209teachers during the final-year professional experience program. These include a
limited ability for earning an income during the continuous placement and a heavy
workload for which they were not paid.
Discussion: Comparison of the Four Models
Although the four models have been presented as examples of immersion within
initial teacher education, we drew on case study methodology to analyse and com-
pare the programs. According to George and Bennett ( 2005 , p. 67), comparison of
case studies in educational research is dependent on having ‘a clearly defined and
common focus’. The four models highlighted commonalities and divergences as
well as tensions and vulnerabilities. The models are all unique in regard to their
context, design and implementation, however, there are important distinguishable
elements shared across each of the programs.
Firstly, each has a focus on knowledge transfer of preservice teachers from uni-
versity theory to practical learning and teaching in schools. As Dyson ( 2010 ) argued,
preservice teachers need to be provided with opportunities within initial teacher
education programs to progress ‘both personally and professionally as educators’
(p. 8). The opportunity for preservice teachers to take responsibility for their own
learning, negotiate their role in the school and develop greater understanding of
themselves as an educator, the school context and their teaching colleagues is also a
characteristic of each of these programs. Secondly, each immersion program
strengthened tripartite relationship between schools, universities and teacher educa-
tion by providing an extended opportunity for preservice teachers to be immersed
within a school as well as support structures to ensure high-quality communication
between all parties. Research has shown that extended placements may lead to part-
nerships that contribute to improved and strengthened tripartite relationships
between schools, universities and education sectors (Broadley & Ledger, 2012 ;
Foxall, 2014 : Trinidad et al., 2014 ).
In addition to the similar distinguishable elements of the four immersion models,
there were shared commonalities in relation to personnel, processes and practices.
For example, preservice teachers, mentors and university colleagues worked col-
laboratively in all four programs. Although the nomenclature differed for key par-
ticipants within each program, the roles and responsibilities remained similar. Also,
one of the four programs had selected entry of high-calibre students who were
paired with experienced mentor teachers. All four cases identified the importance of
providing professional learning for mentors. They also highlighted the fundamental
importance of leadership backing from both school and university personnel for the
ongoing sustainability and success of the models. Finally, a range of common prac-
tices were revealed across the immersion programs including early start dates;
clearly defined, scaffolded program based on gradual release of responsibility
model (Fisher & Frey, 2008 ; Gallagher & Pearson, 1989 ); and a combination of
placement timing ranging from distributed days to block placements over an
12 Immersion Programs in Australia: Exploring Four Models for Developing...