A Practicum Turn in Teacher Education (Matts Mattsson, Tor Vidar Eilertsen etc.)

A Practicum Turn in Teacher Education

PEDAGOGY, EDUCATION AND PRAXIS

Volume 6

Editorial Board
Stephen Kemmis, Charles Sturt University, Australia
Matts Mattsson, University of Tromsø, Norway
Petra Ponte, Utrecht University of Applied Sciences, the Netherlands
Karin Rönnerman, University of Gothenburg, Sweden

Advisory Board
Jan Ax, University of Amsterdam, the Netherlands
Wilfred Carr, University of Sheffield, UK
Eli Moksnes Furu, University of Tromsø, Norway
Inge Johansson, Stockholm University, Sweden
Petri Salo, Åbo Academy University, Finland
Tracey Smith, Charles Sturt University, Australia

The Pedagogy, Education and Praxis Series will foster a conversation of traditions
in which different European and Anglo-American perspectives on ‘pedagogy’,
‘education’ and ‘praxis’ are problematised and explored. By opening constructive
dialogue between different theoretical and intellectual traditions, the Series aims,
in part, at recovering and extending the resources of these distinctive traditions for
education in contemporary times. The Series aims to contribute to (1) theoretical
developments in the fields of pedagogy, education and praxis; (2) the development
of praxis in the pedagogical professions; and (3) the development of strategies
capable of resisting and counteracting contemporary tendencies towards the
technologisation, standardisation, bureaucratisation, commodification and de-
moralisation of education.

A Practicum Turn in Teacher Education

Edited by

Matts Mattsson
University of Tromsø, Norway
Tor Vidar Eilertsen
University of Tromsø, Norway
and
Doreen Rorrison
Charles Sturt University, Australia

A C.I.P. record for this book is available from the Library of Congress.

ISBN: 978-94-6091-709-7 (paperback)
ISBN: 978-94-6091-778-3 (hardback)
ISBN: 978-94-6091-711-0 (e-book)

Published by: Sense Publishers,
P.O. Box 21858,
3001 AW Rotterdam,
The Netherlands
www.sensepublishers.com

Printed on acid-free paper

All Rights Reserved © 2011 Sense Publishers
No part of this work may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted
in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, microfilming,
recording or otherwise, without written permission from the Publisher, with the
exception of any material supplied specifically for the purpose of being entered
and executed on a computer system, for exclusive use by the purchaser of the
work.

CONTENTS

Series Introduction: Pedagogy, Education and Praxis vii
Stephen Kemmis, Matts Mattsson, Petra Ponte and Karin Rönnerman ix
xiii
Foreword
Susan Groundwater-Smith, Australia 1

Acknowledgements 19
45
Introduction
69
1. What is Practice in Teacher Education? 91
Matts Mattsson, Sweden, Tor Vidar Eilertsen, Norway and 113
Doreen Rorrison, Australia

PART I: Border Crossing and Narratives

2. Border Crossing in Practicum Research: Reframing how we talk
about practicum learning
Doreen Rorrison, Australia

3. Memorable Encounters: Learning narratives from preservice
teachers´ practicum
Sirkku Männikkö-Barbutiu, Sweden, Doreen Rorrison, Australia,
with Lin Zeng, China

PART II: Different Perspectives and National Contexts

4. Learning Beyond the Traditional: Preservice teachers as partners
in school development
Tor Vidar Eilertsen, Eli Moksnes Furu and Karin Rørnes, Norway

5. Integrative Pedagogy in Practicum: Meeting the second order
paradox of teacher education
Hannu L. T. Heikkinen, Päivi Tynjälä and Ulla Kiviniemi, Finland

6. Situated Professionalism in Special Education Practice: Educating
preservice teachers for special education/inclusive education
Lotte Hedegaard-Sørensen and Susan Tetler, Denmark

v

CONTENTS 131
147
7. Exploring the Self as part of Practice: Reflections on students´ 169
practice learning from the social work perspective
Helene Brodin, Sweden 189
211
8. Preservice Teachers´ Reflections on Practice in Relation to Theories
Peter Emsheimer and Nilani Ljunggren De Silva, Sweden 223
245
9. Assessing Teacher Competency During Practicum 249
Anders Jönsson and Matts Mattsson, Sweden

