Beck and Utheim, to be presented at the SRHE conference, Brighton, 12-14 Dec. 2006
“We Have Several Bridges to Build:”
Lecturer and student perceptions of
theory-based and placement-based learning of
teaching
Eevi E. Beck1 and Anna T. Utheim2
Education Research Institute
Univ. of Oslo
PO Box 1092 Blindern
N-0316 Oslo, Norway
Keywords
theory and practice learning, Higher Education, situated knowledges, teacher training, placement
Abstract
In teacher training, the role of school placements has been studied and discussed from several
perspectives. The ways of working with the subject is seen as different during placement from during
campus-based periods, and the existence of a theory-experience gap has been documented or assumed
in a number of studies. Yet, less is understood about how students integrate their experiences from the
two learning environments.
This paper presents early findings from semi-structured interviews with three students and three
lecturers in teacher training at a university in Norway. This is part of a study exploring relations
between theory based and experience based teaching and learning across disciplines.
Introduction: Practice-based and theory-based
teaching and learning
Given the substantial body of research which expands notions of how scientific truths are
established and maintained, we find it interesting at several levels – of which only one is
explored in this paper – that in some university programmes, experience based learning (e.g.
fieldwork, placement, or clinical work) is an integral part of the degree. Information and
communication technologies (ICTs) are by some expected to make (parts of) this easier, yet
an understanding of key aspects of such teaching and learning practices upon which systems
design could be founded is highly limited. The study of which the present paper is a part aims
to improve such understanding.
The paper reviews theories of situated learning and of theory-practice integration surrounding
placements, before moving on to the empiricial study which is its main focus. The aim is
partly to motivate the line of enquiry pursued, and primarily to present empirical data. Thus,
while an exploration is attempted of the nature of the practice-theory gap expressed in the
1
2
Corresponding author. Email address: e.e.beck@ped.uio.no
Currently at the Faculty of Education, Oslo University College, Norway.
1
Beck and Utheim, to be presented at the SRHE conference, Brighton, 12-14 Dec. 2006
interviews as well as certain issues of theory, the theory discussions are in their early stages of
development.3
Donna Haraway has used the term situated knowledges (Haraway, 1991) to emphasise that all
knowledges are situated in specific contexts. While at one level self-evident, perspectives
such as this raise a host of questions for teaching and learning. Lave and Wenger’s muchcited notion of situated learning (Lave & Wenger, 1991) describes processes by which
learning can take place at work through a gradual adoption of skills, understandings, etc,
within specific contexts and through being given gradually changing responsibilities by the
community of practitioners among whom the person is placed, thus moving from peripheral to
full participation. In Scandinavia, a questioning of the dominance of teacher-focused learning
activities has attracted attention from friends and foes alike (e.g. debates in Danish
newspapers about apprenticeship learning cited in (Rasmussen, 1999) ). In Norway, a 2005
reform of Higher Education (HE) sought, among other things, to focus attention on increasing
the usage of educational methods in which students take highly active roles.
The idea of learning by doing, learning skills by acting in a specific environment which
differs from a campus environment in ways deemed by the programme providers to be
significant, have been part of some university degrees for a long time. Notions such as
situated learning seem well suited to explain in theory terms why these practical placements,
field trips, etc, should be so central. Yet, such theory is contested, both in terms of what it is –
where it applies and of what it consists (cf. most papers in (Nielsen & Kvale, 1999)) – and
more critically, its relations to ‘scholastic’ learning, i.e. learning taking place in school and
similar environments (e.g. (Rasmussen, 1999), in Nielsen & Kvale 1999). What purposes
lecturers and students themselves see in changing one’s environment – at times dramatically –
remains an empirical question, as do issues such as what difficulties they may experience in
doing so.
For situated learning as part of HE programmes, analyses of practice during teacher training
include those that illuminate mentors’ work with and for students (Furlong & Maynard, 1995)
or the situation of students during placement bayer (Bayer, 2001). In their introduction,
Furlong & Maynard comment on the relations between academic and school-based training of
pre-service teachers, noting briefly that while their book focuses on placement learning, both
are needed (Furlong & Maynard, 1995). In discussing several aspects of what he terms
practice learning, Dave Evans comes closest to the concerns of this study (Evans, 1999). In
his book on education for what he calls the caring professions, which includes teacher
training (p.xix), chapter 4 specifically explores relations between theory and practice.
Refreshingly, he refuses to place theory and practice in a hierarchical relation to each other.
Based on his own experience with students’ difficulties in integrating the two (and on some
research) he further argues that viewing this as a dyad cannot explain their persistent
difficulties. Instead, he advocates seeing the relation between theory and practice as
substantially more complex than often done in the literature. The onion model of practice
learning described by Evans (pp.35-) provides a useful overview: “Practice learning can be
seen as a number of concentric layers, with the most crucial at the centre and the least crucial
on the periphery” (p.35). At the centre is the student, surrounded by practical experience (in
this paper, the placement periods), which is surrounded by practice teachers (in this paper
referred to as mentors), who are surrounded by academic teachers (in this paper referred to as
lecturers). While the model provides helpful ways of relating different viewpoints not least
from the research literature, Evans’ placing of the academic teachers in the periphery
illustrates a need for studies such as in the present paper: of whether and in what ways
academic teachers/lecturers may be attempting to reach, or bridge to, students’ placement
3
Readers would be more than welcome to suggest literature to the first author.
2
Beck and Utheim, to be presented at the SRHE conference, Brighton, 12-14 Dec. 2006
experiences. (Evans’ discussion of how to use it is normative, providing what may well be
helpful guidance for in particular the various teachers involved in this complex arrangement.
His own normative proposal is a trajectory for learning experiences which systematically
undulates between experiences and theory (p.90).)
While Evans importantly reviews theory and discusses own experiences which are highly
relevant to this study, his book does not provide empirical data which is sufficiently
independent to be of use for other analyses than that based in his personal experience. In
particular, there is little on specifically on activities engaged in by lecturers and learners in the
seams between two different learning environments or the materials they might be using.4 For
theories of learning, of knowledges, and for the questions of ICT design for practice-theory
integration studies of such practices would be helpful.
The empirical study: Asking Questions
A case study from a Norwegian institution of HE explores the intersections between the
(presumed) theory based on-campus teaching and learning environment and the (presumed)
experience based off-campus learning environment. We focus on: A) Communication about
purposes of experience based periods, including uses of communication technologies; B)
course requirements for students’ integration of the two learning environments and support
offered for this; C) tools and materials employed; and D) lecturer participation in the
experiences of students. (We are also asking about requirements in terms of bodily agility, but
this is not further discussed in this paper.)
A) Our initial and perhaps most straightforward questions concern the extent to which the
purposes of the practice periods were communicated about between lecturers and students. A
working hypothesis was that the lecturers, being experienced in the subject and presumably
being aware of the aims of including experience-based learning, would have an overview
which perhaps students would not have. For example, if lecturers were seen to undercommunicate the aims of the placement to the students this might not be helpful for the
students’ integration of their experiences in the two learning environments.
B) The interviews were to explore the extent to which students were supported in integrating
theory and practice. Questions focused on required work or participation, though for
completeness we asked also about any contact between students. The underlying research
question was what provisions the programme was making to force or guide students to
attempt integration (through requirements to preparatory and/or post-placement work) and
support offered for this.
C) Tools and materials used by lecturers and students to help bridge between theory and
practice-based experiences. The materials through which knowledges are embodied, or sought
embodied are of interest in themselves as well as being of theoretical interest for a “support
4
In a pragmatic sense we see the presumed theory-based teaching and learning on campus as one (or more)
learning environment(s), and the environments during placement as another one. We have not defined learning
environment rigorously. The intention here is not to provide a definition, merely an indication of what
perspective we have chosen when using terms such as ‘transitions between learning environments.’ The term is
used in this paper loosely to denote a physical site at which teaching and teacher-led activities take place, and the
student’s experiences and felt expectations to behaviours and forms of thought, emotions, etc, connected with it.
(An interesting question is how such a term can encompass experiences of ICT-based communication, which
may take place from a number of physical locations. For the time being, we assume such communication to
belong to the learning environment which is being communicated about, or the learning environment which the
student bodily takes part in during the days/weeks of the communication. In other words, despite the embodied
view of environments in this study and ICTs being seen as part of these, the embodied experiences of using ICTs
are for the time being bracketed and ICTs are treated as a channel of communication where the communication
contents is of primary interest.)
