Seeking quality in teacher education design: a four-dimensional approach.

The quality of existing teacher education programs is currently being debated in many countries and at many educational levels. This article examines the nature of teaching and challenges the common mechanistic approach to teacher education design. If teaching is a complex profession, then a more integrated and dynamic approach to designing teacher education programs is needed. This article proposes a four-dimensional approach for thinking about a conceptual framework to guide teacher education design. The four dimensions include: (a) links across the university-based curriculum; (b) links between schools and university experiences; (c) socio-cultural links between participants; and (d) personal links that shape the identity of teacher educators. It is argued that a conceptual framework based upon the consideration of these four dimensions is likely to ensure quality in a teacher education program.

**********

The purpose of this paper is to discuss the nature of teaching and to highlight ways to think about a conceptual framework to promote quality in a teacher education program. I will not take a narrow viewpoint and declare what is the best way of educating teachers--this is nonsensical, because programs vary according to the goals, course content, beliefs of the teacher educators, students and teachers, as well as the social-cultural contexts of schools involved. This paper, therefore, does not propose a particular conceptual framework but, rather, proposes how to think about a conceptual framework to guide teacher education design. An assumption in so doing is that quality is based upon the existence of a coherent conceptual framework that helps students to make connections and to understand the complex nature of teaching.

In the first section, a brief global view of change in teacher education is provided. Second, different views about the nature of teaching and learning to teach are examined. This section includes a discussion about assumptions that underpin conventional teacher education programs as opposed to an approach that promotes teaching as a complex profession. Third, a four-dimensional approach for designing a conceptual framework is proposed in order to foster coherence in a teacher education program. Importantly these dimensions are based on links in a program as well as elements including: (a) conceptual links across the university-based curriculum; (b) theory-practice links between university and schools; (c) social-cultural links between participants in the program; and (d) personal links that shape the identity of a teacher educator. The paper concludes with a discussion about the relationships between these four dimensions.

Teacher education: A brief global overview

As we begin the 21st century, there are many diverse views about the quality of teacher education and what to do about it. For example, some teachers brand teacher education as 'irrelevant' (Lyndaker, 1990), some teacher educators view teaching in schools as 'bad practice' (Goodlad, 1993), some preservice teachers call their teacher education experiences 'inadequate' (Wideen, MayerSmith, & Moon, 1998), whereas researchers (Kennedy, 1991; Scannell, 2002) praise the quality of some programs. (In this article, 'program' refers to the whole teacher education experience. 'Course' and 'subject' are used interchangeably to refer to the content usually covered within a one-semester unit.) Coupled with these different views about teacher education is the looming shortage of teachers, especially for secondary schools, which has begun to emerge in various countries. A recent report, Backing Australia's Ability (Science and Innovation Ministerial Council, 2003) commissioned by Education Minister, Brendan Nelson, noted that up to 25 per cent of teachers leave the profession within the first five years of teaching and, by the end of the decade, there will be a shortfall in Australia of 30 000 teachers. In the light of these looming shortages, it is timely to discuss the quality of teacher education, because a 'quick-fix' political solution always threatens and could result in graduates of any description being placed in front of a class of children.

Different views about the quality of teacher education are reflected in the range of reforms being tried in various countries (Calderhead, 2001). England and Wales led the charge to school-based teacher education with the Education Reform Act of 1988, which allocated 25 per cent of the teacher education budget to schools and encouraged the 'cutting of ties' with local educational authorities. One consequence was that preservice teachers spent two-thirds of their time in schools and less time at university (Furlong, 2002).To establish professional standards, the Teacher Training Agency (TTA) was initiated in 1993 and devised a national curriculum for teacher education. The agency produced a list of competencies for preservice students to attain as well as guidelines for managing and financing all courses. A study of this ten-year change (Furlong, Barton, Miles, Whiting, & Whitty, 2000) showed that the content of teacher education courses at university became more prescribed and the relationship to experience in schools less connected. According to Furlong (2002),'schools' responsibilities in training programs (and the official discourse now exclusively refers to teacher "training" rather than teacher "education") have been substantially increased (p. 23).

In Sweden, teacher education has predominantly been located in universities, although there are many different types of arrangements with schools. In New Zealand, the control of teacher education has been devolved to individual providers, which has resulted in a large number of teacher education institutions with a wide array of course options. In Hong Kong, the government formed the Advisory Committee on Teacher Education and Qualifications to devise criterion competencies as a way of having more control over the teacher education curriculum and to assess newly appointed teachers to schools. In Spain, primary teachers complete a three-year degree but secondary teachers undertake only a few weeks of preservice training beyond their discipline degree. In Russia, secondary teachers train for five years but primary teachers only receive two years of training. But nowhere is the diversity of views about teacher education more apparent than in the United States of America (US).

