1 Background

Around the world, the nature of teacher professionalism has been shifting (Alexander, Fox, & Gutierrez, 2019; Vanassche, Kidd, & Murray, 2019). Teachers and teacher educators face increasingly politicised work environments with government agencies in Australia, the United Kingdom (UK), the United States of America (USA), and elsewhere prioritising standard agendas and managerial discourse over individual teachers’ professional judgement (Evans, 2011; Sachs, 2016). While these measures can be used to build capacity and legitimacy in the teaching profession, they can also result in misleading notions of what teaching involves, and how best to develop quality teachers (Darling-Hammond, 2017; Sachs, 2016).

In the UK, teaching is seen as a craft that is best learned through apprenticeship (Evans, 2011; Vanassche et al., 2019). Within this technicist approach, teacher professionalism is shaped by professional standards that focus “predominantly on teachers’ behaviour, rather than on their attitudes and their intellectuality” (Evans, 2011, p. 851). Adding to this practice-based view of the profession, ITE has become school-led (rather than the exclusive domain of universities) through programs such as School Direct (McNamara, Murray, & Phillips, 2017). Vanassche et al. (2019) recognise the dangers of this apprenticeship-based model by asserting that “however able or accomplished these exemplars of practice are, we accept and recreate rather than transform and renew current schooling” (pp. 484–485) by learning only from the practices of those who have gone before.

In the USA, the prevailing understanding of teaching is that the underlying knowledge base is relatively easy for anyone to learn (Darling-Hammond, 2017). This attitude is evidenced in the fast-track teacher education schemes, such as Teach for America, that have taken root in the USA and spread internationally (Darling-Hammond, 2017; Scott, Trujillo, & Rivera, 2016). The Teach for America organisation has been criticised for assuming that little teacher preparation and theoretical understanding is required to teach effectively (Darling-Hammond, 2017; Scott et al., 2016).

Within Australia, a steady upwards trajectory of regulation and control has been exerted by policymakers (Alexander et al., 2019; Bourke, 2019). A plethora of educational reviews and policy documents have positioned teacher education as a policy problem that can allegedly be solved through national regulation (Alexander et al., 2019; Sachs, 2016). Bourke (2019) and Sachs (2016) argue that a high level of regulation serves to de-professionalise teachers and teacher educators by “casting teachers into the role of compliant practitioner” (Sachs, 2016, p. 422).

In contrast, Darling-Hammond (2017) has identified a number of countries where teachers are highly respected professionals. Efforts have been made in Finland, Singapore, and Canada to strengthen connections between theory and practice and develop quality teachers with the capacity to provide excellent and accessible education for all students. To do so, Finland has prioritised the implementation of high-quality ITE “that integrates research and practice” (Darling-Hammond, 2017, p. 292). In Singapore, a highly developed performance management system has been implemented that generates a range of leadership opportunities throughout a teacher’s lifelong career (Darling-Hammond, 2017). The approach adopted in Canada has been a commitment to strong standards with a focus on improvement and capacity building instead of punishment (Darling-Hammond, 2017).

These international examples align with what Sachs (2016) and Bourke (2019) describe as the difference between managerial professionalism, which is concerned with performance and accountability; and democratic professionalism, which involves “collegial relations and collaborative work practices” (Sachs, 2016, p. 419). Transformation to democratic professionalism, they argue, is predicated on a commitment to ongoing professional learning, deep engagement in research, and collaborative practices throughout the teaching profession (Bourke, 2019; Sachs, 2016).

One strategy for enacting this democratic professionalism is through closer connections between universities and schools. The relationship between universities and schools, and theory and practice, has been internationally recognised as vital components of quality ITE programs (Darling-Hammond, 2017; Zeichner, 2010). In recent years, considerable efforts have been made around the world to intentionally implement school–university partnerships that foster meaningful collaboration between teachers, teacher educators, researchers, and pre-service teachers (PSTs) (Forgasz, 2016; Green, Tindall-Ford, & Eady, 2020). For example, clinical practice settings have been developed where quality teaching practices can be demonstrated for PSTs, as is common in teaching hospitals for medical students (Darling-Hammond, 2017; Passy, Georgeson, & Gompertz, 2018). In other school–university partnerships, teachers have contributed to the design of ITE programs, university coursework has been delivered in the school setting, and collaborative professional development sessions for teachers, PSTs, and teacher educators have been developed (Green et al., 2020; Zeichner, 2010). Additionally, teachers and teacher educators may take up work at the other’s institution, as hybrid teacher educators or through an exchange program (Darling-Hammond, 2017; Vanassche et al., 2019).