3
Beck and Utheim, to be presented at the SRHE conference, Brighton, 12-14 Dec. 2006
for learning” view of artefacts. What materials are being used which might bridge gaps
between theory- and experience based forms of knowing?
D) Of particular interest is the extent to which lecturers and students views of placements
coincide, including the extent to which lecturers share in the students' experiences. Any
physical, embodied participation of the lecturer in the placement for longer or shorter periods
is of particular interest. (A longer-term aim not further discussed here, is exploring the
possibilities for using ICTs to enhance any shortcomings reported, e.g. in lecturer
involvement.)
The overall study is conducted as an interview study and web site analysis of a small number
of programmes selected for their different configurations of the theory and experience based
learning environments. The present paper reports on findings from one of these programmes.
Informants and interview approach
Informants studied or taught at a one-year teacher training module for people who already
hold a bachelor or equivalent degree. Passing the programme qualifies you to teach at the
Videregående (Upper Secondary/Sixth Form) level in Norway. Thus the programme, known
in Norway as a Praktisk-pedagogisk utdanning (PPU), roughly corresponds with the UK's
Post-graduate Certificate of Education (PGCE).
Semi-structured interviews were conducted with each of three lecturers and three students (for
the interview guide, see Appedix I). Informants were selected with the assistance of the
department administration to be matched on subject. Lecturer informant selection may have
been partly on their enthusiasm for teaching; students were recruited from their subjects after
the lecturers were selected. Informants who were willing to participate may have had a greater
interest in teaching or learning generally, and/or in questions relating to placement or to
theory, and/or in research, than other lecturers and students on this programme.
Each interview, lasting between 45 mins and nearly two hours, was transcribed in full,
resulting in 83 pages of transcript, using anonymised names.
Informants were given a written commitment which included that they may withdraw at any
time without providing a reason. Additional conditions were agreed with those of the
informants who wished them, such as reading and commenting on the transcript, and/or
receiving completed papers from the study.
Analytic approach
The analysis for the present paper has followed a two-prong approach: Primarily question-led,
where answers given to the questions we had planned beforehand were summarised. This
deductive analysis was supplemented in a partly parallel process by an inductive analysis. In
the latter, themes emerging from the interviews as of potential interest to the larger discussion
were explored (more or less irrespective of whether they had been foreseen when designing
the interview guide). The method of analysis has been largely ad hoc, where topics emerging
as interesting have been discussed between the two of us.
Conventions of translation
In the following, quotes from transcripts are given double quotation marks for verbatim
quotes. These have been translated by the authors for this paper. For expressions or passages
which we have found particularly difficult to translate as well as many other, the original
4
Beck and Utheim, to be presented at the SRHE conference, Brighton, 12-14 Dec. 2006
Norwegian is provided in Appendix II. Page numbers refer to the page in the original
transcript of the interview.
To minimise confusion, teachers employed as PPU staff and located primarily on the
university campus are in the discussion referred to as lecturers yet in the quotes from
informants their term lærer (teacher) has been translated into ‘[academic] teachers’ when it is
clear from the transcript that they are talking about lecturers. This is to keep the translated
quotes as close as possible with the informant’s own terms. Similarly, while teachers working
for the placement schools are called mentors in the discussion they appear in the quotes as
school teachers.
The term placement requires some explanation. It is used in the discussion on the assumption
that it communicates well to a British audience. Yet in Norwegian, significantly, the term
praksis (meaning practice) refers both to the more abstract concept (e.g. ‘theory-practice
gaps’) and to the period of practical teaching, i.e. the placement. In the quotes, the openness
of the term in Norwegian is sought retained by using practice more than probably would be
the case for native English speakers.
Findings
In this section, we begin by summarising the themes in the interview guide (i.e. the more
theory-driven, or deductive, themes). Then we move on to focus on themes derived from the
responses given by informants. Some of these themes stem from questions we explicitly asked
our informants, others do not. (These are a result of the more data-driven, or inductive
analysis.)
Answers to questions we asked (from deductive analysis)
Organisation of placement periods
During the one-year full-time PPU programme, students typically studied three subjects:
pedagogikk (Education), and fagdidaktikk (the teaching of a specific subject) for two subjects.
For each subject students were in a group, led by a lecturer. The programme included two
practice periods, interspersed with three theory periods.
During placement, students would mostly get to teach one of their subjects. They were
mentored by a school teacher during placement, and received one visit from one of the PPU
lecturers. The lecturer would visit several students at once – all those in PPU placement at that
school at that time – and thus not necessarily be familiar with the student’s own subjects or
with each student.
At the time of the interviews, the students had completed their first placement having spent 4
weeks in a school.
Critique from the interviewed students included, interestingly, some issues to which matching
concerns did not emerge in the interviews with their lecturers. The student who, out of the
three, voiced the most critical views about what the problematic areas were, wished the PPU
programme would put more effort into coordination the placements: She experienced the
actual teaching tasks given to students during placement as bearing a fairly accidental
relationship to what the PPU programme assumed they would be doing (e.g. once arriving to
teach a class in which the pupils turned out to be engaged in a 4-week independent study
period) and consequently saw a need for consistent information to placement schools and to
students about expectations. (E.g. that schools would know that students were expected only
to observe during some part of their placement.) She further wished that placement periods
would be better connected to theory once students were back on campus doing theory
5
Beck and Utheim, to be presented at the SRHE conference, Brighton, 12-14 Dec. 2006
[Merete, pp.7, 9, 16]. Nina, too, wished for improved coordination with placement schools
[p.7].
Purposes
Although we had not expected it to feature so strongly, in most of our six interviews the
informant invoked reasons outside this PPU programme (such as certification) when
discussing the purposes of placements. One student sees the purposes as trying your hand at
being a teacher and to make theory more relevant. She believes that the main purposes for the
academic department running the PPU programme is controlling whether or not students will
be capable of acting as teachers (Merete, p.3). In contrast, one of the teachers, while not
explicitly discussing purposes, gives quite a different perspective when she describes a
previous period in which the lecturers paid visits to each student during placement:
“It is the best teaching situation we get, because there is a class where a student is
teaching and someone from [the academic department] is watching. ... you were able
to talk about all the choices being made and discuss ‘why did you do it like that,’ and
‘when you got to this point you let go and what were your reasons.’ In many ways
this is the best teaching situation ... when you get something specific to relate to.”
[for original quote, see Appendix II (AxII):1]
This lecturer’s enthusiasm for the opportunity to take part with the student and engage in
specific situations demostrates the importance to her of participating in the student’s
experiences in order to base her teaching on that specific situation. This contrasts sharply with
the student’s view that lecturers’ purposes with placements mainly are to check whether or
not to let you pass.
Interestingly, one student cited “self development” as a key purpose in doing the placement;
“learning what dealing with 30 teenagers is like,” which he considered “not easy to bring
from the books and make happen in practice” [AxII:2].
The individual purposes for both students and lecturers, then, covered a range of reasons.
Some of our informants expressed clearly the benefit of learning and teaching from being
within a classroom (i.e. practice) situation.
Lecturers’ communication of purposes
We asked the lecturers whether they thought the purpose of the placements were
communicated to students, and the students whether they experienced that the purpose of the
placements had been communicated to them. The answers to this question clearly split in two.
The three lecturers all reported that they did communicate the purposes of placements, in
lectures and/or in on-line discussion fora. When asked by us about the purpose of placements,
one lecturer initially responded that it was self-evident:
“it is in the nature of the situation, this is an alternative to the integrated theory- and
practice based education given at Teacher Training at the Polytechnic.” [AxII:3].
While not too much should be made of that, it does make the distance to the students very
vivid: The three students each said that the purposes of were communicated very little or not
at all.
Our assumption had been that the communication of purposes would be of particular
importance for the students in conjunction with their first placements, which were the
placements being discussed in the interviews.
Preparing for placements
The students said they wished more preparation for the placement periods. Two students
wished more specific tips to use on actual placements. One method referred to as
6
Beck and Utheim, to be presented at the SRHE conference, Brighton, 12-14 Dec. 2006
‘microteaching’ was seen by students as useful as preparation for placements. In
microteaching a student would be filmed while giving a lecture for a group of peers. The
lecture could be given on any topic (it did not have to be in the subject), and was evaluated
afterwards by the students and the lecturer.