This diversity is highlighted by two opposing movements for reform (Cochran-Smith & Kries, 2001). One movement aims to professionalise teacher education by establishing a knowledge base and link this to standards of teaching to get more consistency in how teachers are educated (National Commission on Teaching, 1996; National Council for Accreditation of Teacher Education, 1999). Supporters of this movement believe that preservice teachers not only need a strong grounding in discipline knowledge, but also in aspects of pedagogy including an understanding of child and adult development, assessment, evaluation and teaching strategies (Wise & Leibbrand, 2000). A key driver for professionalism and standards has been the National Council for Accreditation of Teacher Education (NCATE), established in 1954, that initially focused on the quality of the curriculum. The growth of the standards movement was propelled in 1983 with the publication of A Nation at Risk (National Commission on Excellence in Education, 1983), which led to three movements--standards in core knowledge for fields of teaching, standards for student achievement, and standards for teacher accreditation.

In contrast, an opposing US movement aims to deregulate teacher education by opening the market for any institution to train teachers and leave it to schools to determine quality (Thomas B. Fordham Foundation, 1999a, 1999b, 2001).The growth of this movement is reflected in the 700 unaccredited schools of teacher education that currently exist in the US (Wise & Leibbrand, 2000). According to Leef (2001), the curriculum of teacher education is out of touch with important aspects of schooling such as teaching reading and mathematics, and instead focuses on 'trendy social critiques' centring on social justice issues, ethnicity, gender, sexual orientation and power. Leef believes that the trouble with teacher education is the 'learner-centred progressive theory' promoted in universities by 'education theorists with twisted views of schools' (p. 38).This movement for deregulation was supported in 2002 by the United States Department of Education (2002) in the Secretary's annual report on teacher quality. The report stated that teachers who had undergone formal teacher education programs were academically weak and underprepared for teaching whereas 'performance on licensure tests is higher among alternate route teachers than traditionally trained teachers in most states' (p. viii). The report concluded that 'to meet the "highly qualified" teachers challenge, then, US states will need to streamline their certification system to focus on the few things that really matter: verbal ability, content knowledge, and, as a safety precaution, a background check of new teachers' (p. 40). Darling-Hammond and Youngs (2002) refuted many of these conclusions and found that the Secretary's report lacked empirical data to back its claims and 'fail[ed] to meet the Department of Education's own standards for the use of scientifically based research to formulate policy' (p. 13).

There has also been ongoing debate about the quality of teacher education in Australia. Over the past 20 years, there have been more than 20 reviews of teacher education with almost no impact. In Quality Matters Revitalising Teaching: Critical Times, Critical Choices, Ramsey (2000) found that most teacher education programs in New South Wales undervalued the importance of time spent in schools. The report found that 'compared with other professions, student teachers spend minimal amounts of time in schools and other educational settings. What they do there is often of doubtful value' (p. 10). The report argued that teacher education curricula should have more relevance to schools and in particular the term 'practicum' be replaced with 'professional experience'. Ramsey recommended that time in schools should become the focus of teacher education and that university courses should be more coherent by integrating their subjects:

   It is possible to reorganise the knowledge bases of undergraduate
   Teacher education subjects so that they are more integrated with
   school and classroom culture, and therefore more relevant, more
   meaningful, better appreciated by student teachers, with less
   duplication across subject areas. (p. 57)

The main recommendation from the report was to establish an Institute of Teachers To identify professional standards and a career pathway for teachers in New South Wales that would include responsibility for endorsing and deregistering programs of teacher education. Importantly the report stated that it was not calling for a common teacher education curriculum; rather it was up to each university to design its own; however 'what matters is the quality of the end product' (Ramsay, 2000, p. 18). But how do designers identify and monitor quality in a teacher education program?

When the variety of reports and initiatives for teacher education reform in different countries are considered, it is clear that there are many viewpoints about what constitutes quality in a teacher education program. In the Report to the American Council on Education regarding models of teacher education, Scannell (2002) concluded, 'There is no one best format for teacher education programs. Conversely, programs regarded to be outstanding vary in structure and conceptual formats' (p. 12). This finding is consistent with research conducted by Kennedy (1991) who found that the structure of a teacher education program was not so important, but the conceptual orientation of the program and beliefs of the preservice teachers were the most important in terms of quality. The presence of a conceptual framework to guide the design of a coherent teacher education program has been highlighted as an indicator of quality by Feiman-Nemser (1990) and Howey (1996) in their relevant chapters on program design in both editions of the Handbook of Research on Teacher Education:

   Deliberation about worthwhile goals and appropriate means must be an
   Ongoing activity in the teacher education community. These
   deliberations would be aided by a conceptual framework that
   identifies central tasks of teacher preparation, those core
   activities that logically and practically belong to the preservice
   phase of learning to teach. (Feiman-Nemser, 1990, p. 227)

Nature of teaching and learning to teach

All teacher education programs have a conceptual framework which underpins their design. Importantly this design should prepare teachers for coping with the nature of the work and how to think about it. According to Carter (1990), 'how one frames the learning-to-teach question depends a great deal on how one conceives of what is to be learned and how that learning takes place' (p. 307). Fenstermacher (2002) highlighted two views about the nature of teaching and how this corresponds to different views about learning:

   Policy advocates who presuppose that teaching is a relatively simple
   Enterprise are often those whose conception of 'education space' is
   simple, and thus the teaching that navigates this space need not be
   highly specialized. Those who presuppose that teaching is relatively
   complex are typically those who perceive education space as
   tremendously complex and hence see a need for training and
   specialized competence to navigate it successfully. (p. 21)

Let us examine these two different views and consider implications for the design of teacher education programs.