Regardless of the specific activities involved, these “collaborative partnerships… result in collective wisdom” (Bourke, 2019, p. 40) with teachers and teacher educators sharing and co-creating knowledge, and developing mutual understandings and expertise. When these intentional, deliberate school–university partnerships are collaborative and non-hierarchical in nature, they can be described as operating in the ‘third space’, where the domains of school and university intersect (see Fig. 1).

Fig. 1
figure 1

Visual representation of third space theory (Zeichner, 2010)

Full size image

Third space theory has been used by Soja (1996), who described the third space as the ‘lived space’ where the ‘real’ (first space) and ‘ideal’ (second space) can be reimagined. Conversely, Bhabha (1994) used the term to facilitate the exploration of cultural identities. In this sense, the third space “explains how cultures and individuals interact to redefine their identity” (Watters, Diezmann, & Dao, 2018, p. 241). More recently, Zeichner (2010) has applied the notion of the third space to teacher education. In this framing, third space theory advocates for crossing traditional boundaries, such as those between schools and universities. Third space partnerships enable school teachers, PSTs, and university-based teacher educators to share and co-create knowledge (Passy et al., 2018; Watters et al., 2018). As Zeichner (2010) describes, the third space can disrupt binary attitudes (such as theory vs. practice) through integration: “an either/or perspective is transformed into a both/also point of view” (p. 92).

These partnerships have been implemented across Australia (Green et al., 2020) and around the world (Darling-Hammond, 2017). The research literature has demonstrated the benefits associated with their implementation, as well as considering the challenges of working in the third space (Forgasz, 2016; Green et al., 2020; McDonough, 2014). However, the foundational aspects of school–university partnerships—such as the factors that motivate the involvement of stakeholders within the partnership—have not yet been explicitly explored either in the Australian context or elsewhere (Green et al., 2020).

This chapter sits within this research gap by exploring, from the perspective of teachers at one Australian school, what motivates their involvement in a school–university partnership. It presents the findings of a case study based in Queensland where staff at Grevillea Primary School (GS) and Grey Gum University (GU) (pseudonyms) have been working in the third space to collaboratively implement high-quality school-based experiences for PSTs. By revealing what motivates GS teachers’ involvement in the school–university partnership, this chapter considers not just the what and the how, but importantly the why, of implementing this innovative practice within ITE.

2 Methodology

The research question for the case study is as follows:

For teachers who are involved in a school–university partnership that develops pre-service teachers, what motivates their involvement in the partnership?

The case study design is an appropriate choice for this research question, as it prioritises context-dependent knowledge and experience from the perspective of those embedded in the case to develop a deep, holistic, and nuanced understanding of the phenomenon (Flyvbjerg, 2006; Harland, 2014). This research design has enabled the study to rely on the teachers’ voices to illuminate their motivation regarding involvement in a school–university partnership, while also considering the contextual factors that impact those decisions.

In this study, typical case selection, where the selected school is representative of a broader set, has been employed to allow the formation of a comprehensive understanding of the phenomenon (Robinson, 2014). The case selected is therefore an ordinary example of a school in a third space school–university partnership that seeks to develop PSTs (Harland, 2014; Stake, 2006).

The GS–GU partnership was identified through Australia-wide teacher education networks, facilitating a purposive sampling strategy and allowing diverse options to emerge (Robinson, 2014). We asked a range of teacher education colleagues to suggest school–university partnerships that may be appropriate for this study, based on a provided description of third space school–university partnerships in ITE. Through this process, the GS–GU partnership was identified as a suitable case and GS staff indicated their interest in this study. Ethics approval was sought and gained from all relevant committees.