PART III: Reflections and Conclusions

10. Reflections from a ‘Dutch’ Perspective
Piet Hein van de Ven, the Netherlands

11. Reflections from an ‘Australian’ Perspective
Roslin Brennan Kemmis and Sharon Ahern, Australia

12. Conclusions and Challenges
Matts Mattsson, Sweden, Tor Vidar Eilertsen, Norway and
Doreen Rorrison, Australia

Contributors

Index

vi

STEPHEN KEMMIS, MATTS MATTSSON, PETRA PONTE
AND KARIN RÖNNERMAN

SERIES INTRODUCTION

Pedagogy, Education and Praxis

The ‘Pedagogy, Education and Praxis’ series arose from shared concerns among
educational researchers from Australia, the Netherlands, the Nordic countries and
the United Kingdom about the relationships between different traditions of
education and educational research that inform our work. The meanings of terms
like ‘pedagogy’ and ‘praxis’ are contested within European research traditions and
Anglo-American traditions and even more confusingly contested across or between
traditions. These words, shared across languages and intellectual traditions, inhabit
different spaces in different languages, with different characteristic ways of
behaving in each.

What ‘pedagogy’, ‘education’ and ‘praxis’ mean in Dutch or English or
Swedish – where variants of these words occur – cannot be translated precisely and
without remainder into another language. The series aims to encourage a
‘conversation of traditions’ in which the voices of different traditions can be heard,
and different perspectives can come into view. In this way, readers may glimpse
beyond the English in which the conversation is conducted to the rich intellectual
traditions presented by contributors to the Series. We hope to use these key ideas –
pedagogy, education and praxis – as windows through which we may see, even if
darkly, into the rooms of other languages and traditions, and to learn what we can
about those other traditions. The international collaborative project ‘Pedagogy,
Education and Praxis’, of which this Series is an expression, has three kinds of
aims:

1. theoretical aims concerning the exploration and critical development of key
concepts and associated understandings, from different educational and research
traditions, of pedagogy, educational science and educational studies, and social
and educational praxis and practice;

2. practical aims concerning the quality and transformation of educational praxis
in settings including education, teacher education and the continuing
professional development of teachers, in relation to a variety of contemporary
educational problems and issues, as they emerge in a variety of educational
contexts at different levels of education and in different national contexts; and

3. strategic aims of
a. encouraging the dialogue between different traditions of theory, research and
practice in education;

vii

KEMMIS, MATTSSON, PONTE & RÖNNERMAN

b. enhancing awareness about the origins and formation of our own (and
others´) presuppositions and understandings as participants in such dialogues;
and

c. fostering collaboration and the development of networks between scholars
interested in these problems and issues across traditions.

The volumes in the series are intended as contributions to this dialogue. Some aim
to foster this dialogue by opening and exploring contemporary educational
contexts, problems and issues within one country or tradition to readers from other
countries and traditions. Other volumes aim to foster dialogue by bringing
together, to address a common topic, authors and contributions from different
countries and traditions. We believe that this endeavour will renew and revitalise
some old conceptual resources, and make some, old or transformed, accessible as
new resources for educational theory and practice in the international
conversations, conferences and collaborations which constitute the globalised
educational research communities of today.

Stephen Kemmis, Charles Sturt University, Australia
Matts Mattsson, University of Tromsø, Norway

Petra Ponte, Utrecht University of Applied Sciences,
the Netherlands, Honorary Professor, University of Sydney, Australia

Karin Rönnerman, University of Gothenburg, Sweden

viii

SUSAN GROUNDWATER-SMITH

FOREWORD TO A PRACTICUM TURN IN TEACHER
EDUCATION

In an extended interview with Philip Winter (Winter, 2011) Gert Biesta put into
words the very essence of the beautiful risk of education that seeks to capture what
the child is and what the child must become. Biesta draws us into the concept of
‘coming into presence’ that he takes to always mean “coming into the presence of
others” (p.2). He argues that “we do not produce our students; we are there to teach
them – just as we do not make our children; they are born to us” (p.4). Thus
education is not about a production line, governed by inputs and outcomes, but
comprises a series of complex processes grounded in human subjectivity and
mediated by such functions as qualifications, that is to say the domains of
knowledge, skills and dispositions; and socialisation, that relate to becoming part
of existing orders (social, political, cultural, religious, professional and so on).
While Biesta has in mind the education of young people, principally in schools, his
words can be said to echo the essential force of this important book that asks us to
consider the development of wise professional practice through initial teacher
education in the context of the practicum where teacher education students ‘come
into the presence’ of their professional colleagues who will help shape and mentor
them in readiness for well considered practice.

