Centering reciprocity: lessons learned from a university–school partnership

Abstract

Purpose

School–university partnerships are important in teacher education to ensure PK-12 preservice teachers gain teaching experience prior to becoming teachers of record. Drawing on Ball and Cohen’s (1999) concept of “practice-based teacher education,” this three-year qualitative study examines the results of an intentionally reciprocal school–university partnership centered on a practice-based learning, field-based course. The following question guided this research: Having designed and facilitated a school–university partnership centered on reciprocity, what factors contributed to and/or took away from this commitment?

Design/methodology/approach

The current study examined three data sources, namely: (1) seven semi-structured focus group interviews with a teacher educator, sixth-grade teachers (n = 4) and a principal; (2) eight question/answer sessions between preservice teachers and partnering secondary teachers and (3)one focus group between the two authors. Data were analyzed using reflexive thematic analysis.

Findings

This study’s findings highlight the reciprocal nature of the school–university partnership, showcasing the positive outcomes and challenges faced by stakeholders. Clear communication and ongoing dialogue were identified as key elements to establishing and maintaining a reciprocal relationship. Additionally, emphasis on shared learning experiences between partners were found valuable and important to maintaining benefit to all partners. Relationship development also remained an important and positive outcome of this partnership. Additionally, there were challenges related to time, and schedule constraints were evident in the partnership. Moreover, ongoing reflection and a willingness to adjust and change based on experiences and lessons learned ensured participants recognized the importance of ongoing iteration and calibration to address challenges and enhance the partnership.

Research limitations/implications

Because of the chosen research approach, the research results may lack generalizability.

Originality/value

The paper includes implications for the development of other school–university partnerships that prioritize reciprocity, highlighting an often assumed, but not always examined, component necessary to the success of school–university partnerships.

Citation

Hamilton, E.R. and Margot, K.C. (2024), "Centering reciprocity: lessons learned from a university–school partnership", School-University Partnerships, Vol. 17 No. 4, pp. 403-420. https://doi.org/10.1108/SUP-01-2024-0001

Introduction

School–university partnerships are a core tenet of teacher education and support field-based teaching and learning experiences in PK-12 classrooms (National Association for Professional Development Schools, 2021). Such partnerships support preservice teachers’ ability to apply theory into practice (Ball & Cohen, 1999; Barnes, 2017; Walsh & Backe, 2013). In tandem with university coursework, school-based field experiences facilitate preservice teachers’ transition from student to classroom teacher (Heafner et al., 2014). Additionally, these school–university partnerships should also benefit PK-12 schools, teachers and students, ensuring that university partners contribute to PK-12 students’ academic success and teachers’ learning and development (McIntyre et al., 2018). In fact, school–university partnerships should be reciprocal for all participants (Hamilton & Margot, 2020; Hamilton et al., 2020; National Association for Professional Development Schools, 2021).

Historically, what reciprocity means has often varied from one partnership and partner to another (Barnes, 2017). For the purposes of this study, we define reciprocity as an exchange in which all parties involved mutually benefit from and alongside one another. Rather than focusing on equality, reciprocity emphasizes equity within school–university partnerships. While one party may sometimes gain more from specific aspects of the collaboration, the overarching goal is for all partners to collectively benefit from and by working together to support the learning and growth of students at all educational levels. To accomplish this, there must be agreement between partners to accept joint responsibility for the success of the partnership because “reciprocity at its core also means both the P–12 school and college/university formally accept joint responsibility for the preparation of new teachers and P–12 student learning” (National Association for Professional Development Schools, 2021, p. 13). As former K-12 teachers and current teacher educators, we know and have experienced the value of school–university partnerships (Hamilton et al., 2020; Hamilton & Margot, 2019, 2020; Leonard et al., 2023), and we remain committed to school–university partnerships that are reciprocal for all participants.

As such, the present three-year study examines the outcomes of a course-embedded, school–university partnership, in which an experienced teacher educator integrated a school-based field experience within their undergraduate content area literacy course, required for all secondary education majors. As a result, over the six semesters in which this study took place, preservice teachers enrolled in this course (n = 125) had weekly opportunities during their scheduled undergraduate class to spend time observing, working and learning in the same middle school setting.

Central to the design of this on-going partnership was a commitment to reciprocity. This course-embedded partnership was designed to provide experience-based, scaffolded and supervised opportunities for secondary preservice teachers to learn about teaching and learning, including applying theory while engaging in hands-on teaching with small groups of middle school students. Equally important, the goal was for the middle school administrator as well as the sixth-grade teachers and students to benefit from partnering with the teacher educator and preservice teachers, including supporting students’ academic success. Thus, the following question guided this research: Having designed and facilitated a school–university partnership centered on reciprocity, what factors contributed to and/or took away from this commitment?

Theoretical framework

Reciprocal interactions and relationships, both with other individuals and with places are based on connection rather than difference (Mitchell, 2008). Additionally, reciprocal partnerships challenge power hierarchies where the needs, interests and knowledge of one group are positioned ahead of the other. In fact, reciprocity within school–university partnerships should not be driven solely by service or a perceived need but, rather, by an inherent belief that all members of a partnership should benefit from the experience(s) (Day et al., 2021).

Drawing upon socio-cultural theories of learning, specifically the idea that learning is socially constructed and experiential (Lave & Wenger, 1991; Vygotsky, 1978) and concepts of practice-based teacher education (Ball & Cohen, 1999; Forzani, 2014), school–university partnerships rooted in teacher preparation are designed to facilitate and support learning for all participants. According to Dewey (1938), learning occurs in social contexts and learners’ understanding and knowledge develop because of social interactions and experiences. Thus, to build new knowledge and inform/support educational systems, school–university partnerships must support and meet the social needs of all participants and their learning, what Dewey termed “experiential education.” This concept centers learning within experiences, noting that learners learn from and because of their experiences in which knowledge is constructed through on-going interactions, connections and applications.