2.1 Theoretical Framework

The study has been informed by Fishbein and Ajzen’s (2010) Reasoned Action Approach (RAA). This comprehensive motivation theory proposes that people’s behaviours are largely motivated by their intentions to perform that behaviour. This intention is informed by three constructs:

  • one’s attitude towards the behaviour, that is, “the evaluation of an object, concept, or behaviour along a dimension of favour or disfavour” (Fishbein & Ajzen, 2010, p. 78),

  • their perceptions of the social norm, or the “perceived social pressure to perform (or not to perform) a given behaviour” (Fishbein & Ajzen, 2010, p. 130), and

  • their perceived behavioural control, that is, “the resources and the obstacles that either facilitate or impede engagement in the behaviour” (Wang & Ha, 2013, p. 225) (see Fig. 2).

RAA was intentionally developed as a general theory that could “provide a unifying framework to account for any social behaviour” (Fishbein & Ajzen, 2010, p. 27), as evident in its wide-ranging use to describe and predict behaviours (de Leeuw, Valois, Ajzen, & Schmidt, 2015; McEachan et al., 2016). Meta-analyses and systematic reviews conducted within a variety of fields of study have revealed that attitudes are a strong predictor of intentions, as is perceived behavioural control, with a weaker relationship between social norms and intentions (Lipnevich, MacCann, Krumm, Burrus, & Roberts, 2011; McEachan et al., 2016).

Fig. 2
figure 2

Reasoned Action Approach (Fishbein & Ajzen, 2010)

Full size image

RAA research has been mostly quantitative in nature, as it seeks to predict behaviour and identify statistical links between and among the components of the framework, intentions, and behaviour (Lipnevich et al., 2011; McEachan et al., 2016). The use of RAA within qualitative research, although relatively limited, has also been informative (de Leeuw et al., 2015; Wang & Ha, 2013). In educational research, RAA has been found to adequately explain the issue at hand, such as young peoples’ intentions to engage in pro-environmental behaviour (de Leeuw et al., 2015) and PSTs’ use of a particular constructivist approach in their teaching (Wang & Ha, 2013).

In this qualitative study, RAA was considered when developing the questions for the semi-structured interviews as well as providing a framework for data analysis (de Leeuw et al., 2015; King, Horrocks, & Brooks, 2019) (see Fig. 3). By understanding the participants’ attitudes, perceptions of the social norm, and perceived behavioural control through individual and focus group interviews, we sought to understand their intention (captured in the research question) to perform the behaviour of partnering with GU to prepare PSTs.

Fig. 3
figure 3

Use of the Reasoned Action Approach (Fishbein & Ajzen, 2010) in this study

Full size image

2.2 Context

Grevillea Primary School (GS) is a government primary school in a major city in Queensland. It has 700 students between Prep and Year 6, and 59 teaching staff (Australian Curriculum, Assessment and Reporting Authority, 2018). The school is located in an area of relative advantage, with a score of 8 out of 10 on the Index of Relative Socio-economic Advantage and Disadvantage (IRSAD) (Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS), 2016). Relative socio-economic advantage and disadvantage is broadly defined “in terms of people’s access to material and social resources, and their ability to participate in society” (ABS, 2016, n.p.).

GS’s partner university, Grey Gum University (GU), is a research-intensive institution with a campus located 23 km (a half hour drive) from GS. It is in an area of relative disadvantage, with an IRSAD score of 4 out of 10 (ABS, 2016).

The partnership between GS and GU began in 2014, when the Principal and Deputy Principal at GS noticed that the PSTs coming to their school for Professional Experience (PEx) placements did not seem ready for the teaching profession. They began a conversation with the Director of PEx at GU, who suggested that they collaborate to implement a program that GU had run in other regions. The program consisted of PSTs volunteering in a partner school throughout the school year while they complete the final year of their ITE degree. When the GS leadership team visited GU to learn about the program, they recognised a synergy between the philosophy of the program and that of their school. The program has now run at GS for two years, with a total of 8 PSTs selected to partake so far.

In addition to running the PST volunteer program, GS also decided to exclusively accept PSTs from GU for PEx. Ordinarily, a school may take PSTs from a range of universities in their local area for PEx placements. Instead, GS accepts only GU students, which has simplified the logistical demands associated with PEx placements and facilitated a close relationship between the school and university.

The activities of this partnership also take place in the university setting, as GU staff have recorded videos with GS teachers discussing various aspects of the teaching profession and their teaching practice. These videos are made available to all GU PSTs as part of their ITE course material.