In its opening and closing chapters the book articulates its principal aims, these
being: to explore professional practice knowledge and the ways our understandings
impact upon the design and enactment of what I refer to as “the practicum
curriculum”; detailing collaborative inquiries that may contribute to a better
apprehension of the practicum experience from the perspectives of key stakeholders;
and, to make a theoretical contribution to the study of the practicum per se.

The nature of professional practice knowledge and its relationship to the
construction of a practicum curriculum is rendered problematic throughout the
various chapters. Writers challenge us to consider the nexus between the epistemic
and the enacted. They argue, in a variety of contexts, to re-consider the borders that
are too often established between the two and to provide for more productive
conversations around the learning that results from engagement in the practicum.

There is a consistency between writers regarding the nature of practice
knowledge. Drawing upon Aristotelian conceptions of: epistƝmƝ; phronƝsis, that is,
the ability to act wisely based upon self understanding; and,praxis, with its focus
on moral and ethical choice, the case is made for the boundaries between these to
be so porous that they can be said to have dissolved. Knowledge is simultaneously
developed about practice and in practice. More importantly, there is a recognition
that the context of practice should be better understood through the concept of

ix

FOREWORD

practice architectures. The writers draw upon the work of Schatzki (2002) and
Kemmis & Grootenboer (2008) to enable us to understand the power of the
sayings, doings and relatings that develop in various sites of practice that may
govern how particular interactions evolve and can even become solidified. It is

the way these practice architectures are constructed [that] shapes practice in
its cultural-discursive, social-political and material-economic dimensions,
giving substance and form to what is and can be actually said and done, by,
with and for whom (Kemmis & Grootenboer,2008: 58).

It is interesting that the discussion across chapters relates to what is seen as ‘the
practicum turn’ in relation to the conversations that may be made about practicum
learning. Zeichner (2011) in his contribution to the final publication of Practical
Experiences in Professional Education traces the discussion of the disconnect
between campus and school based components of teacher education programs over
a period of three decades and beyond. He concludes

Since the early days of teacher education programs in colleges and
universities in the U. S. scholars have argued against unguided school
experience and for carefully planned and purposeful experiences based upon
the quality of teacher learning that is associated with each (p.50).

In the same publication I make the point that professional learning is complex and
diffuse and that professional knowledge formation is a burgeoning, participatory
enterprise (Groundwater-Smith, 2011). Some years before Groundwater-Smith,
Deer, Sharp and Marsh (1996) made the point that in many senses workplace
learning for teachers in-situ can also be seen as a form of practicum wherein the
“learning conversation” about practice can take place (p. 33). So, perhaps we might
conceive of recent thinking about the practicum as less of a ‘turn’ and more of a
better informed and gathering force for development and improvement.

Clearly, all of the contributors to this book have a concern for and commitment
to matters associated with ‘quality’; but not quality as it is too often understood as
little more than a marketing tool. Chapter 3, for example, makes reference to the
Swedish term värdegrund, that is the ‘value base’ for education. Hamilton (2005)
suggests that there is something paradoxical about the employment of the word
‘quality’ in this context in that it is central to the education enterprise but missing
from the language of working teachers. He argues that quality is not a ‘free-
standing accessory’ that can be ‘bolted onto’ ordinary education but must be
deeply understood as signifying defensible and situated practices that enhance
teaching and learning. In this way quality requires human reasoning in a context
that is authentically enlightened.

Enlightenment is illuminated throughout the book via a range of narrative
enquiries that range across continents and hemispheres. Polkinghorne (2007)
reminds us that those who employ carefully conceived qualitative methods can be
seen as reformists:

The social science reformists, including narrative researchers, held that social
science needed to explore and develop knowledge about areas of the human

x

FOREWORD

realm that fell outside the limits of what had conventionally been thought to
be accessible to validation. These areas included people´s experienced
meanings of their life events and activities. Exploration in these new areas
required the development of new approaches for the validation of findings
about these areas (2007: 484).