Relevant literature

In addition to the importance of reciprocity being a key element of a successful school–university partnership, we draw on research highlighting three essential characteristics of successful school–university partnerships, namely: clinical preparation, research and results, as well as boundary-spanning roles (National Association for Professional Development Schools, 2021).

Reciprocity

Reciprocity is a key element for a successful school–university partnership, alongside trust and mutuality which also support reciprocity (Bernay et al., 2020). Mutuality, in this context, refers to the shared benefit and mutual respect between partners, ensuring that both parties contribute to and gain from the collaboration. Trust fosters an environment where both sides feel confident in each other's commitments, while mutuality ensures that the benefits and efforts are balanced, thus reinforcing the cycle of reciprocal actions and support. When this cycle is successful, shared governance structures within the partnering organizations further active collaboration, reflection and an honoring of collaborators’ ideas, voices and experiences, the National Association for Professional Development Schools’ (2021) seventh essential aimed at ensuring on-going success within school–university partnerships.

Although originally conceived of as a partnership directly benefitting university students and faculty, school–university partnerships are most effective when they are mutually beneficial, in which participating university and PK-12 personnel, preservice teachers and students gain resources, expand experiences and increase learning (Clarke & Winslade, 2019; Walsh & Backe, 2013). In support of preservice teacher learning and development, research indicates that participating in a school–university partnership, particularly when embedded within university courses and coursework, is beneficial for preservice teacher learning and their professional preparation (Hamilton & Margot, 2019, 2020; Hamilton et al., 2020; Leonard et al., 2023; Hildenbrand & Schultz, 2015). Preservice teachers’ development and preparation is enhanced by directly and purposefully aligning their clinical experiences and university coursework, the second of nine essentials for school–university partnerships championed by the National Association for Professional Development Schools (2021).

Essential 2: clinical preparation

One of the nine essentials of a successful school–university partnership is utilizing school-based clinical placements to support preservice teacher preparation (National Association for Professional Development Schools, 2021). Many PK-12 clinical settings include a “practice-based” approach. Ball and Cohen (1999) generated the term “practice-based” teacher education to name the ways preservice teachers partnered with and observed PK-12 teachers and students in school-based contexts. A practice-based approach can and should be reciprocal. This is particularly evident when such partnerships explicitly connect preservice teachers’ university-based learning directly to PK-12 school settings (Forzani, 2014). For example, Jackson and Burch’s (2019) study of a school–university partnership in England reiterated the importance of personnel from the school and the university working together toward collaboratively identified goals that would benefit all partners, rather than working parallel to one another in which each entity was responsible for their own desired outcomes. Once identified, school-based educators supported student teachers’ practice-based applications of learning from their university coursework within partnering school-based clinical contexts.

Green et al.’s (2020) systematic review of school–university partnerships in Australian contexts supports the importance of embedding clinical preparation within the partnership. The authors found that such partnerships serve a multitude of capacity-building and practice-based purposes for universities and schools, including curriculum development, research opportunities, mediated instruction (i.e., school and university faculty both contribute to preservice teachers’ learning) and continued professional development, particularly for practicing teachers. In their review, they noted the value of centering practice-based applications and outcomes within the partnerships and intended outcomes.

Oates and Bignell’s (2022) study of a school–university partnership in Scotland centered on utilizing a school-centered clinical placement. In this clinical setting, there were embedded workshops for secondary teachers connected to learning rounds. These rounds resulted in some evidence of “two-way learning” in which facilitators and participants reported learning with and from one another as they practiced and applied their learning within a secondary school setting. University personnel facilitated professional development sessions within a secondary clinical setting, with the goal of empowering participants to engage in and share learning during learning rounds. Focused on practice-based instruction during the learning rounds, some participants’ engagement enabled two-way learning. However, the authors also noted that this model limited the degree to which the program ensured reciprocity given its design on prioritizing university personnel expertise, as they were the ones who took the lead within the learning rounds model.

Within a clinical setting, Hamilton and Margot (2019) found that embedding on-going reflection as part of a school–university partnership at the secondary level further supported all partners’ ability to engage in and support practice-based learning. Specifically, it was important to embed routine opportunities for preservice teachers to reflect on their clinical-based learning alongside partnering with and receiving feedback from school personnel. As a result, the partnership further supported applications of practices, particularly for preservice teachers’ instruction when working with adolescents in small group settings. In this clinical setting, adolescents had multiple opportunities to practice and apply what they learned from preservice teachers in these small group settings.

Essential 5: research and results

In addition to utilizing clinical settings, inquiry and continuous improvement are essential to a successful school–university partnership. When partnerships foster collaborative research and public sharing of findings, this enhances practice and outcomes for participants, contributes to educational improvement for PK-12 schools and universities and informs policy decisions (National Association for Professional Development Schools, 2021). The reciprocal nature of school–university partnerships directly contributes to continuous improvement, benefiting all partners.

