212
commitment and understanding of the purpose and structure of the immersion pro-
gram and open and respectful communication to ensure that preservice teachers are
supported in the best ways possible. This includes the collaborative development
and use of a range of artefacts such as handbooks, information workshops/forums,
presentations at staff meetings and an online platform for mentor teachers, preser-
vice teachers and university staff, thereby ensuring communication between all
immersion participants and encouraging a sense of joint ownership of the
program.
Second, we believe that immersion programs should be based on an action
research model, in which data is collected and reviewed and ongoing improvements
can be made. Immersion programs may also be important for workforce planning,
in particular for staffing rural and remote schools. Immersing preservice teachers in
difficult to staff schools that have high turnover of teachers may support prepared-
ness for diverse school contexts.
Finally, we believe that immersion programs offer a unique opportunity to build
a true ‘community of practice’ in which the professional learning of preservice
teachers, mentor teachers and teacher educators work together to share ‘problems of
practice’. These problems are collaboratively explored, and a culture of co-learning
and co-teaching is therefore fostered. Professional experience as immersion in
schools provides enhanced opportunities for preservice teachers to not only develop
their knowledge and skills as ‘classroom-ready’ graduates but to construct their
professional identity as a valued member of the teaching profession.
The immersion programs described above provide empirical data missing from
the Australian professional experience literature. The discussions align with many
of the characteristics of successful initial teacher education programs summarised
in Australia’s recent Longitudinal Teacher Education and Workforce Study (LTEWS
2013 ), The Key Components of Effective Professional Experience (Le Cornu, 2015 )
and Bahr & Mellor’s ( 2016 ) Australian Education Review: Building Quality in
Teaching and Teacher Education. The findings also highlight points of vulnerability
and the hidden costs of collaborations. Commonalities across of models were
revealed. However, the immersion programs differed in regard to form, funding and
effectiveness, and because of this, a further call for research in the area is required.
Additional, longitudinal studies would be beneficial to the field.
References
Albrecht, W., & Sack, R. (2000). Accounting education: Charting the course through a perilous
future. (Accounting Education Series No. 16). Sarasota, FL: American Accounting Association.
Allen, J., & Peach, D. (2007). Exploring connections between the in-field and on-campus com-
ponents of a pre-service teacher education program: Student perspective. Asia-Pacific Journal
Cooperative Education, 8(1), 23–36.
Allen, J. M., Howells, K., & Radford, R. (2013). A ‘Partnership in Teaching Excellence’: Ways
in which one school-university partnership has fostered teacher development. Asia-Pacific
Journal of Teacher Education, 13(1), 99–110.
S. Tindall-Ford et al.