Teaching as a craft and learning to teach

Research by Wise, Darling-Hammond, McLaughlin, and Bernstein (1984) in 32 US cities concluded that teachers and administrators usually hold one of four conceptions of teaching--as a craft, labour, profession, or art. These four conceptions are ideal forms, but nonetheless do indicate different approaches to teaching. When conceived as a craft, teaching is believed to be a repertoire of skills or competencies that accrue over time. Knowledge about these techniques also means having generalised rules for when and how to apply them as 'this view of teaching assumes that general rules for applying specific techniques can be developed and that proper use of the rules combined with knowledge of the techniques will produce the desired outcomes' (p. 7). Similarly, when conceived as a labour, teaching is a set of goals, lesson plans and skills that others have designed and the role of the teacher is to implement these. Both of these conceptions represent a simplistic view of teaching that atomises classroom instruction into technical skills to he 'mastered' over time.

Readers will be familiar with the phrase,'a behaviourist view of learning', that labelled simplistic approaches to children's learning during the 20th century. Similarly, when teaching is viewed as a set of skills to be mastered, it could well he perceived as a 'behaviourist view of teaching'. Blackwell, Futrell, and Imig (2003) argue that present-day schools of education have inherited a paradox that has emerged from the history about learning last century:

   This paradox also originated in the early 20th century and has
   sparked questions about how to prepare teachers and how students
   learn best. The focus on behaviour--what we can see--as learning,
   both in industry and in education, gave rise to the teaching and
   learning paradox. The paradox is created when we expect education to
   prepare technically savvy critical thinkers in a system largely
   devoted to mechanistic approaches to teaching and learning.
   (p. 356)

An implication of this behaviouristic or mechanistic view of learning to teach is that many programs focus on the independent components or elements of teacher education--curriculum and instruction, foundations of education, educational psychology, assessment, classroom management, special education, technology, evaluation and discipline knowledge. Such an arrangement of courses is still underpinned by a conceptual framework--to provide student teachers with independent knowledge bases about teaching which, it is assumed, will be accumulated and integrated by the learner. This compartmentalised course structure assumes that the nature of teaching in a classroom can be viewed as the interaction of independent components. Schon (1983, 1987) called this approach of dividing discipline knowledge into sections and presenting it to students, 'technical rationality', such that 'professional activity consists in instrumental problem solving made rigorous by the application of scientific theory and technique' (p. 21). This view of knowledge assumes that learning is an 'additive process' (Day, 1999) that largely ignores the experiences and knowledge of individuals as well as the social-cultural context of school settings. As such, a conception of teaching as a craft complements a view of learning to teach as a process of knowledge-acquisition that can be 'transmitted' to students. According to Feiman-Nemser and Buchmann (1989):

   The typical programs of teacher preparation treat learning to teach
   as an additive process that largely bypasses person and setting.
   None of these models illuminates the role of prior beliefs or
   preconceptions in teacher learning. Nor do they take into account
   the influence of program features, settings, and people as they
   interact over time. (p. 368)

Other terms used to describe this type of conventional teacher education design is a 'transmission model of teacher education' (Wideen et a1.,1998), an 'assembly-line model' (Tom, 1997), an 'application-of-theory model' (Korthagen & Russell, 1995), and a 'positivist model' (Britzman, 1991). In sum, the design of many teacher education programs is based on a conceptual framework that presents discrete skills and knowledge to students in independent courses and is aptly named 'teacher training'. 'The university provides the theory, methods, and skills; the schools provide the setting in which that knowledge is practiced; and the beginning teacher provides the individual effort to apply the knowledge. In this model, prepositional knowledge has formed the basis of university input' (Wideen et al., 1998, p. 167). A different conception of teaching, however, implies an alternative view of learning to teach.

Teaching as a complex profession and learning to teach

In contrast to a mechanistic or behaviouristic view of teaching as a 'craft' or 'labour' that can be learned 'bit by bit', a conception of teaching as a profession or art implies that teaching is more than the development of a repertoire of techniques, but also includes personal judgements about when and how strategies should be used. To make an informed judgement means having a theoretical basis for making decisions as well as awareness of the 'unpredictable, personalized nature of teaching' (Day, 1999, p. 94). Such a complex view acknowledges the dynamic context of each classroom and accepts that there is no such thing as fail-proof teaching strategies.

This means that teaching is more than the delivery of prescribed knowledge using a repertoire of strategies, but is 'a dynamic relationship that changes with different students and contexts' (Hoban, 2000, p. 165). In this respect, what a teacher does in a classroom is influenced by a combination of elements such as the curriculum, the context, and how students respond to instruction at any particular time.