The lecturers, on the other hand, all said that they did provide various kinds of preparations
for the placements. For example, Håvard says:
“I have certain aspects I would like to focus on; about their particular subject, their
role as a teacher in that subject. That has been my primary focus in preparing [the
students] for placement. Additionally, giving practical advice on how to introduce
new topics in the classroom, what choices one has when introducing a new topic and
how to get started.” [AxII:4]
Student Fredrik would seem to appreciate this, saying he enjoyed some lectures they had on
the teacher role because it was highly specific. Yet, he wanted more:
“I have talked a bit with both my [mentor] teacher and my lecturer about the
possibility of having a seminar on how to conduct yourself in front of the pupils. (...)
A little technical, but quite important. Maybe these are things one assumes people
know, or should know, when in the practice situation, but which you [on campus] in
the world of theory, don’t learn much about.” [AxII:5]
While Håvard’s approach was evidently welcome by at least one informant, the substantial
difference between student and lecturer views we interpret as a sign of a gap in the
understanding of how the campus studies relate to placements. This is further explored below.
Teaching materials
The material objects discussed in the lecturer interviews were intended by the lecturers as
examples, thus relating primarily to preparation for placement periods. Kristine, a language
teacher, responds to a question of whether or not she uses teaching materials that:
“Very often we try things” [AxII:6]
“When we work with culture, we look at texts, pictures, and work with what kind of
types they are…” [AxII:7]
Student Fredrik spoke of the difference between what he wanted and the text books:
“You read about how you need to calm the class and display class leadership in the
text books, but it doesn’t say how you actually should or could do that. (...) it sounds
so simple, but it isn’t that simple.” [AxII:8]
Fredrik, then, saw some of the same materials as removed from the actual situation they
would be facing in their placement.
Student-lecturer contact during placement
There seemed to be substantial agreement among informants that lecturers’ visits to the
placement locations was important. One student said:
“it does show a human interest”[AxII:9]
However, students and lecturers alike expressed dissatisfaction about the amount of contact –
they wanted more. Lecturers remembered previous times with more contact with students (cf.
quote from Kristine above). We find particularly interesting that two of the students express a
wish for more subject-related discussions:
“The meeting [with the lecturer and the placement mentor] deals mainly with the
practical side of things and is not subject related. It would have been good to discuss
subject related matters at this meeting.” [AxII:10]
7
Beck and Utheim, to be presented at the SRHE conference, Brighton, 12-14 Dec. 2006
“We were asked about our well-being and whether the collaboration with the school
went well but not about subject related issues, as far as I can remember.” [AxII:11]
Lecturers’ comments were consistent with the view that practical issues were at the forefront
at the meeting they attended during placement.
The next section discusses whether, perhaps, integrative discussions had been planned for the
period back on campus.
Post-placement reflection and integration
We asked informants to describe activities undertaken after the placement period specifically
to discuss or reflect on the students’ experiences. Students and lecturers alike report that time
had indeed been set aside for reflection over practice experiences after the actual placements.
To what use this time should be put, however, received a range of answers. One student, for
example, wished for more of the subject-specific discussions. In addition to the time during
lectures set aside for (verbal) reflection, a (written) portfolio assignment was given to the
students. This assignment was split in three; one for each subject. While in the interviews the
students only mentioned this as coursework they have to complete, the lecturers seemed to be
valuing these assignments for other, more reflective reasons. Kristine said:
“And then there is another connecting element, which is the portfolio assignments.
These assignments are meant to create bridges between theory and practice, and
between the subject, the classroom, and the theory.” [AxII:12]
Students and lecturers agreed, then, that structures were provided after placement periods for
students to reflect on their experiences. Perceptions of their contributions to making sense of
practice experiences, however, were not necessarily shared.
Emerging themes (from inductive analysis)
Valuing school placements highly
All informants valued the school placements as part of the teacher training. The school
placements were considered by all six informants as a key learning opportunity within the
programme. One student express this strongly:
“The [placement] practice is, I would claim, absolutely the most important aspect of
the entire programme. If it hadn’t been for that, I would have felt the programme to
be simply meaningless. That’s what I think. I have probably learned the most during
practice; what it actually means to be a teacher. So the practice [placement] is
important.” [AxII:18]
Traces of students integrating theory and practice
Although we did not explicitly ask we found some evidence of benefits of the alteration
between theory and placement periods.
Student Merete displayed an awareness of the relations between theory and practice through
the following comment on their sequence:
“For me, the theory part has become much more interesting after the practice
[placement]” [AxII:13]
When Anna asked whether there were objects, sketches, forms or something which might help
students connect theory and practice, student Nina responded:
“No... maybe there are meant to be. I have seen some theoretical sketches, but they
are theoretical. I can't really use them in practice. But they are in the back of my
8
Beck and Utheim, to be presented at the SRHE conference, Brighton, 12-14 Dec. 2006
head, so maybe I’ll use them later when I’m in the profession. (...) Probably I’ll
mostly be using them indirectly.” [AxII:14]
Merete reported usage of assessment forms provided by the mentor as highly useful. She
continued:
“It’s been nice to have a bit of theory on this afterwards. Or… in a way I think it’s
nice to have the theory beforehand, then you’re better prepared when you’re in
placement. But when you have the theory afterwards then it’s like… you have more
substance to discuss it. So… in this case I thought having it afterwards was nice.”
[AxII:15]
Fredrik explores relations between theory and practice thus:
“I guess you draw some lines from what you already have been through at school, in
the theory period… but I have some difficulties spotting those lines(…) maybe they
are behind there somewhere, consciously or subconsciously. (…)
I’ve reflected quite a lot after the short placement and before the long one (…) on
what I’ve experienced during placement relating to for example theory…and my own
experiences. And what I should do to improve my role as a teacher.
A: Between the two placement periods?
F:Between the two. That breathing space I quite liked. That the placement was split
like that. You get space to think, to reflect.” [AxII:16]
The student interviews, then, all included evidence of the practice-theory alternation indeed
contributing to students’ integration of the two.
Another student mentioned the provision of an on-line “didactic room” as a useful discussion
space:
“Personally what’s been most useful for me is something they started during the
autumn 05, what they call a joint teaching room. You try mixing a bit of subject
teaching with education and some practice experiences, and (...) talk about more
specific examples.
A: This was before or after placement?
F: Both before and after.” [AxII:17]
As explained by lecturer Kristine, this “room” was provided in order to facilitate discussion
across subjects, thus bridging one of the gaps she identified. This is an example of planned
provision for integration, and a student appreciating it (not all did so, and use of it was
voluntary).
Perceptions of theory-practice gaps
While the above points to benefits to students of alternating between theory-based learning
and placement periods, considerably more attention was during the interviews devoted to the
perceived gaps between these.
As indicated above, the views of and approaches to what to learn beforehand and in what way
and to what extent during the actual placement, seemed to differ. Not surprisingly, lecturers
displayed a substantially more complex web of concerns which placement periods were to
satisfy. E.g. Kristine, quoted in the title, said “We have several bridges to build,” referring to
bridging gaps e.g. between theory and practice, and Education vs. subject teaching. Thus she
explicitly referred to gaps between theory and practice alongside other gaps. Students were
dissatisfied with the distance between what they were taught on campus and their felt needs in
the classroom (e.g. that the literature is not up-to-date compared with today's classroom
situation; that the programme is too theoretical). They all thought there existed a gap between
9
Beck and Utheim, to be presented at the SRHE conference, Brighton, 12-14 Dec. 2006
the theory learnt on campus, and the classroom needs that they experienced during
placements. Merete said that:
“for me, the programme is split in two: there's practice, and there's theory. And I
learn totally different things in them.” [AxII:19].
Nina, a student with considerable teaching experience, said:
“Theory and practice don't match” [AxII:20].
She elaborated on the texture of the lack of matching she experienced:
“there are so many nice theories and ideas of what to do and not do, all the rights of
the pupil. It seems that the teacher in the end has very little room for maneuvering.”
[AxII:21]
Student Nina’s responces above (“No... maybe there are meant to be…”) shows further that
while she criticised what she experienced as a substantial theory-practice gap she did not
dismiss the influence of theory on her practice.
