Field experience in distance delivered initial teacher education programmes.

Field experience is a core element in an initial or preservice teacher education programme. It allows students to enact and reflect on their developing philosophies of teaching and is the "testing ground" for theory/practice links. Educational theorists and programme planners in distance delivered teacher education programmes acknowledge the centrality of field experience. Yet for distance education students, that experience is often minimalized because of administrative costs and a range of supervision factors. For distance students it is essential that their field experience is of comparable quality and rigor to that of their oncampus counterparts so that a distance gained teaching qualification meets the same standards as one gained oncampus. This article examines the literature on field experience and explores some of the ways field experience can be implemented in distance delivered teacher education programmes. An international comparative study of distance delivered preservice teacher education is drawn on to provide examples of field experience. Finally, the use of computer mediated communication (CMC) is considered as a means of providing new responses to the challenges that have been identified.

**********

This article discusses the provision of field experience for student teachers who are in distance delivered teacher education programmes where the students are working towards a first level teacher education qualification. The contexts drawn on for the discussion in this article are spread throughout the world, in developed and developing countries and in a variety of organizations. The experience and enactment of field experience is thus quite varied. The developmental stage of the country often determines the categorization of the field experience as preservice or inservice. In many developing countries, particularly where universal education has been introduced, the supply of teachers is often insufficient. In such circumstances student teachers often work in schools as teachers while they undertake their teacher education programme. For these students field experience becomes an inservice provision largely reflecting the apprenticeship model. Generally, however, field experience is categorized and written of in the literature as a preservice experience and its emphasis is towards the reflective constructivist approach.

Whether inservice or preservice and whatever the theoretical approach the provision and support of field experience provides a particular challenge for distance delivered teacher education programmes. In traditional oncampus initial teacher education programmes lecturers (or faculty) work with their students to prepare them for field experience and often supervise them while in the field. Such preparation and support is more challenging to provide for distance students.

THE NATURE OF FIELD EXPERIENCE

There seems to be no disagreement in the teacher education literature that field experience is important. In fact there is a call from many researchers and writers for greater links with schools (Howey, 1996; Imig & Switzer, 1996; Ishler, Edens, & Berry, 1996; Khamis, 2000; Perraton, 2000; Walker, Preston, & Mitchell, 2000). These links already take many forms--partnerships, laboratory schools, Normal Schools, and professional development schools. However, at present, the most widely used link is individual schools that are contracted to provide field experience.

Field experience, which should provide the testing or proving context for the theoretical and curriculum courses in a programme, is currently enacted in many forms. Examples of these forms are block postings, microteaching, and observations. Usually, students move progressively, with support, from structured observations, to work with individual pupils, to group and whole class work (McIntyre, Byrd, & Foxx, 1996; Morine-Dershimer & Leighfield, 1995).

One of the outcomes sought from field experience is the development of a sense of being part of a community and a profession. It is important for preservice students to feel supported as they begin to develop a sense of belonging to a teaching and learning community (Edens, 2000; Howey, 1996; Ishler et al., 1996). Support comes from work with teachers in the field, contact with peers, and supervision from lecturers or other teacher education experts.

Field experience ideally should not only be about testing or solving immediate problems and allowing the development of teaching skills but also about learning to enquire and reflect (McIntyre et al., 1996; Morine-Dershimer & Leighfield, 1995). There is a strong call in the teacher education literature for student teachers to develop reflection skills and habits. Ishler et al. (1996) said that teacher education programmes should encourage reflective analysis. Roth (1999) also noted the importance of critical reflection. Student teachers need opportunities to extend their perspectives beyond single classrooms and to learn to reflect and critique the relationships of power and influence that shape classrooms and the ways schools operate (Graves, 1990; Hursh, 1995; Ishler et al., 1996; Roth, 1999; Simco, 1998). Hursh agreed when he stated the reflection and critique must work to uncover relationships of power and influence and encourage new ways of teaching and organizing schools. Swanwick (1990) said the profession as a whole will suffer if critical reflection, self-evaluation, and the extension of perspectives beyond a single classroom are not developed.

Field experience varies in the timing and frequency of the in-school experiences. The most common patterns try to spread the experiences throughout the programme. There is also variation in the range and number of schools used. These variations reflect theoretical orientations and national conditions.

The supervision that occurs during field experience also reflects theoretical and practical conditions. During supervision both the associate (also known as the cooperating) teacher and the lecturer or institution representative supervise the student and are important to the success the student experiences. Their roles, although played differently, are evaluative and supportive in nature. This understanding of the nature of field experience provides the context for identifying the problems of providing field experience for distance students.