This view of the nature of teaching necessitates 'holistic judgement' (Day, 1999) about what, when and how to teach in relation to a particular class. Developing teaching strategies is still important, but reflecting upon when and how to use them as well as thinking about reasons for changing them becomes a focus. Accordingly possessing a conception of teaching as an art or profession means that teachers need to develop a repertoire of strategies as well as an understanding that their application depends on making judgements about unique contexts and unpredictable classroom moments as 'the teacher must draw upon not only a body of professional knowledge and skill, but also a set of personal resources that are uniquely defined and expressed by the personality of the teacher, and his or her individual and collective interactions with students' (Wise et al., 1984, p. 8). Furthermore aspects of classroom teaching are interrelated. In any one lesson, teachers are expected to deal with many influences. This includes the curriculum, the number of children, the range of children's interests and prior knowledge, the resources available, how the lesson connects with previous lessons, different ways in which children learn, any special needs that children have, ways to assess the learning, a theoretical basis for structuring lessons, strategies for behaviour management and consideration of the socio-cultural background of the children. In short, these influences interact and create a dynamic learning environment with many interrelated influences (Biggs, 1993). As such, teaching is, by nature, a complex profession.

Assuming that the nature of teaching is imbued with so many interrelated elements, how should student teachers learn about it? According to Wideen et al. (1998), who reviewed 93 empirical studies on learning to teach, the design of teacher education should not only provide knowledge about teaching, but a more dynamic and ecological approach needs to be taken to include the beliefs of preservice teachers as well as providing an infrastructure to support them in learning: 'We believe that only when all players and landscapes that comprise the learningto-teach environment are considered in concert will we gain a full appreciation of the inseparable web of relationships that constitutes the learning-to-teach ecosystem' (p. 170). In support, Kennedy (1991) argued that one-off changes in teacher education (e.g. where to place the practicum) is not the answer. Instead the key to quality teacher education is to have a coherent conceptual orientation with interrelated elements so that 'the challenge for reformers is to find a way to help teachers in all aspects of teaching, not just the subject matter, not just the pedagogy, but both. And not just separately, but in relationship to one another' (p. 17).

One of the main arguments of this paper is that a conceptual framework that promotes a fragmented teacher education program does not complement the nature of teaching as a complex profession. Moreover packaging educational knowledge into independent courses presents the curriculum as a jigsaw puzzle and leaves it to students to integrate the content so that they have to construct their own 'big picture' of the education landscape. This piecemeal approach to teacher education does not embody the dynamics of a real classroom. Conversely an acceptance of the complex nature of teaching necessitates a more integrated approach to the design of teacher education programs beyond a mechanistic training model. If it is assumed that teaching is a complex profession and that schools are diverse cultural and social places, then an 'application of knowledge' or 'training' approach is simply inadequate. In a review of studies about learning to teach, Wideen et al. (1998) concluded that change needs to occur in universities and schools:

   The focus on the knowledge base of teaching during teacher
   preparation, as something to be applied during the first year, has
   limited value for beginning teachers ... teacher education reform
   will continue to be frustrated until there is a fundamental change
   in the cultures and contexts of schooling that beginning teachers
   have to encounter. This change would create situations where greater
   congruity exists between teacher preparation and the schools where
   beginning teachers begin their teaching careers. (p. 159)

A view of the nature of teaching as a complex profession implies that a conceptual framework needs to be devised that focuses on the links among the elements and embodies the dynamics of real classrooms.

A four-dimensional approach for devising a conceptual framework

In his book, Redesigning Teacher Education, Tom (1997) identified ten issues that are problematic in many conventional teacher education programs: (i) unclear goals; (ii) fragmented courses which lack relevance and coherence; (iii) incoherence between courses from different faculties; (iv) discontinuities between university courses and school practice; (v) low status of teacher educators even within a faculty of education; (vi) independent department structures in faculties of education that promote a lack of collaboration; (vii) unclear career path of teachers and their role in practicum supervision; (viii) too many stakeholders involved in teacher education; (ix) lack of planning for change strategies; and, (x) vulnerability of teacher education to one-off reforms. Perhaps an eleventh could be added--lack of communication between universities and schools in regard to mentoring of student teachers on practicum. It is, therefore, a paradox to try to resolve the multi-faceted problems of teacher education with a one-off solution. What commonly permeates the design of conventional teacher education programs is fragmentation in terms of the content of courses (as identified in Tom's problems i-iii), incongruity between theory and practice (as identified in iv) and inappropriate social-cultural influences (v-x). Because of this number of problems, he emphasised that productive change in teacher education required a multi-faceted response to deal with these problems, rather than a one-off change:

   Change in teacher education programming will continue to be
   superficial and tenuous until the multiple sources of the 'problem'
   of teacher education are recognized and explicitly addressed ...
   unless one concurrently considers the normative, structural,
   personnel, institutional, career, governances and strategic issues,
   any effort to reform teachers education will be incomplete and
   therefore deeply at risk. (pp. 3-8)

Importantly these problems should not be tackled by focusing on a collection of independent solutions, but by focusing on multiple relationships in the design of a teacher education program.

What is a conceptual framework?