For example, Korach et al.’s (2019) study explored a partnership between a PK-12 district and a university department, namely Educational Leadership and Policy Studies (ELPS). This school–university collaboration was posited as an exemplary partnership focused on ELPS faculty who prepared PK-12 educational leaders to work as administrators in a local PK-12 district. One aspect of reciprocity within this partnership included coaching, which was intentionally embedded in the partnership. Explaining the value of the coaching relationship between the ELPS faculty and PK-12 school leaders, they noted that “...the ELPS faculty members hold an inquiry stance and often walk away with a heightened consciousness and renewed perspective of the work. As the school leaders learn, ELPS faculty members also do” (p. 45). In other words, the reciprocal nature of this partnership enabled learning to happen for both partners (i.e., teacher educators and PK-12 teachers). Summing up some of the biggest take-aways about coaching, researchers explained:

The lessons from the field inform not only the [curriculum] but also the design and framing of conversations about the leadership preparation program. Reflections from the coaching process are often used to self appraise and introspectively interrogate personal and professional values, beliefs, assumptions, and instructional practice. (p. 45)

The flexibility of this reciprocal design, which was informed by the receptivity of feedback from participants, allowed for multiple opportunities to inform the co- and re-designing of the partnership. As these researchers note, the reason this partnership serves as a model for others is, in large part, due to the commitment of continuous improvement and dissemination of results were embedded within it so that all participants - from the school and university - directly contributed and benefited.

In another study, Hamilton and Margot (2019) and Hamilton and Margot (2020) found that when partnering with secondary school personnel to design and co-facilitate a school–university partnership, an important element of its success centered on school and university partners’ commitment to continuous improvement. Not only during initial planning but also throughout the multi-year partnership, university and school personnel engaged in routine assessment, co-planned lessons and activities, collaborated on secondary and preservice teachers’ learning needs and had multiple conversations about what was working and what needed to change. Utilizing outcomes from all of these, changes were made, concerns addressed and successes celebrated. As a result, practice and outcomes contributed to improvement within the partnership and can also be used to inform other partnerships.

Essential 8: boundary-spanning roles

School–university partnerships can serve as dynamic platforms for service-learning, promoting discovery and experimentation within education as participants move beyond traditional university and PK-12 settings and boundaries (National Association for Professional Development Schools, 2021). Boundary-spanning roles within successful school–university partnerships often include a service-learning component. Service-learning is a pedagogical approach in which academic learning goals and outcomes are aligned with a service experience, meant to be valuable for all participants (Barnes, 2017; Harrison et al., 2016; Walsh & Backe, 2013). Foundational to service-learning partnerships is reciprocity, “where all learn from and teach one another” (Mitchell, 2008, p. 58).

In such partnerships, university students and personnel engage in service work intended to benefit school partners, which can serve to extend and expand traditional cultures of teaching and learning where roles position instructors as those who know and students as those who learn. School–university partnerships that include service-learning and practice-based learning provide multiple opportunities for preservice teachers to both gain and share knowledge and experience when working and learning in PK-12 school settings. Additionally, PK-12 students have opportunities to learn as well as share their own expertise as learners and thinkers when working with preservice teachers and university personnel. In return, this service work is designed to provide opportunities for university students and personnel to engage in professional practice, application of skills and learning (Hartsfield et al., 2020). For example, Chambers and Lavery’s (2012) study of service-learning, specifically centered on working with and assisting someone with a disability enabled preservice teachers within an Australian teacher education program to apply theory to practice. Additionally, individuals with whom the preservice teachers were partnered had opportunities to share perspectives, experiences and feedback while also receiving additional supports in varied learning contexts. In this model, PK-12 and university participants assumed boundary-spanning roles in which they learned and taught one another.

More recently, White’s (2021) study of service-learning within a preservice teacher education program in the Midwestern United States centered on a partnership with a national community-based organization, in which preservice teachers volunteered in the organization’s before- and after-school programming during a given semester. By integrating service-learning in the partnership, participants were encouraged to explore new pedagogical approaches and engage with diverse communities beyond the confines of the traditional school classroom. This approach allowed preservice teachers and university personnel to partner with the organization’s leadership and participating students to collaboratively consider novel teaching strategies, experiment with different instructional methods and gain valuable insights from real-world experiences. By working directly with community partners, participants had opportunities to work and learn alongside one another within a non-traditional teaching and learning setting (i.e., a community-based organization) to address authentic educational needs and challenges. Doing so fostered a deeper understanding of societal issues, demonstrating how service-learning provided a fertile ground for discovery and experimentation and provided an opportunity for participants to expand their understanding of when, where and how teaching and learning take place.

School–university partnership context

The purpose of this article is to examine a school–university partnership facilitated by author one (A1), an experienced teacher educator with twenty-five years’ experience working in K-12 and higher education settings. At the time of the study, A1 worked at Lake University (LU), a regional state university that enrolls over 20,000 undergraduate and graduate students (pseudonyms used for all names and locations). Over the course of six separate semesters between 2015–2017 and 2019–2020, A1 worked with their LU undergraduate preservice teachers (n = 125) in the Urban Museum, a large urban museum located in the Midwestern United States. A1 and their LU undergraduates partnered and worked weekly with middle school teachers and their students enrolled at the Urban Middle School (UMS), an urban public middle school (grades 6–8) housed within the Urban Museum.

This school–university partnership centered on A1 and their LU preservice teachers working in the Urban Museum with small groups of UMS sixth-grade students each week during ED 310, their regularly scheduled undergraduate content area literacy course. This university-school partnership was a collaboration between (1) the Urban Museum staff and associated personnel; (2) UMS administrator (n = 1) and 6th grade teachers (n = 4); (3) City Public Schools, of which the UMS is a part and, (4) Lake University.

Throughout the six semesters, partners employed various communication methods to enhance collaboration and support preservice teachers’ and UMS students' learning. A1 communicated weekly via email and text with UMS teachers to coordinate, plan and address any concerns. Preservice teachers provided detailed feedback on middle school students' writing via Google Docs, allowing for real-time, constructive critique and revisions. They also engaged in Q&A sessions with UMS teachers, fostering a continuous dialogue that helped align educational strategies and address any challenges promptly. Additionally, preservice teachers facilitated weekly small group sessions with UMS students, creating an interactive environment where students could receive face-to-face, personalized guidance and support. These diverse communication channels ensured that all parties remained connected, informed and actively engaged in the partnership.