THE PROBLEMS OF PROVIDING FIELD EXPERIENCE FOR DISTANCE STUDENTS

The provision of field experience in distance delivered teacher education programmes presents a range of problems. Some problems are of an administrative nature, others are related to ensuring that the students' teaching skills are extended.

Central to encouraging student teachers to develop reflective practice and communicate with others as they do this is providing a range of school experiences. This helps student teachers develop multiple perspectives and note the variety of responses there can be to common problems and issues. However, conversely, providing dialogue and shared experiences is also difficult with multiple field sites, as the means of allowing the dialogue to occur may not be readily available. A further issue related to providing a range of experience was noted by Young (1998) who commented that a consequence of many of the new shortened programmes and the school-based programmes was that experience is often in a single school and can be an inadequate model for a future teacher.

It is also often the case that it is difficult for a teacher education institution to find sufficient schools in which to place their students. Quantity is one problem; quality is another. Institutions delivering teacher education often have little ability to select and supervise sites of best practice, as they are limited to the use of local schools or schools within a reasonable travelling distance. Consistency of quality in field experience is not easy to achieve for widely geographically spread students and there is the challenge of understanding local school conditions and being responsive from a centralized point of control.

Supervision of student teachers while on field experience raises a number of problems. Ideally, supervision needs to be provided by people who are familiar with the teacher education programme and can help student teachers make the links between their coursework and the field experience. However, when the school the student teacher is placed in is far from the campus, this ideal can be difficult to achieve. It may be impossible to release the lecturer from other teaching duties to visit the students who are on field experience. Cost is a consideration. Travel is expensive. The three party (student, associate teacher, and lecturer) relationship, central to field experience supervision, is prone to the development of conflicting values and unclear communication of requirements.

Circumstances, such as the distance student teachers are from the institution, the number of student teachers to be visited, the costs, or a combination of these factors sometimes make it impossible for the lecturers to visit the students. There are also some teacher education institutions that do not have their lecturers visit the students. In any of these circumstances the selection of other personnel with sufficient expertise and knowledge of the particular teacher education programme becomes an issue. These people have to have credibility with the students, the schools, and the associate teachers. It is during the supervision of student teachers on field experience that what Darling-Hammond (1999), Berliner (2000), Goodlad (1999), and Ishler et al. (1996) call the intricately interwoven links between field experience and schools, come most closely into play. However, these links are always vulnerable to being weakened. When teachers are unclear about the field experience requirements for example, it is valuable to have lecturers from the institution in the school to be able to collaborate to provide clarity. Students like this collaboration since it can also provide clarification for them if needed. In addition, collaboration serves to maintain a clear understanding of the value of their programme with people who may well be their future employers. In many countries where there are several providers of teacher education there can be competition for the use of schools. Under such pressure the school/institutional links are especially vulnerable to the effects of misunderstanding.

The links with associate or cooperating teachers are also subject to pressures. Associate or cooperating teachers generally take on the role of mentoring and supporting student teachers from a sense of commitment to their profession rather than of commitment to any institution or for the remuneration provided (Cooper, 1995). However, support programmes for the associate teacher can mean they develop programme expertise particularly related to one institution. In other cases contractual arrangements are made, such as the partnership schools and mentor teacher arrangements developed by the British Open University (Bourdillon & Burgess, 1998). Such arrangements usually require the school or the associate teacher to work exclusively with the contracted institution and thus close that link for other institutions and their students.

Associate teachers need special preparation for their role so that the experience they provide links with the programme goals (Morine-Dershimer & Leighfield, 1995). Training of associate teachers at a distance means the development of special training packages and allocation of time for all the parties involved.

Decisions on the timing of field experience in the programme and the nature of each of the experiences bring further issues to be addressed. Suitable blocks of time when students can be away from the institution must be considered. How that time is fitted into, and impacts on the progression of, their study needs thought. The involvement of lecturers impacts on how and when they can contribute to other areas of the programme. Timetables of schools and institutions are complex and the placement of field experience must also be planned with an understanding of the impact field experience needs can have on the whole range of programmes offered within the schools and the institutions.

There are other field experience issues that relate to the nature of the experience student teachers are provided with. There can be a need for specialized field experience. Multi-level teaching experience for rural school situations is often a neglected focus. Likewise, inner city schools pose other practice challenges that students may need to engage with. The need to address and understand multi-cultural populations and to prepare a rather homogenous teaching force for diverse classrooms should also be considered.