2.3 Participants

Invitations to participate in the research project were extended to GS staff as a purposive sampling technique (King et al., 2019). A stratified sample was targeted to allow the findings to be representative of the different groups of people involved, further illuminating what motivates involvement in a school–university partnership from a range of perspectives (Robinson, 2014; Stake, 2006).

The participants, in this case, were the school principal (E1), the in-school co-ordinator (C1), and five teachers (T1–T5) (see Table 1). The codes A1 and A2 are also used in this paper, to denote the two GU academics involved in the partnership (although these individuals were not participants in this research project).

Table 1 Demographics of the participants
Full size table

Individual interviews were held with E1 and C1, and a focus group interview was conducted with T1–T5. This arrangement minimised the effect of any potential power dynamics, while maximising the quality of the data collected (Millis, 2004; Robinson, 2014).

In all interviews, semi-structured interview questions informed by RAA were used to elicit participants’ attitudes, their perceptions of the social norm, and their perceived behavioural control with regards to the GS–GU partnership (see Fig. 3). The individual interviews with E1 and C1 also included questions about the context of the partnership, which informed the rich description provided above. The four short written activities provided each participant with the opportunity to document their thoughts and reflect personally prior to discussing their responses (King et al., 2019; Millis, 2004). The Likert scale developed for Written task #2 (see Fig. 3) was informed by the work of Millis (2004) and Jamieson (2004).

2.4 Data Analysis

Prior to coding each interview transcript, we created a provisional template for analysis informed by the key tenets of RAA (Fishbein & Ajzen, 2010; King et al., 2019). We then employed constant comparison analysis to code sections of text to appropriate descriptors and thereby generate a set of themes (Leech & Onwuegbuzie, 2007). The provisional template was adjusted through this process, with descriptors consolidated and re-classified as necessary (King et al., 2019).

The participants’ responses to Written tasks #3 and #4 were also coded according to the analysis template. These coded responses were then allocated values according to the priorities given by the participants within the interview—Priority 1 was allocated 4 points, Priority 2 was allocated 3 points, and Priority 3 was allocated 2 points. Any additional factors that participants documented but did not rank in their top three priorities were given one point. By analysing the qualitative data in this manner, the most important issues for participants were revealed, confirming our initial interpretations (Millis, 2004; Verdinelli & Scagnoli, 2013).

We sent summaries of our initial interpretations, along with interview transcripts, to each participant for member checking purposes. All participants were given the opportunity to assess the accuracy of the interpretations and provide clarification when necessary (Koelsch, 2013; Leech & Onwuegbuzie, 2007). This step improved the validity of the study by ensuring we had an accurate understanding of the participants’ worldview (Koelsch, 2013).

3 Results

The results are presented below, organised according to the tenets of RAA (Fishbein & Ajzen, 2010). Findings relating to the participants’ attitudes are presented first, drawn from all participants’ responses to the first two written tasks and additional open-ended interview questions. This is followed by participants’ perceptions of the social norm, drawn from all participants’ responses to relevant open-ended interview questions. Finally, findings related to the participants’ perceived behavioural control are presented, drawn from all participants’ responses to the final two written tasks and additional open-ended interview questions.

3.1 Attitude

At the start of each interview, participants were invited to write down a word or short phrase to describe the GS–GU partnership (Written task #1), as well as to rate their level of support for the partnership (Written task #2) (see Table 2). The participants described the school–university partnership as supportive and mutually beneficial. All participants indicated that they were extremely supportive of the partnership.

Table 2 Participants’ description of the GS–GU partnership, and level of support
Full size table

Elaborating on their attitudes about their involvement, the participants discussed their sense of professional obligation to build and develop the next generation of teachers. Their views were informed by the ageing workforce and high attrition rates of early career teachers. T4 commented, “As we age and start to retire, we want to make sure there’s people there to hold the baton and take it on for the next generation.” Similarly, E1 declared that it is her “ethical responsibility to make sure that we do pass the baton on, [so that PSTs] are definitely inspired by what they see, and want to be in it for the long haul.” For C1, being involved in the partnership gave the opportunity to be a part of “shaping pre-service teachers to be quality educators.” Part of this professional obligation, E1 and C1 recognised, included having difficult conversations with PSTs who perhaps were “not going to make it” (E1) in the teaching profession. The ultimate goal of this responsibility to the profession for all participants was clear: to ensure good outcomes for school students both now and into the future.

