Search results

The researchers developed a model of mentoring student teachers, known as Shared Mentoring in Learning Environments (SMILE), to provide opportunities for classroom teachers to build shared understanding with university field supervisors. The purpose of this paper is to compare teaching efficacy of those student teachers who matriculated through the SMILE approach with mentoring student teachers who matriculated through a traditional approach to mentoring and identifying aspects of SMILE that may have contributed to the development of teacher efficacy.

A total of 29 student teachers participated in the SMILE model of supporting student teaching, and 29 student teachers (comparison group) were provided with a traditional support structure. At the start and end of their one-year post-baccalaureate credential program, all student teachers completed a teaching efficacy questionnaire. During the last month of the teacher-credential program, all student teachers were interviewed in focus groups regarding the quality of their student-teaching mentoring. In addition, the researchers asked classroom teachers in the SMILE cohort to complete a questionnaire, identifying specific strengths and weaknesses of the SMILE model of mentoring student teachers.

Student teachers in the SMILE cohort improved their teaching efficacy in comparison with student teachers in a traditional model of support. SMILE student teachers appreciated critical feedback, while the comparison group participants focused on whether feedback was positive or negative. In addition, SMILE student teachers attributed their development of instructional skills to the mentoring process from classroom teachers and university supervisors, while comparison group participants attributed their development as teachers mainly to their classroom teachers who modeled effective instructional strategies. SMILE classroom teachers made reference to how particular aspects of the model (e.g. sequencing and lesson study) contributed to both student- and mentor-teacher development.

The SMILE approach to mentoring student teachers facilitated collaboration between university field supervisors and classroom teachers in joint mentoring of future teachers into their profession, a rare occurrence in teacher education programs. Joint mentoring led to improved teaching efficacy among student teachers.

Teaching performance assessments (TPAs) have developed in the USA and Australia as a “bar exam” for the profession and are used means to assure that graduates are classroom ready. The purpose of this paper is to outline how these assessments have been implemented in teacher education in the USA and Australian contexts. The edTPA is embroiled in controversy in the USA and there are important lessons from the related research literature that could inform the how other countries engage with TPAs in pre-service teacher education.

This conceptual paper outlines how Australia has introduced TPAs in initial teacher education (ITE) through policy borrowing from the USA. The paper synthesises critiques of the edTPA (USA) from research literature and considers the implications of TPAs in the Australian context.

The TPA impacts the focus of pre-service teacher practicum teaching, and pedagogy and curriculum in ITE education. The TPA could be used to mobilise detrimental accountability mechanisms. With the outsourcing of assessment to edu-business, Pearson Education, teacher education institutions in the USA have a sense that they have lost control over determining which students are credentialed to teach. Although pre-service teacher assessment is still administered and assessed by ITE institutions in Australia, there is a concern that could change. It is argued that educators, administrators and policy makers should avoid moves to outsource TPAs in Australia.

Because it is in its infancy, there is a little robust research into the implication of introducing teacher performance assessments into the Australian teacher education context.

The purpose of this paper is to review the advances in mechanics and tribology of polymers and polymer-based materials. It is focused on the understanding of the correlation of contact mechanics and the tribological behavior of polymers and polymer composites by taking account of surface forces and adhesion in the contact.

Mechanical behavior of polymers is considered a viscoelasticity. Tribological performance is estimated while considering the parts of deformation and adhesion in friction arising in the contact. Surface energy, roughness, load and temperature effects on the tribological behavior of polymers are evaluated. Polymer composites produced by reinforcing and by the addition of functional additives are considered as materials for various applications in tribology. Particular attention is given to polymer-based nanocomposites.

A review of studies in tribology has shown that polymer-based materials can be most successfully used as self-lubricating components of sliding bearings. The use of the fillers provides changes in the tribological performance of neat polymers and widens their areas of application in the industry. Thin polymer films were found to be prospective lubricants for memory storage devices, micro-electro-mechanical systems and precision mechanisms. Further progress in polymer tribology should be achieved on solving the problems of contact mechanics, surface physics and tribochemistry by taking account of the scale factor.

The review is based on the experience of the authors in polymer mechanics and tribology, their research data and on data of many other literature sources published in this area. It can be useful for specialists in polymer research and industrial engineers working in tribology and industrial lubrication.