by a peer during lessons weremore likely to engage in pedagogic risk-taking than those in single placements.

The benefits of peer placements are not limited to the preservice teachers; they arealso helpful to the field placement schools, the cooperating teachers, and the children in theclassroom (Bullough et al., 2003; Smith, 2004; Wilson & Edwards, 2009). The increase inadult supervision in the classroom can improve classroom management. Children are ableto receive more adult support and attention allowing them to experience a richer curriculum(Bullough et al., 2003). Children in classrooms where preservice teachers are placed inpairs learned more information and at a faster pace, according to the findings of Wilson andEdwards (2009).

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f N

ewca

stle

(A

ustr

alia

)] a

t 11:

35 0

6 O

ctob

er 2

014

138 L. Ammentorp and L. Madden

Finally, in contrast to the paired placement model, the single placement field experi-ence model instills the concept that teaching is a solo profession. Preservice teachers partic-ipating in solo placements sometimes miss the opportunity to learn the collaborative aspectof the teaching profession and the benefits of collaboration (Gardiner & Robinson, 2009).

Yet, the paired placement model is not without flaws, and these must also be consideredwhen planning or engaging in coursework that includes paired placements.

Challenges and Drawbacks of Paired Placements

Although the research suggests a host of benefits to paired field placements, these benefitsare not guaranteed. A number of factors can undermine the potential benefits. Preserviceteachers working in paired field placements can have negative experiences due to personal-ity clashes with their partner or different teaching styles (Bowen & Rolf, 2002). Preserviceteachers can sometimes exhibit “territoriality” as they plan and teach lessons without anycollaboration and this can cause tension and frustration (Bowen & Rolf, 2002; Smith,2004). Other difficulties can arise when one partner dominates the partnership and whenone partner contributes less to the shared workload (King, 2006). Competition betweenpartners can negatively affect the field experience as well. For example: one partner mayfeel the other partner is holding him or her back (McKeon, 2006); one partner may befavored by the cooperating teacher (King, 2006); or if the preservice teachers feel the coop-erating teacher views them only as a pair rather than as separate individuals (King, 2006).When preservice teachers do not possess the skills to constructively deal with interpersonalconflict the paired placement can be a negative experience. Finally, some preservice teach-ers express concern that partnered placements may not adequately prepare them for the“real world” of teaching (Gardiner and Robinson, 2010).

Strategies for Successful Preservice Partnerships

The specific criteria that define a successful partnership, as well as strategies for maximiz-ing partnerships, are not fully understood. A growing body of research (e.g., Bullough et al.,2003; Gardiner & Robinson, 2009, 2011; King, 2006; McKeon, 2006; Smith, 2004) offerkey suggestions for effective partnerships, such as: clearly defining roles for each partner;actively teaching collaboration skills and guidelines for constructive feedback; and devel-oping a “balanced compatibility” between partners. In these previous studies, however, thestudents voluntarily participated in partnered placements; it was not a mandatory part oftheir teacher education program.

Given the prevalence of collaborative teaching in early childhood and early elementaryschool settings, we believe that pairing preservice teachers during their field placementsis a necessary step in preparing them for the classrooms and schools of the 21st century.However, as the research indicates, just pairing preservice teachers together does not ensurea collaborative partnership. The requirement of pairing all students as part of a course eachsemester creates challenges for both faculty and students in the programs. Our study seeksto understand which factors influence the success of partnerships from the perspective ofthe preservice teachers. Their insight into the partnership experience can positively informour practice as teacher educators.

Methodological Approach

In an effort to better understand the benefits and challenges of paired preservice teacherfield placements, we decided to go to the source and ask our preservice teachers for their

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f N

ewca

stle

(A

ustr

alia

)] a

t 11:

35 0

6 O

ctob

er 2

014

Partnered Placements 139

perspectives. To get a broad sense of the general trends that exist among the preserviceteachers enrolled in our program, we collected data using a survey. Next, to understand themore nuanced perspectives of individuals, we conducted two focus group interviews witha subsample of the survey respondents. Though our research is grounded in the literatureon paired preteaching field placements, it is also exploratory in nature, so we felt it wasimportant to see which trends emerged from our unique population of preservice teachers.As a result, we used a qualitative approach to data analyses to best understand the themesand trends that emerged. Simple quantitative analyses were used to provide descriptiveinformation about our data as well (e.g., mean number of placements, etc.).