Lecturer Håvard expresses his appreciation for the challenges faced by students when he says
that:
“…to be able to handle the diversity [that being a teacher consists of], I think the
students experience as quite challenging” [AxII:22]
The question of theory-practice gaps seems closely linked to divergent expectations to what
‘preparing for placement periods’ should consist of.
All three students voice a lack of models, sketches or practical/specific teaching objects which
they could directly implement in the classroom. Student Merete expresses it thus:
“I have missed more practical tips of method; different ways of teaching, which
methods to use and in which situations. There is quite a big gap between the theory
and the practical experience…it seems as if the [academic] teachers are afraid to
say too much, to guide us in certain directions…but I think they are too afraid,
because we don't get any tips and guidance, and too little bridging between the
theory and the practice. There are two sides to this question.” [AxII:23]
The lecturers, on the other hand, claimed they during the preparation for the school placement
provided what students claimed they lacked: practical guidance and support for the students
towards actual classroom use. In addition, lecturers emphasised developing reflection as an
aim of the programme, derived from both school placements and on-campus teaching.
Kristine says, for example, that:
”I am much more concerned that they achieve a critical and reflecting perspective
on why they do things, not just being concerned about the ‘what’-level,’ what will I
do now,’ but why am I doing what I’m doing and where is it rooted in theory.”
[AxII:24]
The three students seemed to wish for support which would prepare them for the specific
working situation and the specific school in which they are to function during their placement.
E.g., one student called for less theory and wished more practical guidance and more updated
literature; another mentioned better integration with the time schedule of the school as an area
for improvement.
Lecturer views on student wishes for support
Lecturers appeared to be well aware of the kinds of student complaints reported above. At
least two lecturers perceived the students to wish more specific guidance from them but
resisted providing it. For example, the above quote from Kristine (“I am much more
concerned...”) was preceded by:
10
Beck and Utheim, to be presented at the SRHE conference, Brighton, 12-14 Dec. 2006
“You always get the students wanting practical help. Many have never stood in a
classroom before, and they seem to be looking for that (...) first aid kit [laughs], ‘how
to survive the first lessons’.” [AxII:25]
Returning to the point later, she expanded:
“I do not give them that kit, I don't” [AxII:26], and “We should not tell them what to
do” [AxII:27]
As for her reasons, the quote above (“We are not to tell them…”) seemed to reflect back on
why she does not want to provide the ‘first aid kit.’
Bjørn, another lecturer, said his goal with his teaching of the students was to:
“…change the school reality with the teachers to be” [AxII:28].
In addition:
“I have been here nearly 28 years and I see changes, but the dreams I had when I
first began are yet not fullfilled… so the battle must go on. The eternal battle.”
[AxII:29]
The interviewed teachers, then, seemed highly conscious of having taken on change work
where there would be resistance.
Ambiguous relations between students’ previous teaching experiences and
current programme
The two lecturers above seemed to wish to provide students with different, better, ways of
teaching than those commonly practiced in school. They cited the strong influence of the
existing cultures in specific schools as a hindrance against students implementing what they
learnt at the PPU programme.
The issue of the appropriateness of the existing school culture was touched on also in a
question we posed about the relations to any previous experience students might have of
teaching.
For the interviewed lecturers, any previous experience of teaching which a student may have
bore an ambiguous relation to this programme. Bjørn said previous experience may be an
advantage, and it may also be a disadvantage:
“An advantage, both yes and no. If they [the students] have been working in schools
before, it could be an advantage because they know the terms, they see what is going
on in the schools, it isn’t a strange world to them and so on. It can also be a
disadvantage. Particularly when it comes to the part-time students, but also in this
programme if the students have been working in schools for 5, 10 and 15 years
before [this program]. Some of these students have become stuck in their tracks
when it comes to teaching methods and subject understanding. And then it is very
difficult for them to get out of these tracks. So, too much experience is not necessarily
an advantage, rather the opposite. But if they do some supply teaching whilst on the
program, that’s great. [AxII:30]
The latter point would seem to be supported by one of the students who, being critical of
teaching in a team, spoke of learning more while teaching alone as a supply teacher alongside
the studies, than being on a student teaching team.
Having been asked the same question as Bjørn, lecturer Håvard suggests that a research
project would be required to give a good answer.
A: Is it an advantage that students have experience, have been working as a teacher
before or had a placement in school?
H: [laughs] This is a tricky question. To answer, I should have researched it… I
think I’ll say that it would normally be an advantage. [AxII:31]
11
Beck and Utheim, to be presented at the SRHE conference, Brighton, 12-14 Dec. 2006
Interestingly, he goes on to provide a story about a student who had been teaching for a year
and who expected to be told that he had been picking up bad habits:
“We do micro teaching which is part of the preparations for placement, then
[students] are filmed, they do their teaching for 5-6 minutes and are filmed, and [we]
play it back and comment on it in a group of students and an [academic] teacher.
One student was worried because he’d had a year of practice before he started here
and expected that he’d developed lots of bad habits which we’d try to pick off him.
This was his expectation. But there were no bad habits. It was really good. So that
was nice.” (AxII:32)
A question of ‘inappropriate habits’ from untrained teaching may evidently be an issue also
for students on this programme (the source of which is an interesting question on which we do
not have data).
Returning to his generic views on the relations, Håvard continues by exploring one skill
which he sees inexperienced students struggling with:
“So except for the possibility that one might develop habits which are not that good,
I believe that exercising one’s role in the classroom is often a treshold, it can be, for
students who at least do not have experience in … relating to a group and so on. You
hesitate to inhabit the room; and most of all this assertiveness, the training to know
when I say ‘stop’ with which physical appearance, which use of voice, how much
authority I carry.” (AxII:32)
Håvard further explores the relations between this (to us) bodily aspect of teaching and the
more cognitive:
“This kind of issues takes time [for students] to explore at the same time as you have
to have the entire subject and pedagogical method, and be paying attention to that
too” (AxII:32)5
Håvard, then, expresses some of the complexity in the range of issues students are to work
their way through.
Summary
All informants shared substantial enthusiasm for the placement practice periods. Yet, views of
their purposes were split, as were views on whether the lecturers’ purposes had been
communicated. To the extent that we found agreement on what the purposes were, these
included reasons that were fairly external to the experiences. This is somewhat surprising
given the enthusiasm displayed for the placements, none of which seemed related to e.g.
controlling students. Each informant, then, may have presented us with a different perceived
‘official’ purpose of placements from that which engaged her or him personally.
The main difficulty for interviewed students seemed to be what they reported as a split
between theory and practice. The students were asking for support beforehand which would
be more specifically relevant to the teaching they were to do during their placement.
Lecturers, however, maintained they did provide such materials for the students. The
difference may hinge on different views on how specific the materials should ideally be – a
simple and complex question of where any boundaries are to be located between practice and
theory.
At the same time, all students, while maintaining their critiques, were aware of the potential
indirect relevance of teaching materials or discussions from theory for their later usage.
5
These are the ranges of issues Håvard had in mind when referring to “challenges” above.
12
Beck and Utheim, to be presented at the SRHE conference, Brighton, 12-14 Dec. 2006
Students’ contact with their lecturers during placement was highly limited. Rather, they were
mentored during placement by a school teacher. While it is unclear to what extent this was
seen as a problem in itself by students, two did report lacking opportunities for raising
subject-related issues with their lecturer during placement.
All in all, we have no data to indicate that the lecturers’ visits to schools fulfilled any
deliberate or substantial role in integrating theory and practice experiences. We found no
other systematic contact during placement. While may speculate that there may be studentcentered reasons for this which were not captured in our interviews (such as not
overburdening students during what presumably is an intense period), one lecturer indicated
preference for earlier times when they did have a closer follow-up, hinting at economic
reasons for this no longer being so.
One lecturer compared the situation at the time of the interview with previous times in which
she could partake in student experiences and lamented the loss of contact during placement as
a loss of the best situation of teaching. The reorganisation which caused the new setup,
whatever its reason, could therefore be taken as an opportunity lost on part of the PPU for
having lecturers and students discussing theory in the light of practice, and vice versa.
Back on campus after placement, students and lecturers agree that space for integrating theory
and practice was provided in the form of oral and written discussions.