Methodology

Participants and setting

A1 taught ED 310, the required LU content area literacy course which included the school–university partnership. The preservice teachers enrolled in ED 310 (n = 125) utilized this course to fulfill a state requirement for all preservice teachers pursuing secondary teacher certification. As part of this study, A1 collaborated with museum school sixth-grade teachers (n = 4) and the principal. There were 125 secondary preservice teachers who participated in the study during six semesters over three years (96% participation rate).

Procedure and data collection

Prior to beginning the study, approval was received from the University Committee for the Protection of Human Subjects to conduct this research project. An information letter and consent form were passed out to each participant. Participants were informed verbally and in writing that participation was voluntary and consent to participate was obtained from the preservice teachers enrolled in ED 310 (n = 125), which had an embedded-field experience. Preservice teachers who signed the consent form were included in data collection and analysis and ED 310 students’ participation status was identified after the conclusion of the semester in which they were enrolled. Opting not to participate in the study did not preclude preservice teachers from participating in the course or embedded experiences. The UMS teachers (n = 4) and principal also returned the consent forms and elected to participate in the study.

Data sources and analysis

Multiple data were included in this study, which were collected by A1 and shared with A2 (Table 1). To identify factors that contributed to and/or took away from this school–university partnership’s commitment to reciprocity, reflexive thematic analysis was utilized (Braun & Clarke, 2021). This method supported the emergence of themes from the data related to the research question, and we sought to identify specific codes connected to the research question. “Coding is the process of analyzing qualitative text data by taking them apart to see what they yield before putting the data back together in a meaningful way” (Creswell, 2015, p. 156). As such, analytic coding was employed to identify themes through deductive observations and interpretations, as well as to explore and develop categories and concepts from the transcribed data (Miles et al., 2020; Richards & Morse, 2012). As part of analytic coding, independent coders recorded possible categories, and when applicable themes, that emerged from the data. Initially, open coding was completed to identify broad concepts in the data, followed by axial coding which focused on concepts. Finally, selective coding was collaboratively conducted to analyze each individual conceptual category in depth (Richards & Morse, 2012).

To analyze and organize the seven semi-structured focus group interviews, the two researchers began by examining the first year’s focus group interviews (n = 3) independently. In the preliminary examination of these data, we independently classified the data into discrete codes that emerged and connected directly to the research question. We then looked for similarities and differences within and across these initial three interviews (Walker & Myrick, 2006). We met to share preliminary codes and noted overarching themes into which most of our independent codes aligned. We also engaged in intercoder agreement by checking the reliability of interpretations of the data and identified themes (Creswell & Creswell Báez, 2020).

To increase trustworthiness of the analyses, systematic rigor in the design was intentionally built-in during data coding to ensure both researchers were reliably identifying relevant and comparable data within the same code (Rose & Johnson, 2020). Six codes were established, aligned with contributing and detracting factors connected to reciprocity within this school–university partnership (Table 2). Although “reciprocity” was its own code initially, it quickly became evident that reciprocity connected to one or more of the remaining codes. As a result, we decided to collapse and assign these data into the remaining five codes. For example, in the first focus group interview the UMS Principal noted their desire to make use of the ED 310 students, specifically to support UMS students’ learning. This was initially coded under “reciprocity.” Upon further review, we noted this was a need/want and, thus, it was moved to this code category. Once the decision was made to collapse this code, the five-remaining, agreed-upon codes (Table 2) were applied to and utilized in the next rounds of data analysis, in which we examined and analyzed the remaining focus group interviews, which included the semi-structured focus group.

Findings

Stakeholders reported a variety of factors that contributed to the partnership’s reciprocal outcomes. There were also detracting factors that impacted and challenged each partners’ ability to fully realize the commitment to reciprocity. Both are discussed below.

Contributing factors

To have a truly reciprocal partnership where both parties feel they benefited, it is prudent to examine what each party needs and wants. Additionally, the positive implications for practice included shared learning and relationship building. The following points appeared within data as important to both partners.

Knowing and meeting partners’ needs and wants

Within the data, researchers found that each partner had distinct needs and wants related to the partnership and its outcomes. When talking about establishing and maintaining this partnership over time, participants used descriptors such as “clarity,” “sustainable” and “connection” to describe their goals for the partnership. They also reported a desire for and noted the benefit of ongoing communication between school and university personnel, including how things were going, what needed improvement and what was working well. To ensure ongoing communication, which led to a strong sense of reciprocity for all partners, A1 and UMS personnel engaged in informal conversations each week, which included email, text messaging and in-person conversations.

Partners also offered feedback during more formal, hourlong check-in conversations scheduled regularly throughout the academic year. With this ongoing communication, UMS and LU partners could more readily adjust as needed, celebrate impactful experiences, plan for upcoming opportunities and address issues. As one of the UMS teachers explained in the fifth focus group interview, when reflecting on

the value of the communication “I think that is really important - critical even.” (p. 4) The principal commented in response to changes that could be made to improve the partnership in future years “From my perspective, your level of communication and intentionality has been fantastic from the start. This has helped ensure the success of the partnership.” (p. 14) LU and UMS students often observed weekly interactions between A1 and their UMS teacher(s) which served to model productive and open communication. Ongoing communication was crucial for partners to share challenges, elicit feedback and engage in metacognitive discussions with UMS middle school students and LU preservice teachers, modeling effective collaboration towards common goals.