Participants and Context

The participants in the study are early childhood and elementary education undergradu-ate students at a small state college in the Northeastern United States. Students in ourprogram are primarily Caucasian and female. Early childhood and elementary educationmajors are required to take a second major; a large number of second majors are wellrepresented (for example, History, Women and Gender Studies, Psychology, MathematicsScience and Technology, etc.). The student body at the college is 57% female. Ninety-fourpercent of students are in-state residents, and nearly all are traditional students with just 3%of undergraduate students over the age of 25. Two-thirds of the student population identifyas Caucasian; Hispanic and Asian students make up the next largest groups of ethnicitiesrepresented at 10% and 9% respectively. The college is known as a highly selective organi-zation with verbal and quantitative SAT scores of incoming freshman consistently greaterthan 1300. In the department of elementary and early childhood education, the populationis skewed with a greater proportion of Caucasian female students. As students go throughour program, field experiences build and increase in complexity. Students take courses inblocks to maximize time in the field. Table 1 describes the three blocks.

Within each block, the courses are taught by different faculty members. One facultymember takes the lead in coordinating the field placements and creating the preserviceteacher pairings. Strategies used to pair students vary by professor.

Data Sources

Our data consists of survey and focus group interviews. Data used in this study werecollected between April and June 2012.

Preservice teacher survey: An online survey containing both qualitative and quanti-tative items was sent out to all EECE majors at the sophomore year or higher using ane-mail listserv. Data were collected using Qualtrics®. In an effort to maintain participantanonymity, demographic information such as age, race, gender, and GPA were excludedfrom this survey. Forty-nine preservice teachers (PSTs) completed the survey. Nine ofthe respondents participated in one paired preteaching field placement, 14 participated intwo, and 21 completed all three semester blocks and five PSTs participated in four pairedpreteaching field placements.2,3 Sample questions include:

2Indicating that they either repeated a course or transferred in from another institution that usedpaired field placements.

3It should be noted that these 49 preservice teachers responded to this survey voluntarily; theyare not necessarily representative of the entire pool of preservice teachers at this institution.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f N

ewca

stle

(A

ustr

alia

)] a

t 11:

35 0

6 O

ctob

er 2

014

Tabl

e1

Des

crip

tion

ofth

eT

hree

Cou

rse

Blo

cks

With

Fiel

dPl

acem

ents

Blo

ckW

hen

take

nC

ours

esta

ken

Fiel

dex

peri

ence

desc

ript

ion

Blo

ck1

Soph

omor

eye

arC

hild

Dev

elop

men

tLite

racy

•One

day

per

wee

kfo

r10

wee

ks•P

STs

are

obse

rver

sdu

ring

clas

sroo

min

stru

ctio

nB

lock

2Se

cond

sem

este

rso

phom

ore

year

orfir

stse

mes

ter

juni

orye

arM

athe

mat

ics

Met

hods

,Sci

ence

Met

hods

•One

day

per

wee

kfo

r8

wee

ks•P

STs

acta

sas

sist

ants

and

obse

rver

sth

roug

hout

the

sem

este

r•P

STs

are

requ

ired

topl

anan

dte

ach

two

full

less

ons

(1in

mat

hem

atic

s,1

insc

ienc

e)by

the

end

ofth

ese

mes

ter

Blo

ck3

Juni

orye

arIn

stru

ctio

nalM

etho

ds,S

ocia

lSt

udie

sM

etho

ds,L

itera

cyM

etho

ds

•One

and

aha

lfda

yspe

rw

eek

for

8w

eeks

;ful

ltim

ete

achi

ngfo

r2

wee

ks•P

STs

acta

sas

sist

ants

thro

ugho

utth

ese

mes

ter.

The

ypl

anan

dte

ach

one

less

onpe

rw

eek

duri

ngth

efir

st8

wee

ks•P

STs

plan

and

teac

hon

efu

llin

stru

ctio

nalu

nitd

urin

gth

eir

final

two

full-

time

wee

ks

140

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f N

ewca

stle

(A

ustr

alia

)] a

t 11:

35 0

6 O

ctob

er 2

014

Partnered Placements 141

1. How many times have you participated in a paired preteaching field placement?a. How many of your pairings would you consider unsuccessful? Why?b. How many of your pairings would you consider successful? Why?

2. What do you think causes an unsuccessful partnership?3. What do you think causes a successful partnership?4. What, if any, do you think are benefits of paired placements?5. What, if any, do you think are drawbacks of paired placements?6. What do you think professors should consider when pairing students?