Informants came through as wishing to improve either their own practices or the schools. Yet
it remains a question what opportunities a lecturer such as Bjørn had for influencing schools
through their students when he only got to pay short visits to the schools. At another level,
one might see lecturers’ relation to school practice as including some ambiguity: They were
collaborating with schools yet wanted to change them, and any previous teaching experience a
student might have may or may not be considered beneficial by the lecturer. Relations with
school as a source of practical experience came through, then, as valued but complex for
lecturers and students alike.
Discussion
The complexity of relations between institutions of HE who teach preservice teachers through
alternating between theory-based and placement-based learning hinted at in our study, are
echoed in literature. In particular, Håvard’s concerns above about the range of aspects of a
teacher role which the teacher-to-be needs to make their own, echos literature which
addresses the complexity of placement learning (e.g. (Furlong & Maynard, 1995), (Evans,
1999), (Bayer, 2001)). Of prime interest here, however, are any effects on support for
students’ integration of theory and practice.
Successful uses of materials
The thrust of the lecturers' efforts was in preparing students for independent application of
previously learnt subjects in the new context of teaching at school. Our interviews indicate
ways in which this seems to work well. For example, one lecturer and her student both
mentioned, independently of each other, the study of a set of actual exam papers and a roleplay process of discussing and awarding marks to these as a highly instructive exercise.
In what ways were bringing real exam papers into that (campus) space succeeding in bridging
a gap? The student found examining the papers and getting an impression of the challenges in
assessing pupil work highly useful [Nina, p.3]. Her expectation that she would get to do
assessment during placement, however, came to nothing as there was no assessment work to
be done at that time. So while these highly portable school materials, low in contextual cues,
13
Beck and Utheim, to be presented at the SRHE conference, Brighton, 12-14 Dec. 2006
were successfully brought onto campus to be studied, the experience could have been
continued within a more specific situation, but did not.
It is also possible that the meaning for the student was not identical to that of the lecturer. The
lecturer [Kristine, p.2] had set an assignment which took students through role-play, reflection
over it, and relating it to theory, which would seem to model the kind of reflective practice
she elsewhere said she wanted to stimulate. The student, however, seemed primarily to
appreciate the possibility for literal application in a school of what they had done.
Interestingly, these were both aimed at bridging gaps, one through bringing objects onto
campus, the other through facilitating discussion in an area identified as needing bridging.
On-campus support for integrative understanding, which we above indicate that we did not
see substantial sign of during placement, seems to have been provided by the resources of an
on-line discussion room, the time for oral discussions of placement experiences, and the
assignments set for students to reflect on their experiences. Additionally, lecturers’ perception
that they provide materials which prepare students for placment, appear with their very
emphasis on independent application to be based in concerns which are closer to the world of
theory than that asked for by their three students. While the reported differences in
perceptions between students and lecturers as to whether they are sufficiently close to
placement experiences can be understood in terms of Evans’ circle (Evans, 1999), which
depicts lecturers as farthest from the experience of practice learning, and are important in their
own right, the provision of such materials nevertheless can be analysed as a deliberate effort
at bridging theory-practice gaps. Kristine’s resistance agains providing the ‘kit’ she perceives
students to be asking for is a vivid example that this can be a matter of conscious choice from
a lecturer, presumably based in different perspectives.
Organisation
A theme which reappeared in these students' depictions of the placement periods was lacks in
the coordination between the on-campus studies and the in-school experiences. Students
proposed this as an area for improvement, either as an organisational issue (to ensure
placement gave them what it was meant to) or to support integrations of theory and practice.
The transition periods between on-campus learning and experiencing the school environment
may merit more attention. While this might seem an obvious point, we wish to discuss two
aspects.
First, to the extent that it appeared to students that what aspects of teaching they became
exposed to during their school placement was a little accidental, this aspect of their experience
would perhaps seem more compatible with the purposes of the programme being enabling its
students to legitimately join exisiting communities of practice, than with improving practices
of teaching specific subjects. While the practical possibility for the PPU programme
coordinators to influence the direction of experiences during the placements may be small, we
wish to draw attention to the potential that what may appear to be simply unfortunate
mismatches between ideal and reality, may influence some students' perceptions of what are
the aims of the programme generally and in particular the placement periods.
Second, we suggest that the consequences of this 'administrative' problem may turn more
grave when, as seemed to be the case for these informants, there was little contact between the
lecturers with the visions of improvement of practice and their students during placements:
They usually shared only one or a few highly constrained meetings, about which students
complained on the one hand that the meetings did not discuss subject-related matters, and on
the other, that were they to experience problems with the placement arrangement it would be
hard to raise in that forum. In other words: If a student in placement was negatively impressed
14
Beck and Utheim, to be presented at the SRHE conference, Brighton, 12-14 Dec. 2006
by what she saw a practicing teacher do, this would presumably constitute a good opportunity
for a lecturer to discuss with the student how teaching could be done differently. Such a
student, at that point in time, would presumably be highly motivated to engage in discussions
compatible with our lecturer-informants' visions, i.e. to improve teaching practices in schools.
Yet, these are questions to be handled delicately, as student Nina reminded us [p.3]. At the
time of the interviews the possibility seemed to very real that there might be no occasion
which a student recognised as ethically appropriate to even start raising such questions with
their lecturer.
Expectation gaps: What is theory? What is practice?
The existence of a theory-practice gap was an assumption behind the interview guide. It
would be surprising if we found no data consistent with the assumption (nevertheless, whether
this is the case is of methodological interest). Further, explicit references to such gaps need to
be understood in the context of the informants all being subject to the ideas and language of
Education. Our observations about such a gap seem to come as no surprise to at least one of
our lecturer informants, who read an early version of the present paper. Our findings may
touch what seems to be common, even mundane, concerns of many teacher educators in
Norway and elsewhere). To the extent that this is the case and we have touched on issues
which are familiar to (some) teacher educators, it is important to understand the reported
difficulties.
To do so it is interesting to explore the specifics of the difficulties reported. The process of
becoming a teacher, includes for the lecturers both the placements and the theory education.
For the lecturers the work on the campus contributes to preparing for placements, by
providing both specific materials and theory. As discussed above, the materials were intended
by the lecturers as examples, while students were complaining that they were not of
immediate use.
Differences between the students and the lecturers on what are appropriate preparations for
the placement could be explained by their different foci. Lecturers seemed motivated to
support students in improving and changing education (represented by specific schools),
while students seemed motivated to try and make sense of the school they encountered and
their own situation.
While a theory-practice gap was discussed with all informants, interesting questions include
the extent to which views on what it consists of were shared, and what activities were seen as
relevant to undertake in order to approach what Kristine termed “bridging.” The lecturers’
awareness of complexity, however, appeared to us to be both a resource (such as seeing
several levels, e.g. different time horizons, at once) and a hindrance (such as accepting the
organisational necessity of paying fewer visits to their students than either they or their
students wished).
One might apply Lave and Wenger's notions of communities of practice and of legitimate
participation in these to the present situation of our informants, viewing them as (full)
members of the communities of practice of PPU lecturers and students. Yet, the appeal to
contexts outside the PPU to explain placement purposes may hint at other delineations. To
explore this aspect of the interviews we find it helpful to adopt Lave and Wenger's long-term
perspective (i.e. that they choose to view an apprentice as someone on their way to becoming
something different but related, rather than simply “being” apprentices). In terms of Lave and
Wenger's ideas of situated learning, the differences in foci could be expressed as students
seeking legitimate peripheral participation in an existing community (of school teachers),
15
Beck and Utheim, to be presented at the SRHE conference, Brighton, 12-14 Dec. 2006
while their lecturers were seeking to ensure that once they were legitimate participants they
would be contributing to changing that community.6
This perspective could explain also the observed differences between the lecturers' and the
students' perspectives on what constitutes theory, and further, the different ranges of purposes
and more generally what appears to be different time horizons.
A simple interpretation that students are primarily interested in what is before their noses,
however, would not capture the high level of reflection from the most critical student nor
explain why self development could be a key purpose in doing the placement or why a student
could experience that she learnt more teaching alone outside the studies than within it. The
cited theory cannot, we think, fully account for these findings. For now we will simply note
that the critique from these students is multi-faceted.
Equally well, the lecturers cannot be assumed to be only interested in theory. The joy in
sharing specific situations with her students displayed by Kristine, and Bjørn’s reasoning in
wanting students to experience on campus the use of the materials he offered before they
would be taking them into classrooms, both testify to interest in student experiences.