Feiman-Nemser (1990) in the first edition of the Handbook of Research on Teacher Education used the term 'orientation' to refer to a set of ideas about the goals of teaching education and noted that a 'conceptual orientation includes a view of teaching and learning and a theory about learning to teach' (p. 220). Similarly Howey (1996) in the second edition defined a conceptual framework as making 'explicit conceptions of teaching, learning, schooling, and learning to teach' (p. 143). More recently, the NCATE (2002) defined a conceptual framework as 'the underlying structure of the unit that sets forth a vision of the unit and provides a theoretical and empirical foundation for the direction of programs, courses, teaching, candidate performance, faculty scholarship and service, and unit accountability' (p. 8). The NCATE prescribes a conceptual framework with six standards for teacher education based upon:

1 candidate knowledge, skills and dispositions;

2 program assessment and evaluation;

3 field experiences and clinical practice;

4 diversity in curriculum experiences;

5 faculty qualifications, performance and development; and

6 unit governance and resources.

To attain NCATE accreditation, faculties of education in the US have to present a conceptual framework that covers these six standards and to show how they have been modified over time to maintain their accreditation.

Research has shown that effective teacher education programs have a coherent conceptual framework with elements that interrelate to complement that orientation. In the US, Scannell (2002) reviewed six 'effective' teacher education programs and found there were certain characteristics that they had in common:

   A concept of good teaching is apparent in courses and field
   experiences. The concept is consistent across courses and student
   experiences; it has a cohesive presence in the program.
   Theory is taught in the context of practice. Theory includes growth
   and development, learning theory, and pedagogical content knowledge.
   Extended field experiences are articulated and sequenced with
   theory.
   'Extended' refers to at least 30 weeks; the field experiences are
   designed to enhance what is studied in college classes and to
   provide candidates with the opportunity to apply and/or to see
   theory in action.
   A well-defined, accepted standard of practice is used to guide
   coursework and clinical experiences and to evaluate them.
   School/university partnerships are based on shared beliefs. The
   cooperating classroom teachers have the disposition and ability to
   extend and build on what the programs have presented to candidates.
   Assessment is comprehensive and bonded to instruction, and results
   of assessment are used to ensure that candidates' learning is
   applied to real situations.
   Assessment data are collected from case studies, performance
   evaluation and the use of portfolios. (p. 9)

What are evident in these six characteristics are links between elements of a teacher education program that promote a coherent approach by teachers and teacher educators. The consequence is a more connected experience for preservice teachers that helps them to engage in cumulative learning between school and university, and at the same time portrays the interrelated nature of teaching.

Therefore the proposed approach in this paper focuses on highlighting the key relationships or links among the elements of a teacher education program. It also considers the relationships of the people most directly involved in teacher education--the teacher educators and teachers in schools. This is like using a multidimensional lens to bring to the fore thinking about the links across elements in a teacher education design as well as the elements themselves. I believe that thinking about a conceptual framework for educating teachers into a complex profession should be based on four key dimensions: (i) conceptual links across the university-based curriculum; (ii) theory-practice links between the school and university settings; (iii) socio-cultural links between the participants in the program; and (iv) personal links that help to shape the identity of each teacher educator. This does not mean that there is one best framework for teacher education design. Rather there are many coherent approaches and they evolve in different ways because of unique contexts, resources, and the stakeholders involved. Importantly focusing on the links rather than independent elements will hopefully illuminate the dynamics of teaching as a complex profession, rather than assume that teaching is a static entity than can be studied 'bit by bit' in a program. Each dimension will now be explained.

Dimension I: Conceptual links across the university-based curriculum

According to Ben-Peretz (1995), 'the hidden curriculum of teacher education tends to communicate a fragmented view of knowledge, both in coursework and in field experiences. Moreover knowledge is "given" and unproblematic' (p. 546). Teacher education courses would make more sense to students if there was more integration between the different knowledge bases, if there were common views about the type of teacher that was hopefully being developed, and course content was focused by some overarching goals or method of inquiry. Feiman-Nemser (1990) identified five different orientations in teacher education programs: (i) an academic orientation that focuses on the transmission of knowledge while promoting images of good teaching with role models and mentoring; (ii) a practical orientation that focuses on the apprenticeship of preservice teachers in schools with mentor teachers; (iii) a technical orientation that focuses on the knowledge and skills of teachers as derived from research on effective teachers; (iv) a personal orientation that focuses on the teacher as a facilitator of student learning by promoting the optimal conditions for classroom learning; and (v) critical/social orientation that focuses on promoting issues of social justice. However Howey (1996) advised against programs taking one-dimensional orientations and instead argued for programs to be eclectic to draw on different perspectives such as including both clinical and codified knowledge as well as technical and critical perspectives. He argued that a conceptual framework should provide themes to run through a program with activities attached like buttons' (p. 162) to promote these themes.

There are different ways in which subjects can have a collective focus or can be integrated. For example, a program may have as one of its goals the intention of developing a particular type of teacher such as being reflective, or those who are prepared to work in a community of practice. Alternatively subjects may be integrated and driven by a mode of learning such as problem-based learning, project-based learning, or case studies to promote an inquiry approach. For example, some programs have a conceptual framework that focuses on a social mode of learning such as a knowledge-building community (Bereiter & Scardamalia, 1992; Ferry, Kiggins, Hoban, & Lockyer, 2001) or on a community of practice. Others focus on an individual mode of learning such as constructivism (Pankratius &Young, 1995) to promote personal meaning making or students' concerns about classroom practice (Korthagen & Kessels, 1999). Other programs are driven by particular themes such as collaboration, modeling and reflection (Ertmer, 2003) that are evident in each of the subjects in a program. Some subjects or courses can also be integrated so that lesson planning and approaches to children's learning may be treated in conjunction. Importantly Cook, Smagorinsky, Fry, Konopak, and Moore (2002) point out that some programs have a conceptual orientation in name only, and that the philosophy does not permeate across the university curriculum or approaches by teachers and teacher educators. In short, the question arises, 'What are the links across the university-based curriculum and why are subjects organised the way they are?'.