Preservice teacher focus group: At the end of the preservice teacher survey we asked ifrespondents would be willing to participate in a focus group regarding peer placements,and if so to give their contact information. Two undergraduate research assistants contactedthese respondents. In addition, the undergraduate researchers sent an e-mail through thestudent listserv, and recruited participants enrolled in a summer course on campus. Therewere two focus groups with a total of 12 PSTs participating. The focus groups were mod-erated by two student researchers and recorded digitally and transcribed verbatim. Thequestions were the same as the survey questions, with flexibility for the moderator to addquestions/prompts during the focus group session.

Data Analysis

We use a qualitative approach to analyze both data sets. Two coders read through alldata sources and identified initial trends. Our assignment of codes was based on aconstructivist/interpretive qualitative framework (O’Connor, Netting, & Thomas, 2008).Previous findings from studies of paired preteaching field placements and initial trends inthe data were used to help organize each category. These codes were then uploaded intoAtlas.ti® along with documents containing all three data sources. To determine interraterreliability, a subset of ∼20% of the data were coded by both coders. Initial agreementbetween coders was approximately 80%. The coders and project PIs discussed discrepan-cies until agreement was met. The remainder of the data set was then divided and codedby individual coders. Any time a question came up regarding what to code a particularitem, the coders discussed it with one another and/or the project PIs before assigning acode. We then compared the trends and themes in codes between data sources and perspec-tives (Corbin & Strauss, 2008). Exemplary quotations from all data sources were noted andrecorded for use in data dissemination.

Findings

After surveying the preservice teachers enrolled in our program and conducting focusgroups with a subset of these PSTs, we are able to provide a more complete picture ofthe PSTs’ views on the success of their paired field placements and their suggestionsfor faculty to use in creating and supporting future partnerships. In this section, we firstdescribe the PSTs’ feedback on the overall success of their partnered placement experi-ence in our program and their views on the benefits and challenges of the paired placementmodel. We then present our findings regarding challenging factors that influence the suc-cess of partnerships as expressed by the PSTs. Specifically, two foci emerged from the data:peer-based factors; and faculty- and/or course-based factors. Within the faculty/coursefactors, we present students’ perspectives and suggestions on both the creation of part-nerships and after the partnerships are established. It should be noted that only quantitative

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f N

ewca

stle

(A

ustr

alia

)] a

t 11:

35 0

6 O

ctob

er 2

014

142 L. Ammentorp and L. Madden

Table 2Unsuccessful and Successful Placements According to Preservice Teacher Survey Data

1 placement 2 placements3 or more

placementsNumber ofplacements Unsuccessful Successful Unsuccessful Successful Unsuccessful Successful

Count 1 8 7.5 20.5 31 49Percentage 11.11% 88.89% 26.79% 73.21% 38.75% 61.25%

data is presented quantitatively—trends that emerged in responses across multiple surveyquestions or at different points throughout the focus groups is discussed and commentedon, but not quantified as they represent a synthesis across data sources.

Preservice Teachers’ Perspectives on the Overall Success of PairedPlacements

The number of placements among all of the survey participants totals 120. Of the120 placements, 29.5 placements were described as “unsuccessful” and 90.54 placements as“successful.” Therefore, the PSTs as a whole consider 25% of the placements unsuccessfuland 75% successful.

As indicated in Table 2, interesting patterns emerged regarding the success of theplacements over the course of the students’ academic experience. As PSTs continuedin the program, they report more unsuccessful experiences and fewer successful pairedexperiences.

Within the survey and focus groups, the preservice teachers discuss the benefits ofpaired partnerships. They primarily focus on the support and comfort a partner provides,the ability to bounce ideas off each other, and the benefits of peer feedback on lessons.As one student describes: “You get to learn from the other person, vent with them, andcollaborate with them to form great ideas for the class. . . . They provide a support system inthe classroom, extra eyes and presence to offer advice on lessons.” The PSTs recognize thatthe peer experience develops important skills they will need as future teachers—such as theability to communicate and provide feedback, as well improving their ability to collaborateand compromise. As one preservice teacher explains, “I think [paired placements] reallybuilt the kind of camaraderie and teamwork that teachers in the field, let alone studentteachers, need to have to be able to consult other people and think outside of the box and justkind of come up with different ways to do things.” A number of the students commentedthat through their partnerships, they developed long lasting friendships.

