220
Nokes et al., 2008 ); support and improved learning for preservice teachers (Dang,
2013 ; Farrell, 2008 ; Hsu, 2005 ; McCarthy & Youens, 2005 ) and identity develop-
ment (Gutierrez, 2016 ). Gemmell ( 2003 ) argued that ‘what they [the preservice
teachers] learned from peers was different but complementary from what they
learned from their mentor teachers and resource staff’ (p. 1). For example, when
preservice teachers were placed in pairs on placement, they developed skills in com-
promising, collaboration and problem-solving as well as reporting that they felt
more supported by their peer with whom they shared ideas, problems and successes
(King, 2006 ). Similarly, another study reported that a large majority of preservice
teachers in paired placements ‘found that working in pairs helped them gain confi-
dence and... [enabled them] to see themselves as a teacher’ (Harlow & Cobb, 2014 ,
p. 79). Gardiner ( 2010 ) reported that teachers who supervised paired placements
‘valued the additional perspectives and help in the classroom derived from triadic
collaboration’ (p. 244).
While there are benefits of paired placements, other researchers have noted that
there are also challenges (Le Cornu, 2005 ; Nguyen & Hudson, 2012 ). For example,
research into peer-based models has revealed some less positive effects such as peer
conflicts and uneven distribution of the workload and/or assessment processes
(Baeten & Simons, 2014 ; Dang, 2013 ; Wilson, Godinho, Parr & Longaretti, 2002 ).
There are also tensions related to the intensified work environments in schools that,
in some cases, have resulted in difficulty placing preservice teachers in any model,
let alone a paired model, because of the extra workload it may bring for supervising
teachers. In Australia, the supervision of preservice teachers is not core business in
schools and, generally, it is not built into teachers’ workloads until they reach the
highly accomplished level of the Australian Teacher Professional Standards (see
APST 6.2, AITSL, 2015b). Everyday demands of teaching, administration and gen-
eral planning make supervision of preservice teachers an unattractive proposition
for many teachers. While many researchers previously cited have expounded the
advantages of paired placements, there is a clear need for a deeper understanding of
barriers related to paired placements in the Australian context.
In this chapter, consistent with the purpose of this volume to highlight innova-
tions and practice in Australia, we provide two models from different universities in
two Australian states. Each has implemented a paired placement model into their
initial teacher education courses, though the models operate differently. In both
universities, meaningful advantages have been reported by all involved in the paired
placement model; however, significant barriers have emerged in the management of
each of the models since the university tried to expand the localised model to a
wider cohort of students and schools. The following section presents a discussion of
the literature that informed the implementation of the two models. This is followed
by an explanation of each model that includes a discussion of the challenges that act
as barriers to implementing each model over a whole degree program or a whole
cohort of students.
C. Lang and H.T.M. Nguyen