Each of the teachers spoke highly of the partnership and described being involved as a positive experience. T5 recognised that the PSTs “bring new things into the classroom that I couldn’t offer” and provided opportunities for the teachers to reflect on their practice. T4 valued the collegial discussions she continued to have with a former PST as a result of the partnership. T5 noted that “every year level… has a pre-service teacher, if not two,” and interpreted this as “a pretty good indication that people are willing across the school… to be part of the program.” It was clear through these comments that the teachers had positive attitudes about their involvement in the partnership.

3.2 Social Norm

GS has a strong culture among its staff regarding sharing their teaching practice with one another, based on Marzano’s (2007) pedagogical framework. This framework was introduced by E1 when she started at GS and has been established as a consistent whole-school approach. It is championed by the school leadership, leading T5 to determine that the school leaders “see the value in us [teachers]… sometimes it needs someone else to point out those things they’re seeing in you.” Furthermore, it is manifested in the teachers’ regular practice—“We’re not afraid to step across year levels and say, ‘Oh, I really like what you’re doing’” (T2). This openness to sharing and discussing their teaching practices extended to teachers’ interactions with PSTs. As T4 described,

Because of our coaching and mentoring model, we see that responsibility not just in our own staff, but then for the… next generations coming through. … It’s already there that it’s a given that we’re going to be doing that. I don’t know that… a lot of schools have pedagogical frameworks like that.

This comment reinforces T4’s commitment to developing the next generation of teachers, with this sense of responsibility to the profession echoed by other participants. Significantly, it also shows how the idea of learning from and coaching not only their colleagues but also any PSTs they interact with has become normalised at GS. Developing PSTs through the school–university partnership is thereby an extension of (rather than additional to) the teachers’ everyday practices.

The enduring school culture at GS, where it is standard practice that teachers work alongside one another to encourage and support quality teaching practices, is reflected in the expectations of C1 and E1 regarding their teachers’ involvement in the partnership activities. Both mentioned that while they don’t have a quota for how many teachers should be involved, the whole staff team “know that this is what we do, and it’s E1 and my agenda to keep an alliance with GU and produce high quality pre-service teachers” (C1). C1 and E1 supported a flexible approach, recognising that there are some teachers who may not want to be involved (such as those who have had a recent negative experience with a PST), as well as some teachers that they do not want to be involved (including early career teachers who are just establishing themselves). E1 was pleased with the willingness of GS teachers, saying that occasionally they have more spaces available than GU PSTs coming in.

The impact of GS leaders championing this collegial culture was further evidenced when T1 contrasted GS with her experiences at other schools, noting that “the difference here is that the culture has been built [by the school leaders] around the fact that having a pre-service teacher is a very positive experience. You will be very well supported, and… it’s what we do.” It was evident that there was alignment between the expectations of the school leaders and the experiences of the teachers with regards to being involved in the school–university partnership.

To probe further the perceived social norms regarding their involvement, participants were asked whether they see school–university partnerships as being normal, or unusual, beyond their school. In response, C1 recognised other schools in their area who accept PSTs for PEx placements, and E1 named a principal of a nearby secondary school who is developing pathways for her students to higher education by establishing a partnership with a university. Conversely, the active involvement and partnership that GS has with GU were perceived to be an uncommon venture by E1 and several of the teachers. T2 viewed the partnership as “sort of futuristic,” echoing T4’s comment that “we probably do more than most other schools from my experiences at other schools. I think we’re very proactive.” E1 didn’t know of any other schools “being active like [GS and GU].” T1 and T4 again noted the impact that GS’s culture has on their involvement, suggesting that GS is unique because at other schools “there’s not that positive culture around championing [working with the university]” (T4).

According to C1, there may be more instances of similar partnerships in the future, with several schools and universities in the region in the process of formalising arrangements and implementing initiatives for a range of purposes. She saw this as a relatively new approach, in the last six years or so, as educators begin to look beyond their own institutions to “help enhance the education of our students” (C1).

