The collaborative approach at CETT

involving many people in the professional discussions raises much more profound awareness of what is going on. Team discussions also encourage the trainees to look more deeply into issues and give them practice in communication skills. The purpose of post-lesson discussions is to evaluate each lesson in a sense that it is essential to raise awareness and encourage reflection (Schön, 1987; Wallace, 1991) on the teaching/learning process.

The principles of fostering discussions are closely intertwined with the notion of reflective practice. Working with a partner during the teaching experience at CETT is often promoted (Major, 2003; Révész, 2005) on the grounds that it strengthens the process of reflection. Reflection on the teaching process and the environment fosters teacher autonomy (Ryan, 1996) and overlaps with learner-centredness (Major, 2003), both interlinked with the objectives of training at CETT. It often happens that during the early period of the teaching practice a lot of help has to be given not only on lesson plans, selection and supply of materials, but also on the way discussions are conducted.

As the practice progresses trainees need less help. They take more responsibility, eventually forming and developing their professional opinions, thus developing their own reflective cycles.

therefore, the complexity of the situation is represented diagrammatically below in Figure 1.

Figure 1 The relationship network at CETT

Such a network will be familiar to most people involved in teacher training; however, it may serve as a sort of check list, as well as remind us that all the pieces must be interlinked. The links in the chain are many and with different locations and functions, however, each of them requires attention and is crucial to sustain relationships and interactions on a wider scene.

While the above diagram illustrates the network at CETT, it raises the issue of how relationships within the various spheres are built and sustained. It has been documented in a number of publications (Bodóczky & Malderez, 1994; 1996; 1997; Malderez &

Bodóczky, 1999; Medgyes & Malderez, 1996) how, over the years, CETT has succeeded in running an effective scheme. One principal detail that emerges is the collaborative approach to work within the institution. The value of this collaborative approach has nowhere been better demonstrated than at CETT. Extensive evidence in support of this argument is drawn from the research literature (for an overview see Medgyes &

Malderez, 1996) relating to the mechanism and the collaborative culture at the institution.

In essence, behaviour of deliberate and systematic cooperation is adopted with the purpose to work best. Practices are normally put into a collective environment of the profession in which the means and the ways to act are set by the standards of sharing and working together. These standards make the network operate in the light of developing mutual responsibility and professional support. Additionally, there is a fairly obvious conclusion (Szesztay, 1996b) that collaborative work is a distinctive feature of most courses. As a result, the habit of working together and sharing expertise allow the development of relationships that are highly and mutually beneficial. The general view which is expressed in the research literature is that tutors have found this collaborative

approach to professional development valuable and they consider it “the driving force of the CETT programme” (Rádai, 1996, p. 35).

This raises the question: how can people do anything differently if they are programmed to cooperate with others? In the circumstances outlined above, it emerges that the CETT staff would not have become involved with the subject of cooperation unless the members believed the idea had the potential to facilitate learning. There is a fairly obvious link between this broad conclusion and the fact that studying at this institution is mostly associated with collaborative teaching during teaching practice. This is the form of teacher education in which student relationship exists for the purpose of study, professional development and personal support. Most crucial for sustaining cooperation is the belief that shared responsibility accelerates learning; therefore, it is a tool for developing reflective practices. The ultimate aim is to produce reflective teachers, a concept which has been an interest of researchers for a long time (Major, 2003; Medgyes

& Malderez, 1996; Révész, 2005; Schön, 1987; Wallace, 1991). In general terms, cooperation in the course of the teaching practice, where the fundamental goal is student teachers’ professional formation, is but one example of the wider issue of collaboration in the teaching profession and furthermore in society. The process demands a balance between the following (Figure 2):

Figure 2 Elements of professional formation

The figure above indicates that teacher formation in general and the teaching practice in particular have to bring together the spheres of theory and practice, of society and the individual.

In order to get more to the point, let us revert once more to the teaching practice at CETT. As for the teaching experience, although it is within the framework of the university programme, it is carried out at schools outside the institution. The teaching practice (see section 1.2.2) usually occurs in school classrooms supervised by the mentor. From these remarks it may seem that schools are marginally involved in the main work of the university, which they are affiliated to. What is argued in this section is that cooperation relates to university and school level as the institutions are also closely connected. The challenging intention is to bring about a fruitful merging of the numerous concerns and aims at the various levels of the CETT network, spreading out to the schools involved. A further complication is that to apply the approach of cooperation requires effort and skill, which might vary considerably. Obviously school-based teacher training and cooperation with schools in particular are seen as an enormous challenge (Corney, 1993; Frost, 1994; Tomlinson, 1995); however, there are

THEORY

SOCIETY INDIVIDUAL

PRACTICE

many different ways in which cooperation at this level is arranged at CETT. For example, the reality of the opportunity to send trainees into the school environment is seen as the first step to collaboration (Malderez & Medgyes, 1996). Furthermore, time spent on documentation and timetable settlements is considered the core of intense collaboration among the people and spheres concerned. Once the network is established, the bulk of cooperation belongs to the ongoing part of the actual teaching practice.

Apparently, all areas of the network need special attention; nevertheless, some of them remain beyond the scope of this research.

The suggestion is to look at the strongest links between the university and the school which can be recognized in the work of the university tutor, the mentor and the two trainees. The responsibility is mainly divided between the co-trainer and the university trainer whose essential roles are “similar and different” (Corney, 1993, p. 719). As representatives of the two institutions, they are involved in a wide range of professional interactions (see section 1.2.3). Furthermore, the focus of attention is shifted to the pair of trainees in a central position. There are two trainees and they are required to learn to teach. Therefore, the teaching experience presents the trainees with different situations, when harmony of choices, solutions, actions and relationships is needed. In order for the student teachers to complete their task successfully, what becomes important is cooperation within the framework of the institution as well as among the trainees. The proposal is to narrow the scope of collaboration even further and look at Figure 3 below:

Figure 3 Close supportive relationships

As can be seen in Figure 3, the chain includes the central rings: the pair of student teachers. My experience as a school-based teacher over the years has proved that since student teachers work as a pair throughout the entire period of teaching practice, they think of themselves as a team and have a collective perception of unity. The value of the team, in fact, lies in the sense of shared purpose  trainees have the same common tasks, goals and interests. They need the help of one another to accomplish the purpose for which they joined the team. Team teaching helps student teachers share not only responsibilities but also the merits of their teaching. Both partners are learners developing from their common situation and evolving relationships. Team teaching increases the feeling of oneself as a colleague among peer and trainer.

Collaborative teaching is indeed the essential basis of the programme. It has a general educational value and can be considered as a useful and valuable experience (Bodóczky

& Malderez, 1994; Medgyes & Malderez, 1996). Working in pairs is extremely relevant at any stage of the teaching practice but is especially important at the earlier stages when student teachers need more confidence and support. Working with a partner helps to handle the psychological stresses, uncertainties and anxieties in the new situation.

Consequently, as the teaching experience progresses, the bonds of partnership become less tight (Medgyes & Nyilasi, 1997). This tendency for looser collaboration in the long run is seen as a sign of gaining self-confidence as well as a shift toward more independent work. The main purpose now is to turn to my experience and ultimately illustrate how I became involved in the process of teacher education and my research on the topic of cooperation in TEFL.