Conference Agenda

Curriculum coherence as a process

Internationally, there is a movement toward more stringent accountability demands concerning the quality of teacher education (Hökkä et al., 2019; Murray et al., 2019), which is one of the reasons teacher education programs need useful frameworks to examine the quality of the learning experiences they provide (Hammerness & Klette, 2015). One way to approach the quality of teacher education programs is through the concept of curriculum coherence, which refers to the extent to which the various components within the teacher education curriculum are aligned (Hammerness, 2006). Herein, the curriculum is not reduced to the list of program courses. It includes the full range of aims, content, activities, and organizational aspects that are embedded within the educational program (Walker & Soltis, 1997).

A term that is very closely related to coherence is ‘alignment’. Derived from the definition of Canrinus and colleagues (2017), teacher education programs should address three types of alignment to be considered coherent: (1) alignment between courses and the program’s vision, (2) mutual alignment between courses, and (3) alignment between courses and field experiences of student-teachers. These types of alignment should not be regarded as ‘a fixed end-stage of curriculum development’, as curriculum coherence should be approached as a complex process of collaboration, compromise, and intense social interaction between faculty members (Cavanna et al., 2021; Richmond et al., 2019). This interpretation implies that alignment is not a finite process, but instead an ongoing one that requires consistent maintenance and sustained efforts from the team of teacher educators.

The potential role of program leaders

Together with a focus on the process-oriented and social nature of coherence in teacher education, there is an increasing recognition of the potential role of program leaders in striving for more curriculum coherence (Cavanna et al., 2021). This is not surprising, given that coherence seems to be situated in processes of collaboration and interaction and previous research has already demonstrated the importance of leadership in fostering these processes (e.g., Branson et al., 2016). Berdrow (2010), for example, states that developing and maintaining productive information flow and relationships between people in the department is one of the requisite skills of department chairs. Branson and colleagues (2016) even consider the pursuit of a deeper sense of relational connection and interdependence throughout the organization to be the most important leadership skill.

A closer examination of the literature regarding leadership in higher education reveals further connections with literature concerning coherence in teacher education. For example, Bryman (2007) found that having a ‘clear sense of direction/strategic vision’ has consistently been found to be an effective leadership quality in higher education. Interestingly, having a ‘clear vision of teaching and learning’ and ‘explicitly aiming for curriculum coherence’ are considered to be important for fostering curriculum coherence (Canrinus et al., 2019; Hammerness & Klette, 2015). In total, Bryman (2007) identified 13 forms of effective leadership behavior in higher education and at least four of these are conceptually connected to coherence in teacher education: (1) having a clear sense of direction/strategic vision, (2) preparing department arrangements to facilitate the direction set, (3) communicating well about the direction the department is going, and (4) creating a positive/collegial work atmosphere in the department (Cavanna et al., 2021; Hermansen, 2020).

Despite the recognition of the potential importance of leadership for curriculum coherence in teacher education, little is known about how program leaders aim to address curriculum coherence in practice (Cavanna et al., 2021; Hermansen, 2020). Therefore, this study considers the following research question: ‘How do program leaders in (secondary) teacher education foster curriculum coherence?’

Globally, teachers have increasingly been recognised as the most important in-school influence on student outcomes (Hattie & Yates, 2014; Rockoff, 2004). Correspondingly, governments worldwide have made concerted efforts to ensure the quality of teachers, with a particular focus on initial teacher education (ITE) (Mayer, 2021). Mirroring changes to ITE in UK, reforms in Australia focus primarily on regulation and standardisation rather than pursuing innovations or interventions to enhance the quality of ITE programs. These efforts have included greater prescription of course content, new teacher accreditation schemes, new minimum literacy and numeracy standards, and new ‘classroom readiness’ assessments for graduating teachers (Rowe & Skourdoumbis, 2019).