The differences of perspective on whether or not the campus taught parts of the programme
were too theoretical could be viewed in terms of Evans’ concentric circles models: The
lecturers are the furthest removed from the students’ practice learning. Yet, this model must
be supplemented by an explanation of how our informants could come to respond oppositely
to the question of whether or not practical help is given. The questions were asked fairly
similarly, and these are students of these lecturers. Inspired by social studies of science (cf.
above), we propose such an explanation in the relativity of the terms ‘theory’ and ‘practice:’
Each of these terms primary indicates that it is not the other. Using the term ‘practice’ (e.g. in
our question, indeed in the invite to the interview) brings the dyad into play but what it
specifically means depends on your position in Evans’ circles, or more generally: on the
conventions of the specific situation you are in. In other words, lecturers and PPU students
speak within different contexts. This might be considered a problem by lecturers who wish
students to understand what they are trying to nourish in them.
For the discussion of potential technology usages it is worth noting that the meaning of a
placement period cannot be assumed to be given. It may or may not be the case that more
information about or in-practice demonstrations of the lecturers' perspectives would alter that
but improved communication might perhaps help students' understand their lecturers'
6
Note that for the time being we are not discussing whether or not the placement period could be viewed as
apprenticeship. If we were to go down that line we would immediately note the complex configuration of the
relation with the would-be ‘master’: To whom could the students be seen as apprenticed to: either the lecturer or
placement mentor, or both? The PPU placement did include observation, which is considered part of the
historical and some would say contemporary model of apprenticeship learning (cf papers in Nielsen & Kvale
1999). To what extent, however does apprenticeship assume shared experiences with their ‘master’? The
interviewed PPU students shared experiences with one or some other students they taught together with, and
presumably shared some experiences with their placement mentor and others. They seem to have lost, however,
a previous opportunity to share placement experiences as experiences with lecturers beyond a general meeting
where, according to two students, little was or could be communicated. Students later reports on placement
experiences would not provide lecturers with the teaching opportunity vividly described by Kristine. Only
sharing in problems with the placement arrangement had been accounted for in the current arrangement, and that
too only partly.
An interesting question for ICT support would be to what extent their usages could enable lecturers to become
‘masters’ to whom students in placement could be apprenticed, and the meaning of time and place for the
‘master’ performance vs. the ‘apprentice’ performance. One lecturer-informant told us how he lets the students
experience for themselves, on campus, before placement, use of the teaching materials he wishes them to be
familiar enough with to adopt in and to their own teaching. This is perhaps the closest we have come to seeing a
(distributed) master-apprentice relationship. (An interesting question, however, is whether or not the
‘apprentices’ received feedback from him or were engaged in discussion with him after trying out for themselves
these materials.)
16
Beck and Utheim, to be presented at the SRHE conference, Brighton, 12-14 Dec. 2006
perspectives on it. Whether the students choose to adopt the same perspective may be a
different question.
Situated Learning, boundaries, and irreconciled views
Above, we suggested that an explanation of the differences between students and lecturers’
perspectives on receiving directly usable material could be that during placement, students
were in a position of seeking legitimate peripheral participation in an existing community of
practice. In contrast, their campus lecturers wished them to be equipped to alter the
community of practice as they in the longer term gradually approached full participantion.
Our usage of Lave and Wenger’s theory of situated learning, however, merits some further
discussion.
While using Lave and Wenger’s exploration of situated learning (Lave & Wenger, 1991), the
contrast we pose seems to go to the heart of discussions in Norway (cf. (Østerud, 2004)) and
elsewhere (Sfard, 1998) about the scope of its application. Our findings of the lecturers’ long
term and wide perspectives on the students’ placements seem consistent with an argument that
sees this view of situated learning as applicable to apprentice-style learning situations (only).
On the other hand, our findings seem also consistent with an analysis which sees both the oncampus and in-school learning experiences as situated, each in their specific environment.
The latter could go some of the way towards explaining the students’ apparent difficulty in
understanding, accepting and/or applying7 the lecturers’ wider horizon for their placement
experiences. Our prime interest, however, is in the transitions between these learning
environments.
Our discussion so far – and indeed the interview guide itself – is based on an assumption of
clear communication (in this case, of the lecturers’ purposes with subjecting students to
school environments during their degree) as an ideal, and as a source of greater harmony
between campus tutors and studens about the meaning of the learning taking place during
school placement. This may be so. Yet, some of the critique from the students – especially the
value of teaching experiences independently of the placement, and what we might refer to as
some impatience with theory – raises the question of whether the relative independence of the
placement from the PPU programme could at least for some students be a motivator for
undertaking the PPU certificate (after all, PPU students already hold a degree.) To the extent
this is the case, the relation between these students and their lecturers is built on an underlying
conflict.
Boundary objects (Star & Griesemer, 1989) seems relevant both to understand this particular
subset of concerns. While exploring the co-existence of heterogeneity and collaboration,
Leigh Star (with James Griesemer) proposed a model which explains one way in which
different communities of practice live competently with embedded conflicts of interest, or
conflicts of points of view. Her concept of boundary objects ((Star & Griesemer, 1989),
summarised in (Star, 1992)) refers to objects which in use take on different meanings for
different communities and which permit a measure of collaboration without resolving the
differences of meaning. The concept of boundary objects was applied in education e.g. by
(Østerud, 2004) ch5, to explore processes of change in schools upon the (attempted)
introduction of new technologies.
7
The interview transcripts do not allow us to disambiguate between these or other potential sources of the
differences we report, neither does the situated learning theory with which we are familiar (though it can provide
pointers towards educated guesses).
17
Beck and Utheim, to be presented at the SRHE conference, Brighton, 12-14 Dec. 2006
In the present discussion, boundary objects are of interest as they address (or sidestep) the
theory question raised above, of whether or not situated learning could/should be considered
as bounded: They provide a model which may explain how lecturers and students (as well as
other participants who have not been discussed here) may continue to collaborate through e.g.
placement periods, without reconciling their views on what placements mean or what their
purposes are. The critiques of some articulate students may be taken to suggest that the
placements themselves may be acting as boundary experiences which allow PPU students and
their on-campus lecturers to agree on the importance of school placements, while retaining
well-reasoned, different views on why. Similarly, when lecturer Kristine’s bringing of real
exam papers into the campus classroom was considered a positive example by a student too,
then to the extent that lecturer and student appreciated this work task for different reasons,
these exam papers may have been acting as boundary objects. There is no assumptions from
this perspective that they would need to agree on why this was a useful exercise.
We suggest, then, that a perspective such as that provided by paying attention to potential
boundary objects may be of use in side-stepping the issue of the boundedness or not of the
notion of situated learning, at least in our focus on the transitions between theory-based and
experience-based learning environments.
Conclusions
Our approach has raised issues of how theory and practice intersect, in particular what support
student teachers were provided with from their academic teachers (lecturers). We have not
addressed any support they might receive for integrating practice and theory from their
placement mentor or otherwise during placement.
While our interest in this question straddles several concerns, the theoretical aspect is to shed
light on, among other theories, those of learning, in particular of learning environments.
Discussions in the literature of the problems of Apprenticeship Learning as an approch and
how it relates to “scholastic” models of teaching and learning demonstrate a host of questions
raised (e.g. papers in (Nielsen & Kvale, 1999)). Discussions of placement learning do not
seem to dismiss the teaching and learning taking place within HE institutions; one book
explicitly acknowledges the importance of both (Furlong & Maynard, 1995). Yet, there is a
lack of empirical studies (that we have been able to uncover) on the practices of integration of
theory and practice. This may reflect back on the theories of practice the problem that by
focusing on one aspect, they contribute to maintaining a schism between the two.
Further explorations of the practices of straddling the two traditions of learning can expand
our views of learning and of teaching. Practical questions such as what material and
conceptual objects are in use and how these seem to improve or impede student learning
and/or integration of theory with practice experiences can aid greatly. The present discussion
has suggested some of the directions this might be taken.
Further work
In the present material, further exploration of body-centered questions and of theory-based
learning would be interesting as well as bodies and technologies. Our study continues by
expanding our interviews to lecturers and students of two other departments, and by further
analyses of the usages of intermediary objects in the transitions between on-campus and
placement learning environments and the potentials for supporting these.