The next section of this article will examine a range of responses to the problems of providing field experience that have been identified.

MODELS AND METHODS FOR PROVIDING AND SUPPORTING FIELD EXPERIENCE

The literature on distance education and field experience is sparse. Of the little that is available most focuses on the actual field experience time. There is very little that acknowledges the management or preparation issues associated with the field experience.

A number of distance delivered preservice teacher education programmes overcome some of the challenges of distant preparation by including blocks of residential time to allow students to prepare for field experience (Hall, 1998) and establishing base schools for use during some of the field experience (Campbell, Yates, & McGee, 1998). Waikato University in New Zealand with the Mixed Media Programme and The Open University in England with a Post Graduate programme both use base schools and ensure that their distance students have ongoing, activity-focused contact with the base schools. These responses, however, really only work in countries or situations where there is reasonable affluence and mobility. In some countries students do not have access to either private or public transport. Such difficulties can usually only be overcome by using local experts to provide supervision and support. However, when the students are inservice students the use of residential time for work on refining teaching skills may have some benefit as these students can apply their learning immediately on their return to schools. In Somalia, for example, the residential time and the support it provides seems to have allowed a teacher education programme to continue under extremely difficult refugee camp conditions (Said, 1990).

In another New Zealand programme from Massey University the programme planners developed the programme so no oncampus or regional workshop time was required. This decision recognized the cost of travel and accommodation to students. It also reflected the institutional history of distance delivery as the University has expertise in delivering practical subjects at a distance. The field experience preparation is provided by the traditional print material and use of online group and class work (Anderson & Simpson, 1998, 2002; Simpson, 2002).

Acknowledging reflective practice as such an essential part of field experience means that supporting this aspect of the programme at a distance needs serious consideration and commitment. Ideally, students and lecturers need ways of communicating with one another and being able to discuss the situations they see. Often, as in Tanzania and Zimbabwe, this is achieved by placing several students in one school, having them teach in front of one another with lecturers or other education experts present and then conducting a follow-up discussion time (Chale, 1993; Chivore, 1993). The British Open University provides an example of how, in another setting, mentor teachers are supported through teacher development courses to become expert at helping students develop reflective practice (Banks & Burgess, 1996). The Guyanan GUIDE teacher education programme also uses mentor teachers. An initiative from Massey University (Broadley, 2000) shows how a strong focus may be kept on reflection and dialogue while partially replacing personal visiting time by other means of assessment. The use of telephone conversations based on videoed, audio taped, or detailed print reports of lessons sent into the lecturers before the telephone conversation reduced the number of visits to students during their final (7 week) field experience from three to one. Lecturers were able to use the telephone conversations to help the students critique and reflect on the lesson. Evaluation of the process concluded that by using the range of media as well as the one personal visit the quality of the process was maintained and some of the costs lessened.

The Open University in England provides an example of how the issue of field experience in a single school and the possible lack of sufficient variety in the experience that may result could be addressed. A modification to the teaching experience pattern ensures that two weeks of the total field experience time is spent in another school (Banks & Burgess, 1996).

The use of computer mediated communication (CMC) technology has introduced other ways of providing dialogue and support for field experience for teacher education students. A number of initiatives provide examples that may equally be implemented with distance students. An Australian study (Ballantyne & Mylonas, 2001) provided some insight into how the use of online material and discussion set within a mentor model might help to bridge the gap between institution and remote field experience sites. In this study mentor teachers, lecturers, and students were all able to participate in online discussion. The study highlighted the three-way partnership between associate teacher, lecturer, and student, identified earlier as important, as an area that needs careful attention. Participation for all parties was found to be problematic and it was noted that lecturers needed to plan carefully when and how they influence their students while on field experience. There was also an indication that there was a need to address administrative processes and philosophical and power issues in relation to collaboration and students' supervision. The University of Houston (Pierson & McNeil, 2000) and The School of Education at Seattle University (Roddy, 1999) are also institutions where networked learning communities of lecturers, associate teachers, and students are being used to enrich the field experience.