Dimension 2:Theory-practice links between schools and university

There have been many views on the relationship of theory presented at university to its application in schools. In contrast with the conventional structure of completing university courses first followed by practicum experiences, Russell and Bullock (1999) maintain that the reverse order provides preservice teachers with a context for theory presented in courses. Korthagen and Kessels (1999) stated that the argument about which should come first, the theory or the practice, is not the most important issue in teacher education. Instead they contend that the important question centres on how and when theory is introduced to teachers.They draw on the ideas of Plato and use his concepts of phronesis (perceptual knowledge that is subjective and situation specific) and episteme (conceptual knowledge or theory applied to a wide variety of situations).They contend that a method called 'the realistic approach' is beneficial for the learning by preservice students because it moves from practice to theory. As such, students first need to become aware of concerns/issues/problems (their phronesis) from their experiences and then the role of teacher educators is to introduce relevant epistemic knowledge. Also there is the issue of when and how time is spent in schools. Is it best to spend block time in schools or are visits each week or even every day appropriate? In short, one must ask,'For preservice students, what links are there between theory and practice in schools and university?'.

Dimension 3: Social-cultural links between participants in the program

It has been well documented that schools and universities often have different cultures and ways of viewing teaching (Goodlad, 1993; Goodson, 2001; Sarason, 1996). The influence of existing practitioners on preservice teachers can also have a strong socialisation effect in terms of how they teach (Zeichner & Gore, 1990). In addition, academics are well known for not collaborating across a faculty because they have vested research interests that are promoted by the departmental structures of faculties (Tom, 1997). Not only do these different approaches to teaching inhibit the development of a coherent vision in teacher education, but sometimes there are different views on the role of faculty in practicum supervision. Often university staff promote the theoretical aspects of teaching whereas classroom teachers focus on the pragmatic aspects of practice. Worse still, sometimes the quality of practicum supervision by teacher educators is inconsistent. A consequence is that preservice teachers are caught between these different ways of thinking about their involvement in schools (Clarke, 1996).

For preservice teachers to learn from their university-based and school-based experiences, a more collaborative approach is needed between all participants-university instructors, teachers in schools and preservice teachers.The question is, 'What efforts are made to encourage social interaction between academics, student teachers and teachers to break down their cultural barriers so that they have more of a shared vision about teacher education in their relevant settings?'. In concert with this is the issue about what to call those studying to be teachers. Is there a better term than student teachers, such as, teacher candidates, preservice teachers, or developing teachers?

Dimension 4: Personal links in shaping the identity of a teacher educator

Attitudes towards teaching and the type of people who are involved in teacher education are important considerations for the quality of a program. It has been well documented by Bullough (1997) that it is very important for beginning teachers to develop their identity; 'what beginning teachers believe about teaching and learning and self-as-teacher is of vital concern to teacher education; it is the basis for meaning making and decision making' (p. 21).This concept is no less important for teacher educators themselves, as their own views about teaching are the basis for their attitudes and meaning making for all aspects of their program. Korthagen (2004) recently included the identity of teachers and teacher educators in his holistic model of teacher education.

Bullough and Gitlin (2001) identified several ways in which teachers might explore their identity; these methods also apply to teacher educators. Some of these ways include: writing about personal history in regard to teaching; developing metaphors for teaching; and self-study of teacher education practices. Importantly teacher educators should constantly examine their identity, such as using self-study as a way of modeling reflective practices to their preservice teachers (Ploughman, 1996). Identity, however, is not individually constructed as Sachs (2003) refers to five dimensions of identity noted by Wenger (1998): (I) identity as negotiated experience; (ii) identity as community membership; (iii) identity as learning trajectory; (iv) identity as nexus of multi-membership; and (v) identity as a relation between the local and the global. Teacher educators need to examine their communities and reflect upon the influences they have on preservice teachers. Essentially there is a need to ask, 'How do teacher educators and teachers who supervise students on practicum perceive themselves and what is their conception of teaching?'. Importantly, do teacher educators acknowledge the complexity of teaching and practice what they preach or do they perceive themselves as specialist teachers of discipline knowledge?

Conclusion

The purpose of this paper is not to highlight one best conceptual framework to guide teacher education design. Such a framework does not exist because there are too many contextual factors that come into play. Nonetheless it is a contradiction to use a conceptual framework that promotes a fragmented program to prepare teachers for working in a complex profession. I believe that a conceptual framework to ensure quality in a teacher education program will evolve if we shift our way of thinking from emphasizing the elements of teacher education to emphasizing the relationships, or links, between them.