Factors Influencing the Success of Partnerships

According to the PSTs, multiple factors influence the success of their partnership expe-rience. Two major categories emerge from the data: (a) peer/partner specific factorsand (b) faculty and/or course-related factors. Peer-based factors discussed by the PSTsinclude: personality characteristics/dispositions of their partners (for example: motivation,

4Two respondents reported the number of successful/unsuccessful pairings using decimals.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f N

ewca

stle

(A

ustr

alia

)] a

t 11:

35 0

6 O

ctob

er 2

014

Partnered Placements 143

flexibility, work ethic, academic performance); as well as interpersonal dynamics withinthe partnership (such as partner communication, scheduling, or compatibility in workstyle/habits). In addition to peer-based factors, the preservice teachers cite influences relat-ing to faculty and the course (for example, the nature of assignments; the level of facultysupport; faculty method for partnering students, etc.).

Peer-based factors that influence partnerships. The predominant factor affecting thesuccess of the peer partnership, according to the PSTs, is the personality of their partner.Our analysis of survey and focus group data found “challenging” partners to fall into threecategories or types of individuals: unprofessional or unmotivated partners; dominating oroverbearing partners; and partners who struggled academically. According to the PSTs, ofthese three types, the first type, the unmotivated partner, pose the biggest challenge to apartnership. The preservice teachers describe the frustration and stress when working withsuch partners. One survey respondent suggests that faculty should “(p)lace students whoare responsible together so they are not suffering from another’s frequent absences or lowwork ethic.” The PSTs worry that their partner’s lack of professionalism affects how theyare viewed by others: “If your partner is unprofessional then you feel like you did somethingwrong.” The preservice teachers convey their frustration when these students did not pulltheir own weight on group assignments, leaving them to do all the work. “My partner didlittle to no work, yet got credit for our group assignments. She put in no effort and was hardto work with.” A number of PSTs expressed that their partner’s unavailability due to otheractivities (extracurricular, work, etc.) was a major obstacle to the success of their pairedplacements.

On the other hand, working with dominating partners, those who tended to “take over”prove challenging as well. As a focus group participant explains, “I felt like I didn’t learnas much as I could because we always had to go with her way.” Not surprisingly, the PSTsstress that a lack of communication and inability to compromise by one or both partnersleads to unsuccessful partnerships.

The PSTs emphasize that if each partner is motivated to learn and willing to compro-mise, differences in personality and academic background can be beneficial. They describea successful relationship as one with partners having a balanced and complementary skillset. For example, in one of the focus groups, participants discuss the benefits of partneringPSTs with different second majors, and the increased confidence and security students canfeel with the support of a more knowledgeable peer.

Faculty/course factors that influence the success of partnerships. In considering thechallenges and successes faced in their partnership experience, the PSTs reflected uponthe role of faculty and offered strategies for both effectively creating and supportingpartnerships.

Faculty in our program employ a wide variety of methods to create partnerships for thefield placements. Some faculty members randomly place the students together, while otherfaculty members create a questionnaire for students to fill out prior to placement. We foundthat the PSTs’ exposure to this variety of pairing methods allowed for informed suggestionsfor future pairings. PSTs overwhelmingly agreed random pairing methods such as splittingthe class up or pairing alphabetically usually resulted in unsuccessful pairings.

According to the PSTs, the courses in which professors gave out questionnaires ask-ing for additional information prior to placement had more successful placements. In termsof the content of the questionnaire, respondents suggest that faculty continue to take intoaccount factors such as previous classroom grade level experience and requested grade lev-els. In addition, PSTs strongly responded that partner specific factors should be considered,

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f N

ewca

stle

(A

ustr

alia

)] a

t 11:

35 0

6 O

ctob

er 2

014

144 L. Ammentorp and L. Madden

in particular personality and work ethic. This made sense as these are the factors they deemcentral to the success or failure of their partnerships. In the focus group, they agreed thatthe faculty should thoughtfully consider pairings particularly in Block 3—Advance CourseBlock (ACB), due to the intensity of the assignments and partner expectations:

ACB was such a taxing semester in terms of work load and stress levels andsleep patterns and everything else. I really think that if you’re going through itwith someone you know and you like that’s really important . . . doing a surveyto match personalities—that’s a really good idea.