In addition to using CMC to strengthening the three-way partnership at the heart of the field experience several teacher education institutions have recognized the value of CMC for encouraging and supporting reflection on practice. Work in North American settings (Dzuba, 1994; Laffey & Musser, 1998; Laffey, Musser, & Tupper, 1998) has demonstrated that CMC can help the development of reflective practitioners. Interactive journals facilitated reflective learning based on the students' field experience. In another US study Edens (2000) noted the constraints posed to reflective discussion by having students in multiple field sites and outlined an initiative where an online discussion group was developed to overcome this difficulty for oncampus students. Through an analysis of postings, Edens found that students began to function as a professional community, to ask questions, and to gather data on which to reflect. She concluded that online discussion is viable for promoting reflection and additionally for linking faculty (lecturers) with the teachers at the field sites. Other studies, although not linked to field experience, confirm the value of discussion groups for preservice teacher education students and reflection on their practice (Dutt-Doner & Powers, 2000; Kenny, Andrews, Vignola, Schilz, & Covert, 1999). Some studies provide guidance for those planning to use CMC. Loiselle, Dupuy-Walker, Gingras, & Gagnon (1996), again in work set in the US, found CMC to be successful in developing collaboration and an effective introduction to critical reflective thinking but noted that to develop and sustain reflective thinking further the help of a professor (lecturer) is required. Work by Admiraal, Lockhorst, Wubbels, Korthagen, and Veen (1998) and Charoula, Bonk, Supplee, & Malikowski (1998) brings some further cautions that must be considered when designing teaching material. In their work, Admiraal et al. found that CMC environments provided emotional support but was used less for reflection on teaching, while Charoula et al. indicate that any conferencing requirement needs to be an opportunity for interaction and not an additional task.

The literature on the use of CMC in distance delivered teacher education field experience is also sparse. Selinger (1996) reported on an Open University (UK) study which found that online conferences supported the students both before and during the field experience. The students reflected on teaching issues and shared resources. Bloomfield (2000) in an Australian study, described how CMC allowed a small group of external student teachers to communicate with one another and with the lecturer during their field experience. The students indicated that CMC was able to reduce their feelings of isolation. There was some occurrence of reflective comment but Bloomfield concluded that such discussions benefited from the presence of a lecturer. The provision of technology alone was not sufficient to engender deep discussion.

As has been noted dialogue between all the parties to field experience helps to maintain professional and institutional links and support the students. The effectiveness of CMC reported in the studies above provides models that could be adapted to help strengthen the dialogic links between all the field experience parties.

Another Australian study (Gibson & Gibson, 1995) provided a possible new model that might help address the need for more field experience schools. Real-life teaching situations were used to present examples of best practice to the students. The difference was that the schools involved were viewed and interacted with, through the use of interactive television. This approach opened up the use of remote or out of commuting distance schools for some (observation focused) field experiences. It also enabled a new group of teachers to interact with the students and work with the teacher education institution. This type of innovation could be used to provide students who do have residential or oncampus blocks of time with access to a wider variety of schools and groups of children for some aspects of their field experience.

Many programmes, recognizing the diverse settings teachers work in, extend their field experience to introduce a global perspective. There are provisions now in some programmes for students to undertake some of their field experience in another country. Modern communication technologies make supporting these students and linking them together a real possibility.

All of the responses mentioned are innovative responses to the problems posed by field experience for distance delivered initial teacher education programmes. While many of these responses rely on relatively well resourced or government supported programmes there are some examples of local small-scale relatively inexpensive responses to the problems. These are important as they show that even at the micro-level distance teacher education students can, with imagination and determination, be well supported. However, it still has to be acknowledged that for many teacher education institutions in developing countries some of the solutions are, at present, little more than a dream. They do however provide examples of responses and experiences that might provide models or guidance for consideration.

CONCLUSION

There are certainly common issues in the provision of field experience for distance students and a range of responses to these has been explored. When asking if these are effective responses a series of questions arises. What are the specific outcomes sought from the field experience? Are some methods more effective than others in meeting these needs? What are the trends and can lessons from these be applied to other situations? Are there approaches that might be widely useful? In response I want to highlight one development as it illustrates the caution we need when considering the implementation of new initiatives and the balance there must be between following the new without question and retaining the values and lessons learned over time.

Several of the research studies indicated that computer mediated communication was useful in providing student support and communication for the parties to field experience. To be able to improve these aspects of field experience for distance students is very important. However, the studies also indicated that for the use of CMC to be effective the lecturers needed to be involved. The lesson appears obvious but in these times of cost restraints and calls for accountability the temptation can be to use the new to replace the old. It seems likely from this one small example that what we should always consider is using the new and blending it with the best aspects of the old and proven.