ITE curricula are now more crowded and fragmented than ever before, making it hard for students to integrate theory with practice (Dyment et al., 2015). Indeed, some of the greatest challenges in ITE include program coherence, student confidence to enter the workforce, and feeling prepared to enter the classroom (Willis et al., 2022). Within this context, there is an opportunity to improve ITE through interventions that support and empower students as they transition into early career teaching. One such intervention is the Quality Teaching (QT) model (NSW Department of Education, 2003). This model of pedagogy has been used in Australia for the past 20 years, however has not been systematically applied in ITE. Derived from the work of Authentic Pedagogy (Newmann et al., 1996) and Productive Pedagogies (Lingard et al., 2003), the model has the potential to support, empower and build the confidence of ITE students as they transition into the teaching workforce. The QT Model provides a shared language and set of concepts that teacher educators can use to underpin and articulate what constitutes quality teaching for their students. Linking theory to practice, the QT Model provides a means to connect theoretical content and the rigorous practical needs of teaching. It is applicable across multiple disciplines and has the adaptability to accommodate diverse teaching situations. The model highlights three dimensions of pedagogy:

1. Intellectual Quality - pedagogy focused on deep understanding of important ideas.
2. Quality Learning Environment - pedagogy that creates productive classrooms focused on learning.
3. Significance - pedagogy that helps students see value in what they are learning.

Teaching that aligns with this model has consistently been linked to improved outcomes for teachers and students (Gore et al., 2017, 2021). Used in Quality Teaching Rounds (QTR) professional development (Bowe & Gore, 2017), the model has demonstrably empowered and built the confidence and efficacy of beginning teachers (Gore & Bowe, 2015). We hypothesised that it could help build the confidence of ITE students in ways that positively impact completion rates and the quality of graduates.

In this paper, we explore a potential missed opportunity amid the plethora of ITE reforms – an intervention that has the ability to enhance the quality and coherence of ITE programs while providing students with the confidence to transition into early career teaching. To explore the impact of such an approach, we conducted a pilot study designed to increase final year ITE students’ understanding of quality teaching and address its impact on their classroom practice.

If we metaphorically think of the school as a social and political hologram, the educational space can be seen as a reconstruction of society through the information that each school agent embodies, knows and generates (Dewey, 1938, Garcés, 2013). This idea warns us that we cannot continue to develop educational processes that do not take into account what happens outside the educational space and in turn indicates that the classroom can be a space to promote the construction of individual and collective meanings to contribute to a critical and inclusive society (Hargreaves and O'Connor, 2020). Accordingly, the focus of this communication is on the collaborative networks that are generated between schools and universities as centres of teacher education. The project is based on an assumption legitimised by different research (Penuel, et,al.,2020, Martín Barbero, 2003; Rivas, Márquez, Calvo and Martagón, 2022; Novoa, 2019) which states that the creation and development of collaborative work networks between school and university are facilitators of processes in which training, research and transfer are articulated, while at the same time allowing for the development of transformative educational actions.

In the search for connections between school, society and university, we have been developing different collaborative projects (Leite, Márquez and Rivas, 2018; Rivas Leite and Cortés, Garcia; 2015; Márquez, Kirsch and Leite, 2020) that seek to advance in other teacher training and in the generation of links, relationships and co-productions between them. From the University we have the responsibility, as teachers and researchers, to explore and promote other training models that include dialogical and collaborative practices in which fragmentation is not the dominant line. Instead, we propose that knowledge can be generated from a collaborative process.

From these previous experiences we present the first advances of a research project called "Collaborative networks in education. Critical teaching for an inclusive society (ReDoC)" awarded by the Ministry of Science and Innovation of the Government of Spain (PID2022-138882OB-100). This project aims to recognise, analyse, strengthen and create collaborative networks between school and university. We are interested in transformative projects linked to critical teaching for the development of an inclusive society. In this sense, we analyse initiatives that articulate the dialogue of disciplinary, practical and experiential knowledge between professionals in schools (infant, primary, secondary and adult), entities and associations that collaborate with schools, research professionals, teachers in training and all those experiences that configure spaces, collaborative networks around training and school.

It also analyses the experiences of different groups that contribute to education in urban and rural contexts. The project is deployed in different universities in Spain (Granada, Cantabria, Extremadura, Valladolid and Malaga). The idea is to contribute, through analysis and reflection, to teacher training and the promotion of inclusive projects in educational centres with the support of the community . Service learning programmes, learning communities, pedagogical laboratories, observatories, etc., are some of the proposals that are being worked on and which will be further developed (Gao, 2015; Korthagen, 2017; Rivas, Márquez and Leite, 2021) We understand that these projects offer trainee teachers a real experience in inclusive education by interacting with teachers, students, families and the community in general (Yurén, 2013; Rivas, Leite and Cortés, 2017).