In addition to the questionnaire, the PSTs made other suggestions for ways faculty can learnabout students prior to placements. Their recommendations often mirrored strategies fromtheir teacher education classes regarding differentiation and learning about young children.For example, in one focus group they proposed that faculty talk to their colleagues to learnmore about their students:

I think even like we learn in our classes how with students you should talk toformer teachers that they’ve had to learn about them. It is more work but if ourprofessors communicated to the professors that we’ve had in the past and werelike “How does this student work?”, “What have you seen them do best at?”that can also help make more effective matches.

The PSTs suggest faculty conduct preassessments and guided observations of them dur-ing the first weeks of classes. As one preservice teacher notes in the survey, “Facultyshould also look at how the [PSTs] participate within the classroom environment beforeplacing them in the field together. Some students grow closer to other students within theclass.”

PSTs were conflicted about whether students should be able to choose their partnersand work with friends. For example, one student advocated: “I think [PSTs] should be giventhe choice because they will know who they will work well with. [PSTs] who do not get tochoose their partners might be paired up with someone they find collaborating with to bedifficult.” Yet as they considered the logistics of pairing everyone in a course, participantsin the focus group recognized the problems with choosing partners: “I’d say probably don’tlet people choose their partners because then it leaves some people at a disadvantage whenthey don’t know anybody else in the class.” The nuanced discussion regarding the pros andcons of choice in creating partners is just one example of the thoughtfulness with whichthe PSTs approach the issues concerning their training as teachers, particularly within thefocus groups.

In addition to faculty’s influence in creating partnerships prior to placement, the PSTsemphasize the central role of faculty’s ongoing support over the course of the field experi-ence, particularly in the more intense, upper level courses. They stress that faculty support,availability and just being in tune with the partnership dynamics leads to more successfulfield experiences.

In both the focus groups and the survey, the preservice teachers express high satis-faction with the level and quality of the support they receive from faculty. They recognizeand appreciate when faculty have a finger on the pulse of their partnerships. They feel thata good line of communication with the professor and frequent check-ins allow the facultymember to assess the partnership and to detect any problems. In the words of one preserviceteacher:

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f N

ewca

stle

(A

ustr

alia

)] a

t 11:

35 0

6 O

ctob

er 2

014

Partnered Placements 145

I think a lot of the professors that I’ve had do a fine job of like not necessarilyplanning it out, but noticing subtly who’s doing the most work. I think theyreally have their fingers on it.

The PSTs expressed that their relationships with their professor positively impacts theirrelationship with their peers, particularly when the faculty members take steps to create asense of community among all the PSTs in the class. As one preservice teacher explains,“We all knew each other; it was a great family dynamic so everyone in the classroombonded.” This sense of community encouraged an environment of open communicationand mutual support among all of the PSTs in the course, beyond the faculty–student andpartner dyads. The community-based support system within the class cohort contributed toa more successful experience, even if difficulties arose within partnerships.

According to the PSTs, in addition to providing support and a sense of community,professors influence the success of the partnered experience through course guidelines andassignments. In particular, PSTs discuss the importance of clarity in the roles and expecta-tions of the partnerships and assignments guidelines, especially when it comes to grading.A number of the respondents voiced frustration because they felt their partner’s behaviornegatively affected their grades: “The worst part is at the end you’re graded together and Idon’t agree with that. I think that everybody should have to write what they did and theyshould be graded individually.” Another PST echoed the sentiment: “My second experi-ence was completely unsuccessful pretty much because every assignment that we had todo, whether it was for the class in college or for the field placement, it was dependent oneach other.”

What Is a Successful Learning Experience?

The discussion of grading and “successful” and “unsuccessful” partnerships leads to inter-esting questions as to what a “successful” field experience is. Is it getting a good grade, orhaving an easy relationship, void of conflict? In our survey and focus groups, we asked par-ticipants to describe both their successful and unsuccessful partnerships and to discuss whatthey think causes a successful and unsuccessful partnership. This allowed the participantsto define “success.” In the focus groups especially, the PSTs grappled with the idea thatsuccess isn’t always a perfect partnership and that sometimes difficult partnerships teachmore about “real world” collaboration:

You’re going to face people in the real world, like while you’re teaching, whoyou’re not going to get along with or who aren’t going to work with you wellso it’s still a learning experience. I think any learning experience is a successfulexperience.

As another focus group respondent explains, although she had an unsuccessful partnership,she still considered her overall experience a success:

Once you’re in a school you can’t control your colleagues. My unsuccessfulpartnership was a great learning experience because I realized in the future Imay have to work with somebody that might be difficult and now I know whatnot to do and what to do better.