This application to new ways of thinking seems to me to be particularly pertinent
to the conception of the book itself that is not merely celebratory, but is an important
critical text that embodies: trust and responsibility; professional exchange based upon
a parity of esteem; participation and learning. While it reiterates fundamental
principles it also introduces us to new ideas such as faded scaffolding, that
adumbrates the structures and functions of the school as a site of the social and
school hijacking from the Norwegian concept ‘skoleovertakelse’ that permits the
initial teacher education student to ‘take over’ the mentoring teacher´s work.

Altogether, the book makes a contribution, not only to our understanding of the
design and enactment of a more liberatory practicum curriculum, but also
interrupts conventional discourse about the provision of professional learning more
broadly. It acts to open up our thinking and provide the spaces to think differently.

REFERENCES

Groundwater-Smith, S., Deer, C., Sharp, H. & March, P. (1996). The practicum as workplace learning:
A multi-mode approach to teacher education. Australian Journal of Teacher Education, 21(2)
pp. 29–41

Groundwater-Smith, S. (2011). Illuminating partnerships in professional education: Critical inquiry and
workplace learning. In J. Millwater, L. Ehrich & D. Beutel (Eds.) Practical Experiences in
Professional Education: A transdisciplinary approach. Brisbane: Post Pressed, pp. 61–72

Hamilton, D. (2005) Bringing quality back into teaching.onlineassessment.nu/onlineas_webb/
contact_us/.../David/quality030126.doc Accessed 5th July, 2011

Kemmis, S. & Grootenboer, P. (2008). Situating praxis in practice: Practice architechtures and the
cultural, social and material conditions for practice. In S. Kemmis & T. Smith (Eds.) Enabling
practice Challenges for Education. Rotterdam: Sense Publishers.

Polkinghorne (2007). Validity issues in narrative research. Qualitative Inquiry 13(4) 471–486
Schatzki, T. R. (2002). The site of the social: A philosophical account of the constitution of social life

and change. University Park: Pennsylvania State University Press.
Winter, P. (2011). Coming into the world, uniqueness and the beautiful risk of education: An interview

with Gert Biesta by Philip Winter. Stud Philos Educ published online 29 May, 2011
http://www.springerlink.com/content/72831m0u14112482/fulltext.pdf accessed 5th July, 2011
Zeichner, K. (2011). Rethinking the connections between campus based courses and field experiences
in college and university based teacher education. In J. Millwater, L. Ehrich & D. Beutel (Eds.)
Practical Experiences in Professional Education: A transdisciplinary approach. Brisbane: Post
Pressed, pp. 37–60.

Honorary Professor Susan Groundwater-Smith,
The University of Sydney, Australia

xi



ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

Individuals, networks, local authorities, institutions and universities have
contributed to this book through different kinds of participation. The edited volume
is a product of network activities including research, education and projects for
research and development.

For hosting the project, we thank Stockholm Institute of Education and
Stockholm University, the Centre for Regional and Educational Development and
the Department of Didactic Sciences and Early Childhood Education. We are
grateful to the Swedish Council for Working Life and Social Research (FAS) who
granted, in 2006, a funding for the network Knowledge Construction and
Professional Work. The network organised seminars every year during the period
2003- 2008, in Stockholm. Participants focused on degree projects, examinations
and professional practice knowledge. The Swedish Council for Working Life and
Social Research as well as the Swedish Foundation for International Cooperation
in Research and Higher Education (STINT) granted scholarships for network
members participating in international conferences. The Nordic Network for
Action Research, coordinated by Prof. Karin Rönnerman, University of
Gothenburg, has been important. So has the Research Institute for Professional
Practice, Learning and Education (RIPPLE) at Charles Sturt University, Australia.

We would like to thank all participants of the Pedagogy, Education and Praxis
collaboration, coordinated by Professor Stephen Kemmis, Charles Sturt
University, Australia. The Network for Practicum and Praxis Projects was formed
in 2008 by researchers, teacher educators, Ph D students, school teachers, school
leaders and practicum supervisors. The network was coordinated by Associate
Professor Matts Mattsson, Stockholm University. Seminars were organised every
year focusing on practicum and praxis in teacher education. This work was
supported by Professor Inge Johansson and his research group at Stockholm
University. Several participants from other universities and from municipalities in
the Stockholm region have presented papers at national and international
conferences.