3.3 Behavioural Control

As discussed above, the data from Written tasks #3 and #4 has been represented visually by coding the responses and assigning values based on participants’ priorities (see Figs. 4 and 5). The visual representation of this data enabled us to see the most important issues for all participants, and confirmed our initial interpretations (Millis, 2004; Verdinelli & Scagnoli, 2013).

Fig. 4
figure 4

Factors that help/support participants’ involvement in the school–university partnership

Full size image
Fig. 5
figure 5

Factors that hinder/prevent participants’ involvement in the school–university partnership

Full size image

3.3.1 Factors that Help/Support Involvement

Participants were able to list a variety of factors that they felt supported their involvement in the GS–GU partnership (see Fig. 4). Some factors were mentioned by teachers but not executive staff, such as being able to see the benefits of the partnership and the fact that their participation in the partnership was voluntary. Conversely, C1 and E1 noted the consistent implementation of the partnership activities from year to year, and the opportunities to share knowledge that the partnership provided, as supportive factors. The highest ranked items for each group were communication (Group TA), the preparedness of PSTs prior to visiting GS (Group TB), and positive relationships between GS and GU staff (E1; C1).

All participants mentioned clear communication as a factor that supports their involvement in the school–university partnership. C1 talked about how the PSTs are contacting the school straight away, which she said “could only come from the university saying, ‘It would be wise of you to [contact the school]… and say ‘Hello, this is who I am’.” The teachers appreciated the correspondence they received from the university, including having any documents related to PEx provided before the placement begins. It was also clear to all participants who they could contact for further support if needed—primarily C1 at the school, and A1 and A2 at the university.

The teachers and E1 commented that the PSTs are obviously prepared by the university before they visit the school, which participants felt contributed to their own positive attitude regarding the partnership. E1 noted that “it’s very obvious, when we have that first meeting… [the PSTs] know what they’re coming to, which is great.” Group TA’s discussion of supportive factors included T2’s comment that “if [the PSTs] were not prepared, we wouldn’t be having this high level conversation of we feel positive about [our involvement in the partnership].” As a result, they ranked PST preparedness as the #2 factor supporting their partnership involvement.

The most important supportive factor for both E1 and C1 was the positive relationship they have with A1 and A2 at GU. This relationship has developed over a period of several years, through numerous in-person meetings as well as ongoing written communication. It was through this relationship that the partnership was first discussed, and it has been a key aspect of the continued implementation of the partnership activities. C1 was certain of the strength of the relationship, to the point where she could say, “Whenever we ask, A1 will come.” The stability of the staff in these university-based roles, and their responsiveness to the school’s needs, was incredibly important to E1. She spoke of how A1 and A2 “get on top of things straight away,” saying “That’s a big support. If they weren’t responsive, we’d be going, ‘Well, does anybody care?’ But they do.”

Another way, from the teacher’s perspective, that GU has shown their care for GS is through their demonstrated belief in the school’s expertise. By creating recordings of the teachers discussing their teaching practices, and including these within the PST’s coursework, the teachers “feel valued, that [GU] recognises that we know what we’re doing and that we are leaders in our field” (T1). E1 noted that there is “good support from the university around what we’re about, which makes us want to participate.”

3.3.2 Factors that Hinder/Prevent Involvement

Identifying factors that hinder or prevent their involvement in the partnership was a more difficult task for the participants. As E1 stated, “We’re really comfortable with the way it’s conducted… We don’t find many things hinder it, because we believe the university is responsive.” Both C1 and T4 emphatically stated that, for them, “it’s worth the hard work” (T4).

When comparing responses to Written task #4 across participant groups, it is apparent that the teachers’ responses were distinct from those of E1 and C1 (see Fig. 5). The teachers tended to focus on practical concerns that might prevent their individual participation for a period (including personal circumstances, or unfortunate timing of the PST’s visits). Conversely, E1 and C1 tended to speculate about factors that might prevent GS’s participation altogether, such as if it required too much time or money.

Both Group TA and Group TB hypothesised that they, or a colleague, might choose not to be involved in the partnership due to their personal circumstances. They recognised the practical and emotional toll that supporting a PST can take, acknowledging:

If you’re in a place personally where you don’t have that time and energy to give, GS teachers are pretty good at actually identifying that for themselves and saying, “Look, I don’t want to do a half-baked job… I’m not going to be able to give [the PST] the best experience right now, so I’m going to sit this one out.” (T1)

T4 echoed this sentiment, declaring, “If you aren’t there with 100%, or 110% to give, you’re doing the other person a disservice.” The voluntary nature of their involvement was therefore crucial, enabling them to take a step back as they saw fit.