These examples exemplify the thoughtfulness of the PSTs in discussing their experience.Their reflections also demonstrate the benefits of having PSTs collaboratively consider the

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f N

ewca

stle

(A

ustr

alia

)] a

t 11:

35 0

6 O

ctob

er 2

014

146 L. Ammentorp and L. Madden

skills and dispositions they need to develop as future teachers, and the most effective meth-ods to learn them. Participation in the research project allowed them to step out of their ownexperience, giving them insight into the challenges faculty face in creating and maintainingpartnerships.

Discussion

To meet the demands of teaching in the 21st century, preservice teachers need opportuni-ties to develop their collaborative and communication skills in their teacher preparationprogram (Bullough et al., 2003; Darling-Hammond, 2006; Gardiner & Robinson, 2009;NAEYC, 2009, 2011; NCATE, 2010). Collaboration skills are included in the state andnational standards for both in-service and preservice teachers and are part of their teacherevaluations.

The model of partnering two preservice teachers with one teacher for their field expe-rience has shown to yield numerous benefits, including developing skills of collaborativeproblem solving, risk taking and innovation; in addition to: emotional support, classroommanagement support, and learning vicariously by watching the errors and success of theirpeers (Baker & Milner, 2006; Bullough et al., 2002, 2003; Gardiner & Robinson, 2009,2011; Smith, 2004).

Similar to the previous findings on peer placements, we found the majority of PSTsdescribed their peer placement experience as successful; particularly in the lower levelcourses that required less teaching and fewer joint assignments. As students moved alongin their program and completed more field-based courses, the percentage of reported suc-cessful experiences by the PSTs decreased. It is possible that this trend simply reflectshaving more experiences in the field increases the likelihood of having negative experi-ences. However, based on the focus groups’ responses and comments in the survey, weattribute this phenomenon to the increased complexity and expectations in the advancedcourses. Our teacher education program is organized to build upon itself, so that as thePSTs progress in their studies, their time in the field increases, as does the expected levelof collaboration and intensity of the required work. This increase in expectations and thecomplexity of the tasks puts more pressure on the partnership and requires more advancedorganizational, communication and collaboration skills by the PSTs as well as more supportfrom faculty and the cooperating teacher to deal with problems as they arise.

The PSTs in this study provided meaningful insight into the benefits and challengesof paired partnerships in this context. They offered nuanced and thoughtful reflectionson improving the creation of partnerships and development in the partnership experi-ence. Their suggestions often reflected the instructional strategies they learned in theirteacher education courses. For example, the importance of building relationships and asense of community with students; learning about students through the use of question-naires and guided observations, and using this knowledge to purposefully differentiateinstruction.

Based on our findings in this study, the research literature, and our experience withpaired placements, we offer the following suggestions for maximizing the effectiveness ofthe paired placement experience for early childhood and elementary preservice teachers.

Strategies for Effective Partnerships

Actively teach and support collaboration (and other skills); include students in thediscussion of how to best prepare preservice teachers. Our findings support previous

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f N

ewca

stle

(A

ustr

alia

)] a

t 11:

35 0

6 O

ctob

er 2

014

Partnered Placements 147

research that found communication and collaboration skills are not automatic in the field-work setting, but can be learned when incorporated into the curriculum. Incorporating andreflecting upon partner work and group activities helps students develop and strengthencollaborative, communication and leadership skills. Teaching constructive criticism, com-munication and problem-solving skills, such as “I-statements” and the “sandwich method,”will assist in their preservice partnerships, and are essential skills for their future work withparents, children, and colleagues.

Encouraging a strong class community will provide additional support for those PSTswho may have difficulties with their partner. This can be facilitated by the professor, forexample, by modeling morning meeting and community-building activities in the course,but also without direct involvement of the professor. For example, students in past cohortscreated their own class Facebook page. They used the page to ask each other questions, toclarify assignment guidelines and due dates, etc.

Discussing the benefits and rationale for partnered placements as part of the coursemakes it more meaningful for the students. Providing readings from teacher educationjournals regarding the skills and dispositions needed for preservice teachers allows themto recognize the skills they will be developing through the partnerships, and gives them anawareness of common challenges as well as strategies for success.