Relating the elements of a teacher education program will promote a more connected approach and encourage learning that is continuous and cumulative. It will also portray to preservice teachers the dynamic nature of teaching. If there are more connections between university subjects and schools and these are made explicit by teacher educators and teachers, this will send a message to preservice teachers that education is multi-dimensional work embodied in Scion's (1983) metaphor of a 'swamp'. This is what makes it a complex profession.

It should be emphasized that none of the four dimensions of teacher education design proposed--identity links, conceptual links, theory-practice links and social links--are mutually exclusive. All teacher education designs have these four dimensions present, but to different extents according to the degree of connectedness. However, when these dimensions are considered side by side in guiding the design of a teacher education program, I believe that it is more likely that student learning will be more coherent, and hence the quality of teacher education will improve.

Importantly these four dimensions do not have the same influence. I believe that the most important is the social-cultural dimension because this overlays the other three. It is the social and cultural connections among teacher educators, student teachers and teachers that impact on how they each shape their identity, and on how well key ideas or themes are shared to get connections between university and school experiences. Additionally it is the social interaction between the participants that enables a program design to be dynamic and change according to relevant cultural or political needs. Relationships and communication among participants are the heart of a coherent teacher education program.

I believe the timing is right to engage in widespread debate about the quality of teacher education. If teacher educators and teachers do not seize this opportunity, then the agenda may well be captured by bureaucrats (both political and institutional) who often place economic imperatives ahead of educational considerations. The recent document, Backing Australia's Ability (Science and Innovation Ministerial Council, 2003) commissioned by Education Minister, Brendan Nelson, identified the looming shortage in secondary mathematics, science and technology teachers and indicated his willingness to fund places at universities for these areas. But the debate in the media that ensued was more about the quantity of teachers, not the quality. The Australian Council of Deans of Education president, Professor Mary Kalantzis focused the debate when she stated that it is not just mathematics, science and technology teachers that are needed, but teachers with a 'much broader range of skills and sensibilities necessary to deal with the complexities of the epoch' (Healy, 2003, p. 3).

Keywords

concept formation learning processes program design teacher education programs teaching process university school cooperation

Acknowledgement

I would like to thank the reviewers for the valuable feedback on the first draft of this paper.

References

Ben-Perez, M. (1995). Curriculum of teacher education programs. In L. Anderson (Ed.), International encyclopedia of teaching and teacher education (pp. 543-547). New York: Paragon.

Beerier, K. & Scardamalia, M. (1992). Surpassing ourselves: An inquiry into the nature and implications of expertise. Chicago, IL: Open Court.

Biggs, J. (1993). From theory to practice: A cognitive systems approach. Higher Education Research and Development, 12(1), 73-85.

Blackwell, P., Futrell, M., & Imig, D. (2003). Burnt water paradoxes of schools of education. Phi Delta Kappan, 84(5), 356-361.

Britzman, D. P. (1991). Practice makes practice. New York: State University of New York Press.

Calderhead, J. (2001). International experiences of teaching reform. In V. Richardson (Ed.), Handbook of research on teaching (4th ed.) (pp. 777-800). Washington, DC: American Educational Research Association.

Carter, C. (1990). Teacher's knowledge and learning to teach. In W. R. Houston (Ed.), Handbook of research on learning to teach (pp. 291-310). New York: Macmillan.

Clarke, A. (1996, April). The artificiality of attempting to establish communities of practice in teacher education: Lessons from a pre-service teacher education project. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association, New York.

Cochran-Smith, M. & Kries, M. K. (2001). Sticks, stones and ideology: The discourse of reform in teacher education. Educational Researcher, 30(8), 3-15.

Cook, L., Smagorinsky, P., Fry, P., Konopak, B., & Moore, C. (2002). Problems in developing a constructivist approach to teaching: One teacher's transition from teacher preparation to teaching. Elementary School Journal, 102(5), 389-414.

Darling-Hammond, L. & Youngs, P. (2002). Defining 'highly qualified teachers': What does 'scientifically-based research' actually tell us? Educational Researcher, 31(9), 13-26.

Day, C. (1999). Developing teachers: The challenges of lifelong learning. London: Falmer Press.

Ertmer, P. (2003). Transforming teacher education: Visions and Strategies. Educational Technology, Research and Development, 51(1), 124-129.

Feiman-Nemser, S. (1990). Teacher preparation: Structural and conceptual alternatives. In W. Houston (Ed.), Handbook of research on teacher education (pp. 212-233). New York: Macmillan.

Feiman-Nemser, S. & Buchmann, M. (1989). Describing teacher education: A framework and illustrative findings from a longitudinal study of six students. Elementary School Journal, 89(3), 365-377.

Fenstermacher, G. D. (2002). Reconsidering the teacher education reform debate: A commentary on Cochran-Smith and Fries. Educational Researcher, 31(6), 20-22.

Ferry, B., Kiggins, J., Hoban, G., & Lockyer, L. (2001, December). Using computermediated communication to build a knowledge-building community in initial teacher education. Paper presented at the Annual Conference of the Australian Association for Research in Education, Fremantle, Western Australia.