The teachers also noted that the timing of the partnership activities might hinder their involvement. Group TA discussed that teachers may be unable to give the PSTs the appropriate amount of attention if they visit in the midst of assessments and report writing. A similar conflict may occur at the beginning of the year, as Group TB discussed, when the teacher is establishing routines and rapport with their new class. Again, the determining factor for the teachers’ involvement was that “you want to set people up for success, not for failure, so you need to consider these things” (T4). The fact that the PSTs who volunteer at the start of the school year are just observing and assisting where needed was “fabulous” (T4).

In contrast to the hindering factors the teachers identified, related to individual’s involvement, E1 and C1 discussed resources that, if lacking, might prevent GS’s involvement in the partnership altogether. The time required of time-poor teachers was key for both C1 and E1, although C1 speculated that you could “take pre-service teacher commitment away…and I would still say that [teachers are time-poor].” C1 also considered that GS might need to invest more money into the partnership to release teachers from their regular duties to better support PSTs. However, as it stands now, these resources are not a hindrance to the GS–GU partnership because “our teachers are the resources. Our knowledge is the resource” (C1).

4 Discussion

The participants in this study have detailed a partnership between Grevillea Primary School and Grey Gum University that has, at its core, a dedication to building up the teaching profession for the benefit of school students now and into the future (see Fig. 6). GS staff saw it as their “ethical responsibility” (E1) and “moral purpose and professional obligation to make sure that the next generation of teachers that come are good, and they’ve got the skills they need” (T1). This motivated their mentorship of PSTs and their involvement in GU coursework.

Fig. 6
figure 6

Summary of results aligned with the Reasoned Action Approach (Fishbein & Ajzen, 2010)

Full size image

It was clear that the collegial school culture, established and supported by the school leadership, played a crucial role in each participants’ involvement in the school–university partnership. This aligns with Andreasen, Bjørndal, and Kovač’s (2019) assertion that “leadership support and trust [is linked to] higher levels of organisational citizenship and willingness to voluntarily go beyond minimum job obligations” (p. 3). GS teachers spoke about the way that C1 and E1 “see value in us… They’re pointing out, ‘Hey, we love the way you do this’, we’re getting that constant feedback” (T5). E1 drove the development of this culture, consistent with Marzano’s (2007) pedagogical framework. Along with other leaders at GS (including C1), E1 established a social norm in which teachers are supported to continually learn from others and share their expertise with colleagues and PSTs whenever possible (Andreasen et al., 2019; Passy et al., 2018).

This supportive culture has, according to the teachers, increased both their self- and collective efficacy with regards to mentoring their colleagues and PSTs. T5 noted that, because of the affirmation and feedback she and her colleagues receive from GS leadership and one another, “we feel good about ourselves, [so] we want to have someone in to share.” Research shows that confidence in one’s own capability to mentor, and confidence of the same in one’s colleagues, can promote collaborative relationships and a commitment to partnering with other teacher educators (Andreasen et al., 2019; Donohoo, Hattie, & Eells, 2018). Importantly, PSTs have been found to have more successful experiences in “schools that are characterised by collegial cultures that promote professional learning” (Andreasen et al., 2019, p. 33). In this way, the support that the GS leaders provide has a flow-on effect through the GS staff and on to the PSTs they interact with.

Contemporary global discussions regarding teacher education and school–university partnerships include the notion that school teachers involved in ITE (as GS staff are) should be recognised as teacher educators in their own right (Andreasen et al., 2019). While none of the participants in this study explicitly identified as school-based teacher educators, they did make comments that aligned with this position. For example, when C1 spoke about her reasoning for being involved in the partnership, she stated, “To me, it’s shaping pre-service teachers to be quality educators. I think that’s my job. … I see that as my job every day with my own staff.” Participants spoke of this as a natural extension of their existing teacher identities. This was a less confronting shift than has been reported by other Australian teachers involved in school–university partnerships (Forgasz, 2016; McDonough, 2014).