Use a questionnaire and other methods to learn about students when creating part-nerships. The PSTs participating in our study felt strongly that a questionnaire providedfaculty with important insight into their preferences and learning styles. They overwhelm-ingly reported that they had more successful experiences in courses that used questionnairesrather than random placement. A few of them compared it to a dating survey or housing sur-vey for college roommates. We recommend that in addition to grade level requests, facultyshould include questions that affect the partnership, such as work styles, schedules, orga-nizational skills. We found a Likert scale model to work well for these questions. We alsosuggest that faculty consider PSTs’ request for nonpartners. If they think they would notwork well with another person, it is in usually in everyone’s interest to grant the request.

Along with clear guidelines on assignments and careful selection of partners usingquestionnaires, PSTs also benefit from instruction on organization and planning skillssuch as coordinating schedules and dividing tasks. The use of technology such as Skype(Gardiner & Robinson, 2011), texting, Google Hangout, Google Docs as well as file shar-ing sites such as Dropbox, can make scheduling time to work together easier, and increasethe likelihood of successful collaboration among partners.

Differentiate instruction and create a goal-based plan for challenging students. ThePSTs describe three types of “difficult” partners: the domineering/controlling student, theuninvolved or unmotivated student, and the student who is academically weak. In ourcourses, we try to partner these students carefully and provide ongoing feedback, supportand communication with the preservice teacher, their partner, and the cooperating teacher.Similar to the responses in this study, we find the uninvolved/unmotivated student to requirethe most attention. Figuring out possible causes for their attitude/behavior and creating agoal-based plan, sometimes before problems arise, can help them better meet their goals.

Provide clear guidelines for assignments and roles. Individualize graded work whenpossible. Similar to prior research (Gardiner & Robinson, 2010; McKeon, 2006; Smith,2002, 2004), the PSTs emphasized that clear guidelines in expectations of projectsand partnerships lead to more successful partnerships. In particular, such guidelinesallowed for better planning and equal distribution of work throughout the semester. PSTs’

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f N

ewca

stle

(A

ustr

alia

)] a

t 11:

35 0

6 O

ctob

er 2

014

148 L. Ammentorp and L. Madden

frustration with partnerships often came from an unequal distribution of work on partneredassignments, yet both partners receiving the same grade. We suggest that when possible,professors should separate individual graded assessment from paired work assignments.The added stressor of the grade can undermine the collaborative spirit. We found the aca-demically stronger and/or controlling students can get frustrated and are less willing to actas peer mentors when their grades are tied to the partnered work. This can make it difficultfor them to “let go” and appreciate partnering as a learning/teaching experience.

Include students in research/ discussion about instructional methods. Through partic-ipation in this study, the PSTs discussed the benefits and challenges of partnering students.They considered the perspectives of everyone involved and problem solved ways to makethe field experience more effective. In serving as research participants, the PSTs were ableto gain insight into the field of teacher preparation, and in the end, catch a glimpse of howresearch informs practice in teacher education.

Conclusion

Teaching others how to teach involves ongoing self-reflection and study as we strive tomodel our content: effective teaching methods. Concepts such as scaffolding, buildingrelationships, differentiation, problem-solving, purposefulness, self-reflection, collabora-tion are tenets we recognize as central to high-quality effective teaching in early childhoodeducation. When we consider the responses of both the faculty and PSTs in light of theresearch literature on paired preservice field experiences, we can conclude that success-ful partnerships can be developed through the use of these tenets of high-quality teachingand learning. When partners are paired purposefully and partnerships are nurtured dur-ing the courses that accompany the field placements, preservice teachers can develop thecollaboration and problem-solving skills necessary to become highly effective teachers.

Acknowledgements

The work presented in this manuscript was supported by The College of New Jersey’sMentored Undergraduate Student Experience (MUSE) program. We would like to alsoacknowledge Jacqueline DeNarie and Tara-Lyn Farrell for their assistance with datacollection and analysis.

References

Baker, S., & Milner, J. (2006). Complexities of collaboration: Intensity of mentors’ responses topaired and single student teachers. Action in Teacher Education, 28(3), 61–72.

Bowen, G. M., & Rolf, W. M. (2002). Student teachers’ perceptions of their paired practicumplacement experiences. Journal of Teaching & Learning, 2(1), 21–37.

Bullough, R. V., Young, J., Erickson, L., Birrell, J. R., Clark, D. C., & Egan, M. W. (2002).Rethinking field experience: Partnership teaching versus single-placement teaching. Journal ofTeacher Education, 53(1), 68–80. doi:10.1177/0022487102053001007

Bullough, R. V., Young, J., Erickson, L., Birrell, J. R., Clark, D. C., & Egan, M. W. (2003). Teachingwith a peer: A comparison of two models of student teaching. Teaching and Teacher Education,19, 57–73. doi:10.1016/S0742-051X(02)00094-X

Cadwell, L. B. (2003). Bringing learning to life: The Reggio approach to early childhood education.New York, NY: Teachers College Press.