To explicitly support preservice teacher learning and elicit feedback about how things were going as well as support preservice teachers’ knowledge and skill development, A1 and participating UMS teachers embedded specific, scheduled opportunities after the weekly small group sessions for LU preservice teachers to participate in question-and-answer sessions with UMS teachers and the administrator. These took place in the Urban Museum after UMS students were dismissed for the day and afforded opportunities for communication, discussion and learning. A1 felt this access to school personnel was very impactful for preservice teachers’ learning and development. Reflecting on a conversation with four former LU students who participated in this school–university partnership, A1 explained near the beginning of the fifth focus group conversation:

…We ended up talking about their experiences and the Q and A came up as being one of those things where they felt like if they didn't have access to the [UMS] teacher they wouldn't have understood all the inner machinations and the logistics of what it's really like to teach in this kind of environment and this kind of school. (p. 3)

In response to the value of the Q/A sessions for preservice teachers, one of the UMS teachers noted during the sixth focus group interview,

And like you said, them having access to us is meaningful. You need to be able to talk to teachers who are actually in it…let’s be honest, sometimes when you are in a college class, you’re with a professor who hasn’t been in a classroom for a long time. (p. 17)

This UMS teacher also explained why it is important to support reciprocal partnerships because preservice teachers and secondary students benefit.

You want to support the experience. That’s what we want to do, as teachers, also. I mean, there’s days we have to just teach, but we need to support the experience of learning [to teach], not just memorize this. (p. 17)

The Q/A sessions with LU preservice teachers and UMS teachers, which happened multiple times in a given semester, fostered open and honest communication and enabled preservice teachers opportunities to ask questions, share observations and connect pedagogy to practice. These sessions helped UMS teachers understand and address beginning teachers’ questions and needs, including supporting middle school students’ learning in small groups, working and teaching in a museum setting and identifying and meeting adolescents’ needs in support of students’ overall wellbeing. Participation in the Q/A sessions also enabled UMS teachers opportunities to give back to the profession as they supported the emerging educators.

Shared learning

To support LU preservice teachers’ development of providing feedback to students, shared Google documents were used by the UMS classroom teachers and LU preservice teachers had access to these documents so they could provide writing feedback to the sixth-grade students, commenting on their drafts-in-progress. A1 provided instruction and protocols for reviewing and offering feedback throughout each semester. One of the UMS classroom teachers felt this additional support provided by A1, in combination with in-person conferencing during weekly small group sessions, was particularly powerful as a tool for both preservice teachers’ and adolescents’ learning. Not only did it address a logistical challenge of providing timely feedback to 60 students at a time but it also supported shared learning. During the fourth focus group, the UMS teacher explained,

So that gift of having the university student there to conference with them - because usually I would conference with all 30 in a small class like that. I would conference with each kid twice. I barely can make it through once with 60… to leave that feedback in their Google doc and the kids saw that there and they looked at those comments and then reflected and actually changed their writing. (p. 13)

Using a shared online platform in combination with regular in-person visits where LU preservice teachers could interact with and provide “real time” feedback to the middle schoolers with whom they worked each week worked well and supported reciprocal learning. Utilizing this model of formative feedback with a shared online platform empowered LU students and UMS students to learn with and from each other. Additionally, there was a layer of increased accountability to each other in providing “offline” feedback for use during face-to-face conferencing.

During the fifth focus group, reflecting on the partnership at the end of the second year as they considered the outcomes and changes made over time to ensure shared learning, a UMS teacher noted:

So you're right, the partnership needs to be reciprocal, we need people with experience on both ends. Obviously you're not going to have a brand new teacher managing this kind of a partnership. That would just be too much. But yeah, I think it would be awesome for this to continue. Every school that I've worked at has some kind of mentor partnership. It's always looked a little bit different but the thing that I liked best about this one was we actually connected [ED 310 students] to the classroom learning and supported students where they were at. (p. 15)

Reflecting on what made this partnership so effective, this teacher further explained, “It's kind of push-in, pull-out. Because they'll come at the same time and everybody gets to learn and grow” (p. 15). The interactions with UMS teachers afforded opportunities to engage in instructional practices each week which, in turn, helped preservice teachers better understand classroom management, differentiated instruction, cultural competence, ethical decision-making and practical teaching strategies, while also developing their communication and collaboration skills. Specifically, these interactions provide preservice teachers with concrete examples, feedback and real-world scenarios, enabling them to navigate the complexities of teaching effectively.

Shared learning that occurs between partners is clearly desired and a common goal. Another example, captured in the very first focus group, connected to a shared novel reading during one semester, a UMS teacher explained that they saw this partnership’s reciprocity as “symbiotic”:

It's that symbiosis, I feel like everybody is benefitting. The [UMS] kids are benefitting from having that small group, the [LU] students are benefitting from having this extra time to practice their teaching skills. (p. 7)

One of the implications for the classroom that arose was the increased use of differentiation strategies. Having additional teachers (i.e., preservice teachers) in the room allowed for additional enrichment and remediation with the small groups of middle schoolers. This, in turn, allowed preservice teachers to practice their differentiation skills in small groups of students. In one of the focus group conversations, a UMS classroom teacher noted that the LU preservice teachers employed some literacy-centered instructional strategies they learned in ED 310, taught by A1. These were strategies the UMS teacher had not used before but later adopted. As a result, the partnership became a type of professional development for her and is another example of shared learning.