Finally, it is interesting to note that the use of the new technologies could be of value to all (oncampus and distance) teacher education students during their field experience. Perhaps what we might see is a point of convergence where issues do not need to be defined by the mode of delivery but rather solved in the interests of all students.

References

Admiraal, W.F., Lockhorst, D., Wubbels, T., Korthagen, A.J., & Veen, W. (1998). Computer-mediated communication environments in teacher education: Computer conferencing and the supervision of student teachers. Learning Environments Research, 1(1), 59-74.

Anderson, B., & Simpson, M.G. (1998). Learning teaching at a distance-a social affair. Computers in New Zealand, 10(1), 17-23.

Anderson, B., & Simpson, M.G. (2002). Distance education in New Zealand: A case study from Massey University. In V. V. Reddy & M. Srivastava (Eds.), Towards virtualization: Open and distance learning. New Delhi, India: Viva Press.

Ballantyne, R., & Mylonas, A. (2001). Improving student learning during "remote" school-based teaching experience using flexible delivery of teacher mentor and student preparation programmes. Asia-Pacific Journal of Teacher Education, 29(3), 263-273.

Banks, F., & Burgess, H. (1996, July). Towards a new generation of open and distance teacher education programmes: The OU (UK) experience. Paper presented at the Conference of the European Distance Education Network Futuroscope, Poitiers, France.

Berliner, D.C. (2000). A personal response to those who bash teacher education. Journal of Teacher Education, 51(3), 358-371.

Bloomfield, D. (2000). Voices on the web: Student teachers negotiating identity. Asia-Pacific Journal of Teacher Education, 28(3), 199-217.

Bourdillon, H., & Burgess, H. (1998, April). Open learning, new technologies and the development of a new model of preservice education and training: The Open University, UK experience, San Diego, CA.

Broadley, G. (2000, July 4). Student teacher supervision by telephone. Paper presented at the Conference of the Australian Association of Distance Education/s (AADES) and Society for the Provision of Education in Rural Australia (SPERA), Cairns, Australia.

Campbell, N., Yates, R., & McGee, C. (1998, August/September). Bridging education in the classroom and distance education: The development of new forms of teacher education delivery, Vienna, Austria and Budapest, Hungary.

Chale, E.M. (1993). Tanzania's distance-teaching programme. In H. Perraton (Ed.), Distance education for teacher training (pp. 21-41). London: Routledge.

Charoula, A., Bonk, C.J., Supplee, L., & Malikowski, S. (1998). A case-based electronic learning environment for preservice teacher education. Paper presented at the SITE 98: Society for Information Technology and Teacher Education International Conference, Washington, DC.

Chivore, B.R.S. (1993). The Zimbabwe integrated teacher education course. In H. Perraton (Ed.), Distance education for teacher training (pp. 42-65). London: Routledge.

Cooper, J.M. (1995). Supervision in teacher education. In L. W. Anderson (Ed.), International encyclopedia of teaching and teacher education (pp. 593-598). Oxford, UK: Elsevier Science Ltd.

Darling-Hammond, L. (1999). The case for university-based teacher education. In R. A. Roth (Ed.), The role of the university in the preparation of teachers (pp. 13-30). London: Falmer Press.

Dutt-Doner, K.M., & Powers, S.M. (2000). The use of electronic communication to develop alternative avenues for classroon discussion. Journal of Technology in Teacher Education, 8(2), 153-172.

Dzuba, E.J. (1994). Computer-mediated communication: Faculty and student conversations during the field experience. Unpublished Masters thesis, University of Regina, Saskatchewan, Canada.

Edens, K.M. (2000). Promoting communication, inquiry and reflection in an early practicum experience via online discussion group. Action in Teacher Education, 22(2A), 14-23.

Gibson, I.W., & Gibson, K.L. (1995). A window into the rural classroom: Interactive television and problem-based activity in Australian preservice teacher education. Journal of Information Technology for Teacher Education, 4(2), 217-226.

Goodlad, J.I. (1999). Whither schools of education? Journal of Teacher Education, 50(5), 325-338.

Graves, N.J. (1990). Thinking and research on teacher education. In N. J. Graves (Ed.), Initial teacher education (pp. 58-73). London: Kogan Page.

Hall, A. (1998, August/September). Teacher education at a distance: Reflections on the first year of a university mixed media programme. Paper presented at the Teleteaching '98: Distance learning, training and education-International Federation for Information Processing Conference, Vienna, Austria and Budapest, Hungary.