Encouraging school staff to take on a dual role as both teachers and teacher educators can cause dilemmas due to conflicting loyalties (Andreasen et al., 2019; McDonough, 2014). For the GS staff, it was clear that their allegiance was ultimately with their school students. This was repeated throughout each interview, with comments like: “It’s worth the hard work, because ultimately you wouldn’t be in this job if you didn’t want good results for children in the end” (T4); “I have an ethical responsibility to children to make sure that they’re going to get a fantastic education” (E1); and “It’s about outcomes for kids at the end of the day” (C1). It was for this reason that the teachers valued the voluntary nature of the program. They knew that an individual teacher would be able to withdraw themselves from the partnership activities for a period if, for whatever reason, they felt they could not give PSTs a valuable experience while still ensuring the success of their students and their own wellbeing.

5 Limitations

One limitation that could be claimed is that this single case study has investigated the motivations of teachers in one school–university partnership, and thereby cannot be generalised to other contexts. This assertion is described by Flyvbjerg (2006) as one of five key misunderstandings regarding the use of case study as a legitimate means of scientific research. Harland (2014) and Stake (2006) also advocate for case study as a valid methodology within social science research. By examining one case embedded in its context, this research study has added to the depth (rather than breadth) of understanding (Flyvbjerg, 2006; Leech & Onwuegbuzie, 2007).

It was important for this study that the perspectives of teachers be foregrounded, given that their perspective and professional judgement is frequently dismissed in discussions regarding the teaching profession (Alexander et al., 2019; Bourke, 2019). However, we note that the motivating factors of other stakeholders (including university academics and PSTs) also warrant further exploration.

The roles and responsibilities of teacher educators have undergone major changes over the past decade (Vanassche et al., 2019). Indeed, McNamara et al. (2017) argue that “teacher educators and their work have become changed and increasingly under-valued across the teacher education system” (p. 25). Even so, a number of university academics (including A1 and A2) are making significant commitments of time and resources within school–university partnerships (Green et al., 2020). Understanding what motivates these individuals to partner with schools and teachers, despite the challenging circumstances they work under, will deepen our understanding of what works in different contexts (Darling-Hammond, 2017).

With regard to PSTs’ involvement in school–university partnership activities, some of the participants in this study hypothesised that PSTs may be hindered by the limited time available to them (given competing demands of study, work, and family life). The teachers also wondered whether PSTs’ participation would be incentivised by credit or assessment tasks linked to their involvement. Hearing from PSTs themselves regarding their motivations would be a valuable piece of future research in this area (Forgasz, 2016; Watters et al., 2018).

Further research in diverse contexts will add to our understanding of the factors that motivate various stakeholders to participate in school–university partnerships that develop PSTs. These new understandings can inform policy and practice to strengthen future partnerships and the teaching profession.

6 Conclusion

This case study provided a contextualised understanding of the motivating factors behind the involvement of teachers and school executive in a partnership with a university. This innovative partnership is grounded in the sense of professional obligation and responsibility that GS staff have to the teaching profession. It is nurtured by the strong school culture which has been championed by the school leadership, where collegial discussions and the sharing of teaching practices are everyday expectations. Involvement in the school–university partnership and its activities are thereby a logical extension of what the teachers, in-school co-ordinator, and principal enact daily as part of their professional identities.

By revealing these foundational aspects of the GS–GU partnership, this case study has added to our understanding of innovative third space school–university partnerships. The stratified sample of participants has allowed the findings of this case to be representative of the school staff involved in this school–university partnership (Stake, 2006). This is significant, as the voices of practitioners are frequently lacking in policy debates (Alexander et al., 2019; Bourke, 2019).

The findings of this study can inform future school–university partnerships locally and internationally. The study showed school–university partnerships are strengthened through the recognition by schools and universities of their shared responsibility to the teaching profession. To transform ITE and the teaching profession, the study highlighted the benefits of institutional cultures that are based on coaching, sharing, and capacity building. Furthermore, it shows that third space partnerships are sustained through explicit and timely communication, responsive and trusting relationships, and a recognition of expertise in both the school and university settings. The local case presented in this chapter makes evident that third space school–university partnerships have the power to disrupt the binary attitudes that have historically been held within teacher education, and to create positive change within teacher education around the world.