This strategy sharing also enabled the middle schoolers to have new and different instructional experiences in the small groups LU preservice teachers led each semester. Reflecting on and celebrating this shared learning aspect of the partnership, A1 also noted the value of preservice teachers practicing what they learn in ED 310 with the UMS students they served. Alongside practicing new skills, ED 310 students also reflected on the results of applying their learning and had more understanding about the work and realities connected to teaching and learning in a secondary setting. As A1 explained when participating in the fifth focus group:

Preservice teachers could actually see what they learned about. One of my [LU] studentsnoted ‘It's messy; it's not a utopia, I'm learning about place-based education and I'mseeing it. I'm learning about project-based learning and I'm seeing it.’ And that piece, I think, is huge. (p. 3)

This awareness and understanding is the direct result of a partnership centered on reciprocity, in which all partners have opportunities to share, learn, collaborate and apply their learning.

Relationship building

Additionally, analysis of the data made clear that reciprocal partnerships do not always have a one-to-one component. For shared learning, discussed previously, there is a clear and direct connection as all partners are learning from one another. However, additional aspects of reciprocity in this partnership meant that partners benefited in different ways. For example, the mentorship structures A1 and UMS teachers designed and employed to facilitate small group instruction each week directly benefited LU preservice teachers and the sixth-grade students. However, they experienced these benefits differently. For example, one UMS teacher stated, “I think that the preservice teachers are positive role models. The kids are excited to meet them and see them. I think it brings an element of excitement to school for them.” (FG4, p. 1) The preservice teachers felt they were able to watch the UMS teacher lead whole group and small group instruction in ways they had not experienced before. During the sixth focus group, the UMS principal noted the benefits of having college students in the classroom. Connected to the partnership benefits, the principal noted:

My hope and goal is to see a connection with my [UMS] kids in the college setting. Iwant them to be able to see what life is like (by) talking to kids in college. To make that sort of connection, so they [UMS students] can have a little more aspiration. (p. 5)

Another UMS teacher commented on the positive relationships that were fostered throughout the partnership and how those relationships were leveraged for learning by everyone. For example, LU preservice teachers practiced developing relationships with middle school students within a small group setting whereas UMS students had opportunities to develop interpersonal skills as part of their learning, when they engaged in the small group instruction each week, facilitated by their LU preservice teacher. This was a valuable component of the reciprocal partnership. One of the UMS teachers stated during the seventh focus group:

I think… more of the benefit is coming in the social-emotional piece...um… in knowinghow to...conduct themselves with different adults, learning that expectations, just because you’re not in the classroom or with your teachers, are still following you. And I think that that’s incredibly beneficial for the preservice teachers, too. (p. 12)

The ability to learn from and with someone new benefitted both parties as UMS students were able to practice their interpersonal skills as they learned about reading and writing while developing additional literacy skills. The experiences and exposure gained by LU preservice teachers within this partnership further supported their development as beginning teachers. According to A1 as captured in the seventh focus group conversation, “Field experience(s) transition preservice teachers from students to teachers.” (p. 9). For example, Planning and reflecting on these interactions helped LU preservice teachers understand how to navigate issues that might arise in their future classrooms.

Detracting factors

In addition to factors that contributed to reciprocity, which positively impacted the school–university partnership, there were some detracting factors that presented challenges related to full reciprocity. These factors included time and schedule constraints and ensuring application of lessons learned.

Time and schedule constraints

Time and schedule constraints are not an uncommon challenge for many school–university partnerships, as it can be hard to coordinate schedules across different institutions. Scheduling challenges within this partnership came up throughout the semester and required some give and take from all parties. For instance, when looking ahead to the upcoming semester and planning some specific events in which LU preservice teachers and UMS students would participate, during the sixth focus group one of the UMS teachers observed about a specific event, “We can’t do this, because they [UMS students] have specials at that time. So, we have to make sure the timing’s different” (p. 13). Additionally, there were unscheduled and sometimes unanticipated bad weather days which canceled UMS for the day (which happened in the fall and spring semesters). These schedule changes, for example, required A1 and UMS teachers to pivot quickly and adjust any given week’s plans. While these examples reflect events that were often beyond UMS teachers’ and A1’s control, they still impacted the partnership. Not everything can be controlled, certainly, but the need for on-going flexibility remained essential to ensure that UMS and LU students’ needs were met.

Because time is such a limited resource, particularly in a partnership that only connects partners one time a week, UMS personnel and A1 wanted to make sure every moment was used wisely. As A1 noted when sharing in the seventh focus group:

We’re limited by what the schedule is, so, you know, let’s do the best we can with thetools we have. But it takes about 6–8 weeks before the preservice teachers start to feel like, ‘OK, I know my students, I get them, and there’s this relationship that’s built.’ It’s a pretty fun shift, but it takes a while. (p. 3)

Despite bad weather days interrupting routines and limited availability to reschedule, all parties tried to modify and adjust to benefit students (preservice and middle school). These modifications were not ideal and did require added considerations within the partnership and, thus, required communication and flexibility.

Another constraint related to scheduling and planning as demonstrated by one of the teacher’s comments, as captured in the fourth focus group interview, “It's scheduling that I think is the biggest challenge. I think we've leapt over a few of those things, like partnering the preservice teachers so that if someone is absent someone takes their kids. That seemed to work well.” (p. 3) In the sixth focus group A1 reflected on their increased involvement in planning, “I’ve helped much more with the planning this semester, in terms of putting things together —and hopefully that is helpful.” (p. 9) Collaboration in planning for the learning activities worked well to provide a reciprocal relationship that benefited both partners. Intentionally planning activities that allowed the preservice teachers to get to know their assigned middle school students while providing scaffolded learning opportunities was noted as advantageous. During the second focus group conversations, one of the teachers described a revelation they had at the end of the year about the tone of these classes, identifying a goal for the following year.

Making it feel more integrated into what we’re already doing here. For next year, that’smy big goal - just to have it feel more like a part of what is going on in the classroom, as opposed to this special separate event. (p. 3)

A multi-year partnership does allow this type of reflection and change to improve learning and reciprocity, as this approach is centered on ongoing improvement and evaluation.

