2192004 ), a hierarchical relationship between the supervising teachers and preservice
teachers (Kopp & Hinkle, 2006 ; Stanulis & Russell, 2000 ) and ineffective univer-
sity and school partnerships (Ledoux & McHenry, 2008 ; McLaughlin & Black-
Hawkins, 2007 ). It is apparent that the quality of relationships between supervising
teachers and preservice teachers is closely related to the quality of the learning
experience and is often out of the control of the teacher educators. Cohen, Hoz, and
Kaplan ( 2013 ) also argue that ‘entrusting preservice teachers in the hands of mentor
teachers is not the answer to proper preparation in the practicum’ (p. 374). The qual-
ity of practicum also depends much on the role of others including school profes-
sional staff, parents, principals and professional experience coordinators who are
critically important to create a supportive learning culture for the preservice teach-
ers. Consequently, some universities have adopted a more collaborative or collegial
relationship with schools and have increased a focus on professional experience
conversations and preservice teacher reflection during and after their teaching prac-
tice (Le Cornu, 2007 ). Professional experiences are now being seen as ‘opportuni-
ties for preservice teachers to not only identify what they think...but also how they
came to develop those views and perspectives’ (Le Cornu, 2016 , p. 87).
Paired Placements in Professional Experience
Some recent models of professional experience have identified peers as a source of
complementary learning and support for preservice teachers with paired placements
trialled internationally (Dang, 2013 ; Gutierrez, 2016 ; Nguyen, 2017 ; Sorensen,
2014 ). The use of peers as another source of learning has been reported to show
promise as an approach to improve the quality of preservice teacher education as
well as reciprocal in-service teacher learning for over a decade (Bullough et al.,
2003 ; Nokes, Bullough, Egan, Birrell & Merrell Hansen, 2008 ). The formal use of
peers as an additional source of support is not new, and the literature since the late
1980s shows increasing interest with the concept being examined from a range of
perspectives. There are many researchers who have focused on the effects of paired
placement models (Bullough et al., 2003 ; Dang, 2013 ; Gardiner & Robinson, 2009 ;
Lang, Neal, Karvouni & Chandler, 2015 ; Nokes et al., 2008 ; Smith, 2002 ; Walsh,
Elmslie, & Tayler, 2002 ), Some have explored the concept of peer mentoring (Le
Cornu, 2005 ; Nguyen, 2013 ), whereas others have used peers solely for observation
(Anderson, Barksdale, & Hite, 2005 ). There is also a body of literature focused on
peer tutoring and peer coaching (Benedetti, 1999 ; Vacilotto & Cummings, 2007 ).
The term paired placement seems to be a popular descriptor that refers to the peer-
based arrangement during the professional experience where two preservice teach-
ers are assigned to work with one supervising teacher, as well as each other, in their
school placements.
Within this growing interest in paired placements, researchers have reported
positive effects of paired placement that have resulted in increased professional
dialogues between supervising teachers and preservice teachers (Gardiner, 2010 ;
13 Paired Placements in Intensified School and University Environments: Advantages...