18
Beck and Utheim, to be presented at the SRHE conference, Brighton, 12-14 Dec. 2006
Acknowledgements
We appreciate the contributions of the six informants in giving their time and sharing their views with
us, as well as two of them reading through transcripts. The study and the questions for the interview
guide were developed by Beck, while Utheim conducted and transcribed the interviews. Hanne K.E.L.
Beck provided substantial editorial assistance.
References
Bayer, M. (2001). Praktikkens skjulte læreplan. Praktikuddannelse - empirisk undersøgt i
pædagoguddannelsen. [The hidden curriculum of placements. An empirical examination of
placements in teacher training.]. København: Danmarks Pædagogiske Universitet.
Evans, D. (1999). Practice Learning in the Caring Professions. Aldershot: Ashgate
Publishing Limited.
Furlong, J., & Maynard, T. (1995). Mentoring student teachers. The growth of professional
knowledge. London and New York: Routledge.
Haraway, D. J. (1991). Situated Knowledges: The Science Question in Feminism and the
Privilege of Partial Perspective. In Simians, Cyborgs, and Women: the reinvention of nature
(pp. 183-202). London: Free Associations Books.
Lave, J., & Wenger, E. (1991). Situated learning: legitimate peripheral participation.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Nielsen, K., & Kvale, S. (Eds.). (1999). Mesterlære. Læring som social praksis. København:
Hans Reitzels Forlag.
Rasmussen, J. (1999). Mesterlære og den almene pædagogik. In K. Nielsen & S. Kvale (Eds.),
Mesterlære. Læring som social praksis (pp. 199-218). København: Hans Reitzels Forlag.
Sfard, A. (1998). On Two Metaphors of Education and the Danger of Choosing Just One.
Educational Researcher, 27(2), 4-13.
Star, S. L. (1992). The Trojan Door: Organizations, Work, and the "Open Black Box".
Systems Practice, 5(4), 395-410.
Star, S. L., & Griesemer, J. R. (1989). Institutional ecology, 'translations' and boundary
objects: Amateurs and professionals in Berkeley's Museum of Vertebrate Zoology, 1907-39.
Social Studies of Science, 19(3), 387-420.
Østerud, S. (2004). Utdanning for informasjonssamfunnet. Den tredje vei. [Education for
Knowledge Society. The Third Option]. Oslo: Universitetsforlaget.
19
Beck and Utheim, to be presented at the SRHE conference, Brighton, 12-14 Dec. 2006
Appendix I: Interview Guide
This is a translation of the interview guide used with the teachers. (The student version is
similar.)
Q1. Background
1.1
How is the programme organized: What roles does practical work play? (How many
and how long periods of work practice.)
1.2
Is it an advantage that students have practical work experience?
Q2. Purposes
We find it very interesting that teachers/the programme have prioritised time for students to
gain practical experience.
2.1
What is the main purpose?
(official purposes and what you personally see as the purpose)? Other purposes?
2.2
How is/are the purpose(s) communicated to students?
(Through what channels, what, and by whom: before the practical work, during, after?)
Q3. Practice based vs. theory based aspects of the programme
To what extent does the programme include:
3.1
Preparations for the practical work?
What do teachers do to prepare students? Are ICTs being used for this?
What do students do – to what extent are they active? Is compulsory time put aside for this
purpose?
3.2
During (practice):
3.2.1 What do teachers do to ensure that students learn what the teachers think they
need to learn? How common is contact between teacher and student the same
day, where student tells teacher of experiences and receives response? (Are
computers used for this, or could they be used?)
3.2.2 To what extent is it part of the programme that students share experiences with
each other? (Is there time put aside for this? If not, do you know if students meet
for this purpose of their own accord?)
Are ICTs being used? (Could they be used?)
3.3
Students’ later integrative reflection (i.e. student expresses in writing or orally about
their view on the relation between (some) practice based and (some) theory based parts of the
programme)?
-How is this organized?
Q4. Tools for connecting experience and theory
4.1
What objects, forms, sketches, documents etc are being used which help students
make connections between their own experiences and theory before, during, and after the
practice period? (Other than what is already mentioned.) Are there examples, copies that we
can have?
20
Beck and Utheim, to be presented at the SRHE conference, Brighton, 12-14 Dec. 2006
4.2
To what extent are those (items) you are using made specifically for teaching
purposes, and to what extent are they objects whose usage form part of ordinary professional
practice?
4.3
Are some of these electronic? What do you think about that?
4.4
If electronic: What works well? What does not? (uncover: specific experiences)
Q5. Bodily, cognitive, cultural etc abilities
5.1 What bodily functions, cognitive abilities and cultural competences are needed for a
student to complete the practice?
E.g. would it be possible to complete if you had to walk with a stick or needed an electric
wheelchair, if you were partially sighted, were dyslectic or if you were completely deaf?
To what extent does the practice period assume that the student is fluent in speaking
Norwegian and familiar with Norwegian cultural codes?
5.2
What happens with students who do not fully have the required abilities? Is there
support for them, or are there alternative ways for them to learn what they are meant to learn
from such experiences? If not, would it be possible? (please expand)
Q6. Future changed practices?
6.1
What advice would you give to someone who was going to change one thing in the
way practice periods form part of the programme? (please expand)
6.2
Specifically, would the purposes need to be rethought or communicated better or is
this satisfactory?
6.3
Is there a need for better integration? If so, how (e.g. through use of ICTs)?
6.4
If there are requirements to bodily, cultural etc skills, how might these be addressed?
21
Beck and Utheim, to be presented at the SRHE conference, Brighton, 12-14 Dec. 2006
Appendix II: Original quotes
Here are listed the original Norwegian for many of the quotes in the paper. Passages which we
found particularly difficult to retain the sense of in the translation are provided in full. Page
numbers refer to the interview transcript in Norwegian.
1.
“Det er den beste undervisningssituasjonen vi har, for da har vi en klasse hvor en
student underviser og så sitter en fra ILS å og ser på. Tidligere var det godkjent/ikke
godkjent det er det nå også, men vi er jo ikke å besøker alle, men da kunne du snakke om
alle valgene som foretas og diskutere hvorfor gjorde du sånn, og da du kom dit så ga du
deg, og hvorfor det. Og det er på mange måter den beste undervisningssituasjonen vi kan
ha, det er disse (…) når du har noe konkret å forholde deg til.” (Kristine, p.5)
2.
“Selvutvikling, lære og bli vant til hvordan det er å takle 30 tenåringer”, ”..ikke lett å
ta fra bøkene og få det til i praksis, da.” (Fredrik, p.2)
3.
“Jeg er jo forholdsvis ny i gamet slik at jeg ikke kjenner hele den historiske
bakgrunnen til dette studiet. Men det ligger i sakens natur, dette er et alternativ til den
integrerte teori/praksisutdanningen som man har på allmenlærerutdanningen på
høgskolen.” (Håvard, p.5)
4.
“Jeg har noen aspekter jeg vil trekke frem, det gjelder dette med, det spesielle ved
faget, [fag]lærerrollen. Så det har vært mitt primære fokus i en forberedelse til praksis.
Pluss dette å gi noen sånne håndgrep, hvordan introduserer man temaer i klasserommet,
og hvilke valgmuligheter har man når man skal starte opp et nytt tema og komme i gang
med dette.” (Håvard, p.7)
5.
“Og, det jeg også prata litt med både veileder og fagdidaktiker om, var at det skulle
vært et seminar om hvordan man beveger seg i et klasserom, sånne enkle ting som det.”
”Litt teknisk rett og slett, men ganske viktig. Kanskje det er ting som man antar at man
kan, eller burde kunne kanskje når man står i praksissituasjonen, eller at man burde kunne
, men som på Blindern, i teoriverden, ikke lærer så mye om”.” …det høres så enkelt ut, og
så er det ikke så enkelt.” (Fredrik, p.6)
6.
“Det vi veldig ofte gjør er at vi prøver ut en del ting.” (Kristine, p.7)
7.
“Og når vi jobber med kultur ser vi også på utdrag av tekster, bilder og jobber med
hva slags type; er dette stereotypier…” (Kristine, p.8)
8.
“Du leser om hvordan du skal få roen i klassen og hvordan drive god klasseledelse i
teoribøkene, men det står ikke hvordan du faktisk ”skal” eller ” kan” gjøre det.” (Fredrik,
p.6)
9.
“det viser jo en medmenneskelig interesse.” (Fredrik, p.5)
10.