Howey, K. (1996). Designing coherent and effective teacher education programs. In J. Sikula, T. Buttery, & E. Guyton (Eds.), Handbook of research on teacher education (2nd ed., pp. 143-170). New York: Macmillan.

Hursh, D. (1995). It's more than style: reflective teachers as ethical and political practitioners. In J. Smyth (Ed.), Critical discourses on teacher development (pp. 101-112). London: Cassell.

Imig, D.G., & Switzer, T.J. (1996). Changing teacher education programs: restructuring collegiate-based teacher education. In J. Sikula, T. Buttery, & E. Guyton (Eds.), Handbook of research on teacher education (2nd ed., pp. 213-226). New York: Macmillan.

Ishler, R.E., Edens, K.M., & Berry, B.W. (1996). Elementary education. In J. Sikula, T. Buttery, & E. Guyton (Eds.), Handbook of research on teacher education (2nd ed., pp. 348-377). New York: Macmillan.

Kenny, R.F., Andrews, B.W., Vignola, M.-J., Schilz, M.A., & Covert, J. (1999). Towards guidelines for the design of interactive multimedia instruction: Fostering the reflective decision-making of preservice teachers. Journal of Technology and Teacher Education, 7(1), 13-31.

Khamis, M. (2000). The beginning teacher. In S. Dinham, & C. Scott (Eds.), Teaching in context (pp. 1-17). Victoria, Australia: ACER (Australian Council for Educational Research) Press.

Laffey, J., & Musser, D. (1998). Software and learning systems design for field-based experience. Journal of Technology and Teacher Education, 6(2-3), 193-204.

Laffey, J., Musser, D., & Tupper, T. (1998). An internet-based journal for professional development. Paper presented at the SITE 98: Society for Information Technology and Teacher Education International Conference, Washington, DC.

Loiselle, J., Dupuy-Walker, L., Gingras, J.R., & Gagnon, M. (1996). Analyzing and supporting preservice teachers' practice using computer mediated communication. Technology and Teacher Education Annual, 863-840.

McIntyre, D.J., Byrd, D.M., & Foxx, S.M. (1996). Field and laboratory experiences. In J. Sikula, T. Buttery, & E. Guyton (Eds.), Handbook of research on teacher education (pp. 171-193). New York: Macmillan.

Morine-Dershimer, G., & Leighfield, K. (1995). Student teaching and field experiences. In L. W. Anderson (Ed.), International encyclopedia of teaching and teacher education (pp. 588-593). Oxford, UK: Elsevier Science Ltd.

Perraton, H. (2000). Open and distance learning in the developing world. London: Routledge.

Pierson, M.E., & McNeil, S. (2000). Preservice technology integration through collaborative action communities. Contemporary Issues in Technology and Teacher Education, 1(1), 189-199.

Roddy, M. (1999). Using the internet to unite student teaching and teacher education. Journal of Teaching and Teacher Education, 7(3), 257-267.

Roth, R.A. (Ed.). (1999). The role of the university in the preparation of teachers. London: Falmer Press.

Said, A.H. (1990). Distance education in Somalia: An emergency program of teacher training. Paper presented at the International Council for Distance Education 15th World Conference, Distance Education: Development and access, Caracas, Venezuela.

Selinger, M. (1996). Learning to teach at a distance: Exploring the role of electronic communication. In D. Passey & B. Samways (Eds.), Information technology: Supporting change through teacher education (pp. 334-340). London: Chapman and Hall.

Simco, N. (1998). Initial teacher education as the acquisition of technical skills for teaching. In C. Richards, N. Simco, & S. Twiselton (Eds.), Primary teacher education: High status? High standards? (pp. 118-127). London: Falmer Press.

Simpson, M.G. (2002, April). The use of CMC in preparing and supporting primary preservice teacher education students for their field experience in a distance delivered teacher education programme. Paper presented at the Conference of the Distance Education Association of New Zealand, Wellington.

Swanwick, K. (1990). The necessity of teacher education. In N. J. Graves (Ed.), Initial teacher education (pp. 93-108). London: Kogan Page.

Walker, J., Preston, B., & Mitchell, J. (2000). The professional education of teachers. In S. Dinham, & C. Scott (Eds.), Teaching in context (pp. 170-187). Victoria, Australia: ACER (Australian Council for Educational Research).

Young, M. (1998). Rethinking teacher education for a global future: Lessons from the English. Journal of Education for Teaching, 24(1), 51-62.

MARY SIMPSON

Massey University

Palmerston North, Manawatu, New Zealand

[e-mail]