Furlong, J. (2002). Ideology and reform in teacher education in England: Some reflections on Cochran-Smith and Fries. Educational Researcher, 31(6), 23-25.

Furlong, J., Barton, L., Miles, S., Whiting, C., & Whitty, J. (2000). Teacher education in transition: Re-forming professionalism. Buckingham, Bucks.: Open University Press.

Goodlad, J. I. (1993). School-university partnerships. Educational Policy, 7(1), 24-39.

Goodson, I. (2001). Social histories of educational change. Journal of Educational Change, 2(1), 45-63.

Healy, G. (2003). Unis challenged to upgrade focus on teacher training education. Campus Review, 1, 3.

Hoban, G. F. (2000). Using a reflective framework to study teaching-learning relationships. Reflective Practice, 1(2), 165-183.

Howey, K. (1996). Designing coherent and effective teacher education programs. In J. Sikula (Ed.), Handbook of research on teacher education (pp.143-170). New York: Macmillan.

Kennedy, M. (1991). Some surprising findings on how teachers learn to teach. Educational Leadership, 49(3), 14-17.

Korthagen, F. A. (2004). In search of the essence of a good teacher: Towards a more holisric approach in teacher education. Teaching and Teacher Education, (20)1, 77-97.

Korthagen, F. A. J. & Kessels, J. P. A. (1999). Linking theory and practice: Changing the pedagogy of teacher education. Educational Researcher, 28(4), 4-17.

Korthagen, F. A. & Russell, T. (1995). Teachers who teach teachers: Some final considerations. In T. Russell & F. Korthagen (Eds.), Teachers who teach teachers (pp. 187-192). London: Falmer Press.

Leef, G. C. (2001). The trouble with teacher training. Ideas on Liberty, 51(11), 38-42.

Loughran, J. J. (1996). Developing reflective practice: Learning about teaching and learning through modeling. London: Falmer Press.

National Commission on Excellence in Education. (1983). A nation at risk: The imperative for educational reform. Washington, DC: US Govt Pr.

National Commission on Teaching and America's Future. (1996). What matters most: Investing in quality teaching. New York: Columbia University, Teachers College.

National Council for the Accreditation of Teachers. (2002). Professional standards for the accreditation of schools, colleges and departments of education. Washington, DC: Author.

Pankratius, W. & Young, M. (1995). perspectives on education: A constructivist approach to an introductory course. Education, 115(3), 363-370.

Ramsey, G. (2000). Quality matters: Revitalising teacher education policy: Critical choices (Executive summary). Sydney: NSW Department of Education and Training.

Russell, T. & Bullock, S. (1999). Discovering our professional knowledge as teachers: Critical dialogues about learning from experience. In J. Ploughman (Ed.), Researching teaching: Methodologies and practices for understanding pedagogy (pp. 132-151). London: Falmer Press.

Sarason, S. (1996). Revisiting 'Culture of the school and the problem of educational change'. New York: Teachers College Press.

Scannell, D. P. (2002). Models of teacher education. Report to the American Council of Education Presidents' Task Force on Teacher Education. Retrieved from www.acenet.edu /resources/presnet/background-papers/ModelsofTeacherEducationEd.pdf

Schon, D. A. (1983). The reflective practitioner: How professionals think in action. New York: Basic Books.

Schon, D. A. (1987). Educating the reflective practioner: Toward a new design for teaching and learning. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Science and Innovation Ministerial Council. (2003). Backing Australia's ability 2003-2004. Canberra: Department of Education, Science and Training.

Tom, A. R. (1997). Redesigning teacher education. Albany, NY: State University of New York.

Thomas B. Fordham Foundation. (1999a). The quest for better teachers. Washington, DC: Author.

Thomas B. Fordham Foundation. (1999b). The teachers we need and how to get more of them: Manifesto. In M. Kanstoroom & C. Finn (Eds.), Better teachers, better schools (pp. 1-18). Washington, DC: Author.

Thomas B. Fordham Foundation. (2001). Teacher certification reconsidered: Stumbling for quality. Retrieved October 2001, from http://www.abell.org.

United States Department of Education. (2002). Meeting the highly qualified teachers challenge: The Secretary's annual report on teacher quality. Washington, DC: US Department of Education, Office of Postsecondary Education, Office of Policy, Planning and Innovation.

Wideen, M., Mayer-Smith, J., & Moon, B. (1998). A critical analysis of the research on learning to teach: Making the case for an ecological perspective on inquiry. Review of Educational Research, 68(2), 130-178.

Wise, A. E., Darling-Hammond, L., McLaughlin, M. W., & Bernstein, H. T. (1984). Teacher evaluation: A study of effective practice. Santa Monica, CA: Rand Corporation.

Wise, A. E., & Leibbrand, J. A. (2000). Teacher education, quality, standards. Phi Delta Kappan, 81(8), 612-618.

Zeichner, K. & Gore, J. (1990). Teacher socialization. In W. R. Houston (Ed.), Handbook of research on teacher education (pp. 329-348). New York: Macmillan.

Garry Hoban is a Senior Lecturer in the Faculty of Education, University of Wollongong, Wollongong, New South Wales 2522. E-mail:[e-mail]