The seminars and conferences have served the purpose of exchanging
experiences, and improving and clarifying participants´ plans, proposals, projects,
manuscripts and findings. For being critical friends in this process we thank
participants from Stockholm University, Sweden: Sune Bengts, Stina Eriksson,
Inge Johansson, Ingela Lindkvist, Lars Naeslund, Laila Niklasson, Karin Orving,
Lisbeth Ribbing, Pernilla Rosell Steuer, Birgitta Sahlin, Geir Skeie and Kerstin
Stenberg. We thank researchers and teacher educators from other universities:
Anette Sandberg, Mälardalen University, Sweden; Elisabeth Hesslefors-Arktoft
and Karin Rönnerman, University of Gothenburg; Ragnhildur Bjarnadóttir,
University of Iceland, Eva Edman Stålbrandt and Sven-Erik Hansén, Åbo Akademi
University, Ela Sjølie and Ove Haugaløkken, Norwegian University for Science
and Technology, Trondheim; Inger Ulleberg, Oslo University College, Norway;

xiii

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

Petra Ponte and Carlos van Kan, Utrecht University of Applied Sciences, the
Netherlands; Tom Lowrie and Stephen Kemmis, Charles Sturt University,
Australia and Susan Groundwater Smith, the University of Sydney, Australia. For
contributions during the Stockholm seminars we especially thank participants from
municipalities in the Stockholm area: Dag Henrik Lindberg and Bengt Greiff,
Upplands Väsby; Ulf Ståhlnacke and Gunilla Larsson Botkyrka; Vivi Havia,
Södertälje; Agneta Blohm, Upplands Bro; Ulrika Bengtsson, Victoria Blom and
Jan Haack, Solna.

Furthermore, in a final stage the manuscripts have been subject to blind review.
For critical comments we like to thank Sven Erik Hansén, Petri Salo and Tom
Wikman, Åbo Akademi University; Ragnhildur Bjarnadóttir, University of
Iceland; Geir Skeie, Stockholm University; Christina Gustavsson, Uppsala
University; Elisabeth Hesslefors-Arktoft, University of Gothenburg; Finn Daniel
Raaen, Oslo University College, Norway; Janne Madsen, Buskerud University
College, Norway; Susan Groundwater Smith, the University of Sydney, Australia;
Roslin Brennan Kemmis, Dianne Jonasson, Tom Lowrie and Elizabeth Murray,
Charles Sturt University, Australia; David Zyngier, Monash University, Australia;
Ian Hardy, the University of Queensland, Australia; Allan Pitman, University of
Western Ontario, Canada; Barbara Harold and Lauren Stephenson, Zayed
University, Dubai.

Doreen Rorrison and Sue Clancy, Charles Sturt University, Australia,
contributed substantially in improving the language and finalising the chapters
when everybody else went on vacation. Thank you! A grant and further support
from University of Tromsø, Norway, facilitated the final process when the project
ran out of money and energy. As editors we are most grateful.

xiv

MATTS MATTSSON, TOR VIDAR EILERTSEN AND DOREEN
RORRISON

1. WHAT IS PRACTICE IN TEACHER EDUCATION?

Professional practice knowledge is an intriguing concept. ‘Practice’ is a
controversial phenomenon. Different traditions, processes and agents are involved
in forming practice in teacher education. Different educational arrangements for
practicum learning are formed by different historical, political and organisational
processes in different national settings. This is a book about practicum. Empirical
studies have been carried out in Australia, Canada, Sweden, China, Norway,
Denmark, Finland and the Netherlands. We have explored professional practice
knowledge and the ways practicum is dealt with in teacher education. As the reader
will find, there are several specific concepts related to ‘practice’ and ‘practicum’.
These concepts reflect different aspects of practicum.