Ensuring application of lessons learned

A substantial number of comments related to the theme of constraints were about the importance of ongoing iteration and calibration within the partnership. Participants felt the partnership worked well but there were things learned that could improve future partnerships and enhance the current one. This is illustrated by one of the middle school teachers at the start of the second focus group conversation. They stated, “I’ve really learned the value of having small group time and slightly less structured time for students to have the back and forth with the teacher. It’s difficult to provide in a class of 30.” (p. 1) There were logistical changes such as this that the teachers felt they would make in future so the preservice teachers could be best utilized in their classes. Since this partnership lasted more than one year the teachers were able to implement lessons learned from prior semesters and reflect on those. At the beginning of the fifth focus group discussion, one teacher noted:

I think the change that we made from last year to this year, I feel like supporting bothgroups together, the get to know you slide was amazing. Some of my students still have that. I've seen it in their folders as we've been cleaning things out. They still have their slide of their mentor hiding in there. And then I feel like because I have a more solid curriculum written on my end, I was able to provide those more detailed plans. I feel like it made it a little more prescriptive for the mentor to be able to complete these specific tasks. (p. 2)

Each iteration of the partnership was more seamless and allowed for better communication and planning. One of the major changes made after the first iteration was the intentional use of norms with the preservice teachers and middle school students. This practice enabled pre conversations about behaviors that would best facilitate the classes. Later during the fifth focus group interview, one of the teachers mentioned the use of these norms with all mentors that come into their classroom now.

Never again will I have mentors without norms. I think back to how many times I've had,like, grandparent volunteers and how some of them weren't successful. Now that I think back, it's because they didn't know what the expectations were for the child or for them. (p. 7)

Implementing agreed-upon expectations was found to be very helpful by all parties to clearly articulate the norms that would be expected during the partnership.

Another change that was made between the first and second semester of the partnership was to have the preservice teachers take their middle school groups out into the museum more during their small group time. When reflecting after the first semester both the teachers and university educator felt they could better utilize the setting they were in by having students get out of the classroom more and into the displays available to them throughout the building. Facilitating learning in this unique environment was a boon for the middle school students, even though some of the preservice students were reluctant. The university educator explained in the fourth focus group conversation:

With the preservice teachers, something I noticed last semester and beforewas many of them want to stay up here. Given the option to work with their group of [middle schoolers] up here or to go downstairs into the museum, they want to stay up here. It's what they know and where they're comfortable. I almost feel like that's a teacher design challenge. (p. 6)

By establishing the norm that going out into the museum is what is done in these classes, preservice teachers were able to experience this from the beginning of the semester and better understood how to prepare and plan for this.

Additionally, there were times when it was difficult to fully understand the goals of each other’s classrooms. Specifically, the middle school teachers were not always sure what the university instructor’s goals were for the preservice teachers, often related to course curriculum and learning outcomes. Additionally, the university instructor was sometimes unclear on the use of the museum setting within the curriculum. Reflecting on how things went the first year during the second focus group discussion, one middle school teacher stated, “My only complaint about that this year is that I felt totally out of your loop. I felt like you guys were totally out of our loop and I don't [want] two separate loops this coming year.” (p. 9) To attend to this concern as well as ensure that lessons learned were incorporated into the on-going partnership moving forward, additional conversations were needed about each other’s goals and intended student learning outcomes. Engaging in on-going conversations and facilitating regular check-in conversations helped both partners continue to learn about and, as much as possible, meet the needs of the other partner.

Discussion

As noted in the findings, the focus on reciprocity allowed for continual reflection and revision to the partnership which ensured the strength and impact of the partnership holistically. However, reciprocity is sometimes complicated and despite partners’ commitment to reciprocity there may exist factors that impact its full realization in a given partnership. This study showcases multiple lessons learned that may serve to inform the development and implementation of future school–university partnerships in which reciprocity is a key goal.

As this study’s findings show, reciprocity does not have to be, nor will it always be a one-for-one exchange. In fact, it is not about equality but, rather, equity in the partnership. In some ways, one party might benefit from a given aspect of the partnership more than another, but the goal remains for all partners to benefit when working together to support students’ learning and growth, no matter the age or education level. McLeskey et al. (2019) note that reciprocity is a valued high-leverage practice and in this study reciprocity was supported through on-going collaboration and reflection as well as instructors’ willingness to adjust and change. As evidenced in the findings, stakeholders in the partnership emphasized the importance of recognizing and addressing the distinct needs and wants of each partner. Clear communication and ongoing dialogue were identified as key elements to establishing and maintaining a reciprocal relationship. This aligns with the findings of Kronen et al. (2022) that clear communication is key to a strong and continued partnership. The commitment to engaging in weekly informal conversations, formal check-ins and structured Q/A sessions facilitated a strong sense of reciprocity. This approach also allowed for real-time adjustments, celebration of impactful experiences and addressing issues as they arose.

Connected to shared learning, this school–university partnership actively supported shared learning experiences between LU preservice teachers and UMS students. For example, the use of shared Google documents for feedback, in-person conferencing and collaborative engagement in small group activities provided valuable opportunities for reciprocal learning. The integration of differentiation strategies, literacy-centered instructional methods and the exchange of teaching strategies between LU and UMS teachers also exemplifies the symbiotic nature of the partnership, which is an important component (Clarke & Winslade, 2019).

