210
extended period of time. It must be noted that there are two critical differences
between the immersion programs showcased in this chapter and traditional
internships.
Firstly, internships are usually in the final year of a teacher education program
and are 5 days a week for an extended period of time with the expectation that the
preservice teacher undertakes the full range of responsibilities expected of a teacher
with a reduced workload (Longitudinal Teacher Education and Workforce Study,
2013 ). The four immersion cases discussed structured school experiences so preser-
vice teachers had a gradual immersion within a school context prior to any extended
teaching practice. Secondly, during an internship, making connections between
theory and practice is often ad hoc or incidental. The immersion cases were deliber-
ately organised to explicitly address the theory/practice nexus. Within the immer-
sion cases, preservice teachers were supported to make important connections
between theory and practice by mentors (school or university teacher educators).
Comparing the Australian immersion models revealed a range of benefits but
equally similar points of tension or vulnerabilities embedded in the immersion pro-
grams. The main benefits of the immersion program relate to opportunities provided
for the professional and personal growth of the preservice teachers, as they had
sustained connection to their students and mentor teachers and the wider school
community. This enabled the preservice teachers to be seen as, and to perceive
themselves as, a genuine part of the school community rather than short-term visi-
tors with limited personal or professional connections. Another benefit of the
immersion programs was the strengthening of the tripartite relationship between
schools, universities and education sectors, where the idea of learning from profes-
sional experience was expanded to include all participants. This collaborative
approach to professional experience included the strengthening of preservice teach-
ers’ understanding of how educational theory informs effective practice and the
opening up of possibilities for mentor teacher/teacher educator interactions and pro-
fessional learning about mentoring.
In terms of shared points of tension or vulnerabilities, the four models all reported
that to ensure that the immersion program was successful for all involved, there is a
need for ongoing collaboration between university-based teacher educators and
school-based mentors. Whilst this occurred in all the cases, it takes time and com-
mitment to ensure that such collaboration is maintained and is seen to be of benefit
to the school mentors and to the teacher educators. This ongoing collaboration
requires commitment of time and effort at the school level and university and often
relies on the goodwill of key players. The ‘hidden costs’ of collaboration such as
ongoing generosity of those working beyond their remit or scope of work are high-
lighted as concerning and worthy of further research.
Professional learning about mentoring is also essential for the success of any
immersion program, as argued by Dyson ( 2010 ). The challenge for participants in
these four immersion programs was to provide timely and effective professional
learning about mentoring and to share how different mentoring styles and processes
can be improved to support the learning of preservice teachers. This raises the issue
of whose knowledge is valued in professional experience and how different
S. Tindall-Ford et al.