Corbin, J. A., & Strauss, A. (2008). Basics of qualitative research (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA:Sage.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f N

ewca

stle

(A

ustr

alia

)] a

t 11:

35 0

6 O

ctob

er 2

014

Partnered Placements 149

Darling-Hammond, L. (2006). Constructing 21st-century teacher education. Journal of TeacherEducation, 57, 300–314.

Edwards, C., Gandini, L., & Forman, G. (Eds.). (2011). The hundred languages of children: TheReggio experience in transformation (3rd ed.). Santa Barbara, CA: Praeger.

Gardiner, W., & Robinson, K. (2009). Paired field placements: A means for collaboration. The NewEducator, 5(1), 81–94.

Gardiner, W., & Robinson, K. (2010). Partnered field placements: Collaboration in the “Real world.”Teacher Educator, 45, 202–215. doi:10.1080/08878730.2010.487928

Gardiner, W., & Robinson, K. (2011). Peer placements with preservice teachers: Negotiatingcollaborative relationships. The Professional Educator, 35(2), 1–11.

King, S. (2006). Promoting paired placements in initial teacher education. International Research inGeographical and Environmental Education, 15, 370–386.

Lave, J., & Wenger, E. (1991). Situated learning: Legitimate peripheral participation. New York,NY: Cambridge University Press.

McKeon, F. (2006, October). Partnerships within a paired teaching placement and support forthe trainee teachers’ professional development. Paper presented at the 31st annual confer-ence of the Association of Teacher Education in Europe, Portoroz, Slovenia. Retrieved fromhttp://www.pef.uni-lj.si/atee/978-961-6637-06-0/229–240.pdf

Nagappan, N., Williams, L., Ferzli, M., Wiebe, E., Yang, K., Miller, C., & Balik, S. (2003). Improvingthe CS1 experience with pair programming. ACM SIGCSE Bulletin, 35(1), 359–362.

National Association for the Education of Young Children (NAEYC). (2009). NAEYC standards forearly childhood professional preparation: A position statement for the National Association forthe Education of Young Children. Retrieved form http://www.naeyc.org/positionstatements/ppp

National Association for the Education of Young Children (NAEYC). (2011). 2010 NAEYCstandards for initial & advanced early childhood professional preparation programs foruse by associate, baccalaureate and graduate degree programs. Washington, DC: Author.Retrieved from http://www.naeyc.org/files/ecada/file/NAEYC%20Initial%20and%20Advanced%20Standards%206_2011-final.pdf

National Council for Accreditation of Teacher Education (NCATE). (2010). Transformingteacher education through clinical practice: A national strategy to prepare effective teach-ers. Washington, DC: Report of the Blue Ribbon Panel on Clinical Preparation andPartnerships for Improved Student Learning. Retrieved from http://www.ncate.org/LinkClick.aspx?fileticket=zzeiB1OoqPk%3D&tabid=715

O’Connor, M. K., Netting, F. E., & Thomas, M. L. (2008). Grounded theory: Managing the challengefor those facing institutional review board oversight. Qualitative Inquiry, 14(1), 28–45.

Rogoff, B. (1990). Apprenticeship in thinking: Cognitive development in social context. New York,NY: Oxford University Press.

Smith, J. D. N. (2002). The development of tandem teaching placements. Mentoring & Tutoring:Partnership in Learning, 10, 253–274.

Smith, J. D. N. (2004). Developing paired teaching placements. Educational Action Research, 12(1),99–125. doi:10.1080/1361126022000022507

Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes (M.Cole, V. John-Steiner, S. Scribner, & E. Souberman, Eds.). Cambridge, MA: Harvard UniversityPress.

Wilson, P., & Edwards, J. (2009). Paired ITE teaching placements: Implications forpartnershipdevelopment. Proceedings of the British Society for Research into Learning Mathematics, 29(2),82–87.

Wynn, M. J., & Kromrey, J. (1999). Paired peer placement with peer coaching in early fieldexperiences: Results of a four year study. Teacher Education Quarterly, 26(1), 21–38.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f N

ewca

stle

(A

ustr

alia

)] a

t 11:

35 0

6 O

ctob

er 2

014