“Møtet handler mest om praktiske ting, ikke fag. Det hadde vært greit å ta opp faglige
ting på et slikt møte.” (Fredrik, p.4)
11.
“Vi fikk spørsmål om hvordan vi hadde det, om vi trivdes, og om samarbeidet med
skolen gikk bra. Ingenting faglig, som jeg kan huske.” (Merete, p.13)
12.
“Og så har vi nok et sammenbindende element, som er mappeoppgavene. De skal
knytte broer mellom teori og praksis, og mellom faget og klasserommet, og teorien.”
(Kristine, p.2)
22
Beck and Utheim, to be presented at the SRHE conference, Brighton, 12-14 Dec. 2006
13.
“I hvertfall synes jeg at teoridelen har vært mye mer interessant etter praksis.”
(Merete, p.3)
14.
“Nei…det kan kanskje være tenkt sånn. Det har vært noen teoretiske skjemaer men de
er jo teoretiske. Får ikke dratt de med i praksis noe særlig. Men de ligger jo i bakhodet,
så kanskje jeg kommer til å bruke de senere når jeg er ute i yrket. (…) Men kommer nok
til å bruke dem mest indirekte.” (Nina, p.5)
15.
“Det har vært egentlig fint å ha litt teori om det etterpå. Eller… på en måte synes jeg
det er fint å ha teorien i forkant, sånn (at) du er litt forberedt når du kommer ut i praksis.
Men når du har teorien i etterkant så blir det litt mer sånn at du har… litt mer kjøtt på
beina for å kunne diskutere det, da. Så… akkurat her synes jeg det var fint å ha det i
etterkant.” (Merete, p.3)
16.
“Man trekker kanskje litt tråder fra det man allerede har vært gjennom på skolen, i
teoriperioden da, men…jeg har litt vanskeligheter med å se de linjene, at de er klare
da...de ligger kanskje bak der, sånn bevisst, ubevisst. Men det er ikke sånn at…i hvert fall
ikke den gangen, da tenkte jeg ikke sånn at’ ja nå skal jeg ta det og så skal jeg bare bruke
det her og så går det så greit’. Sånn tenkte jeg ikke da. Jeg har reflektert ganske mye etter
kortpraksis og før langpraksis, før og etter nyttår, reflekterte jeg ganske mye på hva jeg
har erfart i praksis i forhold til teori for eksempel ..og egne erfaringer. Og hva jeg burde
gjøre for å forbedre min rolle som lærer. [A: mellom de to praksisperiodene der?] Mellom
de to praksisperiodene. Det slags pusterommet der, det synes jeg var *ganske* bra. At
man har delt opp praksisen på den måten, synes jeg var ganske bra for da får man faktisk
et lite pusterom og tenkt over, og reflektert.” (Fredrik, p.4)
17.
“Personlig har jeg hatt mest utbytte av, det er…noe de startet med i høst 05, det som
heter et felles didaktisk rom [A: akkurat]. Man prøver å blande litt didaktikk med
pedagogikk og litt praktiske erfaringer, og man tar litt mer sånn, prater om litt mer
konkrete eksempler [A: var det før praksis eller?]. Det har gått både før og etter praksis.”
(Fredrik, p.2)
18.
“Praksisen er, det jeg vil si, absolutt det viktigste ved hele studiet. Hadde det ikke vært
for det, hadde jeg synes at studiet var meningsløst, rett og slett. Det… synes jeg. Det er
kanskje der jeg har lært mest egentlig, hva det vil si å faktisk fungere som lærer. Så
praksisen, den er viktig.” (Fredrik, p.1)
19.
“for min del er studiet veldig todelt; det er praksis og det er teori. Og jeg lærer helt
forskjellige ting i de to” (Merete, p.13)
20.
“Teori og praksis stemmer ikke.” (Nina, p.1)
21.
“…det er så mye fine teorier og ideer til hva man skal gjøre og ikke gjøre, alt hva
eleven har krav på. Det virker som læreren har veldig lite spillerom til slutt.” (Nina, p.5)
22.
“å håndtere dette mangfoldet det tror jeg mange studenter opplever som ganske
utfordrende” (Håvard, p.4)
23.
“...jeg har savnet litt mer inngående metodetips; forskjellige former for undervisning,
hvilke metoder man bør bruke i hvilke situasjoner. Det er et ganske stort gap mellom
teorien og praksisen...men det virker som mange pedagoger er redde for å si for mye,
legge føringer på oss da...men jeg synes de er for redde, for vi får rett og slett for lite tips
og veiledning, og for lite kobling mellom teorien og praksisen. Det er to sider av den
saken.” (Merete, p.12)
23
Beck and Utheim, to be presented at the SRHE conference, Brighton, 12-14 Dec. 2006
24.
“Selv er jeg mye mer opptatt av at de skal få et kritisk og reflektert blikk på hvorfor de
gjør ting, ikke bare opptatthet av hva-nivået, hva skal jeg gjøre nå, men hvorfor er det jeg
gjør det jeg gjør og hvor det kan rotfestes i teorien.” (Kristine, p.2)
25.
“Du har det alltid fra studentene at de vil ha praktiske tips. Mange av dem har aldri
stått i et klasserom før, og de leter etter en sånn Røde Kors koffert har jeg følelsen av,
førstehjelpsutstyr [ler], hvordan overleve i de første timene i en klasse.(Kristine, p.2)
26.
“Jeg gir dem ikke denne Røde Kors kofferten, jeg gjør ikke det.(ler)” (Kristine, p.8)
27.
“Vi skal jo ikke fortelle studentene hva de skal gjøre…” (Kristine, p.13)
28.
“Det jeg ønsker er å forandre skolevirkeligheten med de fremtidige lærerne og
elevene.” (Bjørn, p.2)
29.
“Jeg har vært her 28 år snart, og jeg ser endringer, men de drømmene jeg hadde da jeg
begynte er ennå ikke fullført… så kampen fortsetter. Den evige kamp.” (Bjørn, p.3)
30.
“En fordel både ja og nei. Har de vært ute i skolen før kan det være en fordel de
kjenner skoleterminologien og hva som foregår på skolen, det er ikke en fremmed verden
for dem, og så videre, men det er også en ulempe. Spesielt når det gjelder
deltidsundervisning, men også heltid, hvor studentene har vært både 5, 10, og 15 år i
skolen før, og noen av de har kjørt seg ned i veldig dype hjulspor når det gjelder
undervisningsformer og fagforståelse. Og da er det vanskelig for dem å komme opp av de
sporene. Så den veldig lange sammenhengende praksisen er ikke nødvendigvis en fordel,
snarere tvert i mot. Men hvis de har hatt vikariater i studietiden eller liknende, så er det
bare fint.” (Bjørn, p.2)
31.
“A: Er det en fordel at studenter har erfaring, har jobbet som lærer eller hatt praksis i
skolen før?
H: [latter] Det er et fiffig spørsmål. Hvis jeg skulle svare på det, skulle jeg ha forsket på
det.” (Håvard, p.4)
32.
“vi har altså mikroundervisning som en del av forberedelsene til praksis, da blir de
filma på, de kjører undervisning på fem seks minutter og så blir de filma, og spiller det og
kommenterer det i en gruppe med studenter og en lærer. Da var det en av studentene som
var veldig spent for han hadde hatt ett år praksis før han begynte her og ventet at han
hadde lagt seg til en masse unoter som vi skulle prøve å plukke av han. Det var hans
forventning. Men det var ingen unoter. Det var helt strøkent. Så det var morsomt.
Så bortsett fra den muligheten at man kan innarbeide vaner som ikke er av det gode, så
tror jeg rolleutøvelse i klasserommet det er ofte en terskel, det kan være det, for studenter
som i hvert fall ikke har noe erfaring med gruppeledelse, det å forholde seg til en gruppe
og så videre. Man nøler med å ta rommet i besittelse, og fremfor alt dette med å markere,
treningen i å vite når sier jeg stopp med hvilken fysisk fremtoning, hvilken stemmebruk,
hvor mye autoritet har jeg, i hvilken grad har jeg prøvd den ut, hvordan signaliserer jeg
den autoriteten.
Sånne forhold som det tror jeg kanskje tar tid å utforske samtidig som man skal ha hele
det faglige og den metodiske didaktiske tilretteleggingen, og ha oppmerksomhet mot det
også.” (Håvard, p.4)
24