Relationship development and building remained an important and positive outcome of this partnership. This was partly because the reciprocal nature of the partnership went beyond the typical one-to-one interactions seen in tutoring and service-learning experiences, where instructors may not always be present or directly facilitating the learning. In this partnership, LU preservice teachers served as positive role models for UMS students, fostering excitement and aspiration. The UMS principal highlighted the benefits of connecting students with college life, contributing to their aspirations. The partnership also facilitated the development of social-emotional skills in UMS students and provided opportunities for LU preservice teachers to navigate issues they might encounter in their future classrooms. The partnership facilitated the development of social-emotional skills in UMS students by providing them with a supportive and collaborative learning environment where they could build relationships, enhance their emotional intelligence and develop resilience. Simultaneously, it offered LU preservice teachers valuable opportunities to navigate real-world classroom challenges, such as managing diverse student needs, addressing behavioral issues and implementing inclusive teaching strategies, thereby better preparing them for their future roles as educators. This dual focus on social-emotional development and practical teaching experience ensured that both groups benefited from enriched educational experiences. These outcomes were the result of the LU instructor and UMS teachers and administrators being embedded in and actively supporting each partnership interaction as well as engaging in on-going planning and reflection to ensure reciprocal learning and outcomes remained central to the work. Engaging in this work requires ongoing collaboration, calibration and flexibility, while being attentive to partners' and participants' needs, to ensure socially constructed and experiential learning (Lave & Wenger, 1991; Vygotsky, 1978).

At the same time, no school–university partnership is perfect. Noted in the findings, there were challenges related to time, and schedule constraints were evident in the partnership. Unforeseen events, such as weather disruptions and unscheduled breaks, required quick adjustments. The limited time for weekly interactions necessitated efficient use of each session. Despite the challenges, however, efforts were made to modify and adjust plans to benefit preservice and middle school students. As such, keeping participants’ needs central to the work and choices partners make is more likely to ensure positive and impactful outcomes.

Ongoing reflection and a willingness to adjust and change based on experiences and lessons learned ensured that participants recognized the importance of ongoing iteration and calibration to address challenges and enhance the partnership. What was learned from previous semesters informed adjustments to logistics, including the implementation of norms, changes in small group activities and increased collaboration in planning. This only happens if a partnership exists over time, where adjustments can be made. As such, the multi-year nature of the partnership allowed for reflection and improvement to create a more integrated and reciprocal learning experience. This leads us to recommend that when and where possible, school–university partnerships be established when the possibility of a long-term relationship not only exists but is also supported and desired.

Finally, it is imperative that partners understand the goals and intended outcomes of the programming/offering of a given program. In this study, middle school teachers and a university instructor expressed a need for additional conversations to align visions and goals, which they took time to do. The desire to avoid separate “loops” emphasized the importance of clarity in objectives to ensure a more cohesive and mutually beneficial partnership. In this way, Dewey’s (1938) concept of “experiential learning” also applied to those responsible for planning and facilitating this school–university partnership, in which the middle school teachers, administrator and university instructor actively learned with and from their experiences and the knowledge that was generated was co-constructed through on-going interactions, connections and applications.

Conclusion

This study’s findings highlight the reciprocal nature of the school–university partnership, showcasing the positive outcomes and challenges faced by stakeholders. Moreover, findings demonstrate that although reciprocity is important, not everything needs to be equal. Rather, it is about ensuring an equitable partnership in which all partners and participants benefit. As the partnership evolves, ongoing communication, adaptation to scheduling constraints and a commitment to shared learning must remain essential. The lessons learned from each iteration of this partnership provide valuable insights for future partnerships, emphasizing the need for continuous improvement and a clear understanding of shared goals. By addressing challenges and building on successes, the partnership has the potential to further enhance reciprocal outcomes and contribute to the development of effective educators, engaged students and those responsible for teaching them.

Table 1

Data sources

Data source	Context and purpose
Seven semi-structured focus group interviews with A1 and UMS sixth-grade teachers and principal, lasting 60–90 minutes each (2–3/year) (audio-recorded and transcribed verbatim)	Context: A1 conducted these interviews onsite at the museum, after school and/or during school breaks Purpose: Capture teachers’, administrator’s and A1’s observations, reflections and experiences connected to 1) the ways the partnership supported preservice teacher learning and development; 2) evidence of sixth-grade students’ learning and literacy development; 3) the value, perceptions and experiences of the partnership, including identifying what was going well and possible improvements and 4) the development and evolution of the partnership over time
Eight Q/A sessions between, A1, ED 310 preservice teachers and UMS teachers, lasting 35–45 minutes each (4/year) (audio-recorded and transcribed verbatim)	Context: A1 facilitated these sessions after UMS students left for the school day; these took place on-site at the museum during regularly scheduled ED 310 class sessions Purpose: Highlight preservice teachers’ questions and discussions with UMS teachers, including 1) information about teaching in a museum setting; 2) sixth-grade educators’ teaching and learning experiences; 3) recommendations for beginning teachers’ professional development; 4) what constitutes effective teaching and learning and 5) navigating the political, contextual and personal aspects of working in PK-12 education
One focus group interview between A1 and A2, lasting one hour (audio-recorded and transcribed verbatim)	Context: A2 led this discussion, asking A1 questions about the school–university partnership Purpose: Provide opportunities for A1 to reflect on the partnership and elicit insights about the university-school partnership, lessons learned and take-aways for future collaborations

Source(s): By authors

Table 2

Initial and collapsed codes

Initial codes (n = 6)	Collapsed codes (n = 5)
Reciprocity = R Needs/Wants = N/W Implications for PK-12 Classroom Practice = I Barriers = BA Benefits = BE Recommendations/Lessons Learned = R/L	Needs/Wants = N/W Implications for PK-12 Classroom Practice = I Barriers = BA Benefits = BE Recommendations/Lessons Learned = R/L

Source(s): By author’s