The Practicum Group (basgrupp) was introduced by Stockholm Institute for
Teacher Education in 2003. The aim was to enable preservice teachers to reflect on
and discuss general professional issues with experienced teachers. Local school
authorities, school leaders and teachers became involved as partners in teacher
education. School teachers shared their professional experiences with groups of
preservice teachers. In rural Australia, preservice teachers may be involved in
Community Projects. They go there in order to learn the profession by contributing
to the development of local schools. In some parts of China, a similar model is
called “Shi Xi Zhi Jiao”. “Shi Xi” means preservice teachers will go to the poor
rural areas to have their practicum for a whole semester. “Zhi Jiao” means
practicum will help promote the development of local education. In the northern
part of Norway, preservice teachers participate in Dialogue Conferences in order to
understand the practice of teachers. A Dialogue Conference is a structured way to
identify problems, analyse practice and practice architectures and develop theories
in order to improve practice. In Finland, at the University of Jyväskylä, they have
developed Integrative Pedagogy in Practicum. A crucial issue in teacher education
is how to promote professional autonomy among preservice teachers. When should
they be allowed to act as teachers? In Denmark, ‘special educational theory’ has
recently become a main subject in teacher education. Professional practice
knowledge is discussed in terms of situational professionalism. Situated
professionalism suggests a point of departure in practice. In Swedish social work
education, the process of exploring the self is regarded as practice. The formation
of a professional identity is a crucial aspect of practicum learning. Several authors
maintain that preservice teachers´ experiences during practicum should serve as a
point of departure for reflections about teaching. They understand ‘practice’ as
reflective practice, and argue that teachers should be reflective practitioners.

M. Mattsson, T.V. Eilertsen and D. Rorrison (eds.), A Practicum Turn in Teacher Education, 1–15.
© 2011 Sense Publishers. All rights reserved.

MATTSSON, EILERTSEN AND RORRISON

As indicated, these concepts are used for capturing ‘practice’ and each concept
reflects a certain view of practicum. Professional practice knowledge is interpreted
in many ways. How, then, could practice in teacher education be assessed? Teacher
education in Malmö and Stockholm has recently introduced a model for
assessment based on scoring rubrics, which is an assessment tool that combines
criteria with descriptive standards for each criterion. The aim is to assess and
improve the art of teaching. Preservice teachers, teacher educators and local
practicum supervisors meet in Assessment Dialogues.

These different arrangements, approaches and concepts for practice draw special
attention to practicum learning. They indicate ‘a practicum turn’. Generally, new
approaches are introduced and formed on a social field where different agents try
to favour their view of what is ‘good practice’ and who should have the authority
to judge. In doing so, national reforms, organisational structures, specific
educational constructs and epistemologies are employed. An established practice
can be analysed as the outcome of ongoing struggles between conflicting interests.
To analyse a specific practice requires situational and contextual knowledge. At
the same time, genuine knowledge about national traditions and international
epistemologies is required.

Recent teacher education reforms, at least in the Nordic countries, have paid
special attention to practicum. In several countries the question is raised: How could
teacher education facilitate for preservice teachers to become professional? This
issue is one reason for us to prepare a book about practicum. Another reason is that
there is not much research published about practicum in teacher education. Practicum
seems to be under-theorised. A third reason is that graduated teachers often refer to
practicum as the most valuable part of their teacher education. Why is that so?

AIMS AND PERSPECTIVES

This book has three aims. The first is to explore what has been widely known as
‘professional practice knowledge’ and the ways practicum is dealt with in teacher
education. We will report from various research and development projects that
have interrogated practicum experiences. Secondly, by referring to collaborative
experiences in different contexts we aim to identify approaches that may encourage
others to initiate participatory research in education. The third aim is to make
theoretical contributions to the study of practicum. We will offer frameworks,
perspectives, reflections and key concepts that may be helpful in understanding
and researching the professional practice of teachers. Let us start with a general
background, some key issues and key concepts.

PROFESSIONAL PRACTICE KNOWLEDGE

What is ‘professional practice knowledge’ and how may concepts such as
‘practice’, ‘practice architectures’ and ‘praxis’ be interpreted? As illustrated,
practice knowledge is an evasive phenomenon that includes several aspects that
are hard to conceptualise. A professional teacher today is required to demonstrate
an increasingly large repertoire of personal as well as professional qualities,

2

WHAT IS PRACTICE IN TEACHER EDUCATION?

knowledge, skills and understandings. These qualities cannot easily be identified
and developed by just one form of learning, for example, university based
learning or school based learning. Many agents, structures and processes are
involved in learning processes that may result in a certain educational practice
(Ax & Ponte, 2008; Kemmis & Smith, 2008; Mattsson & Waldenström, 2008).
For this reason, professional practice knowledge should be analysed as
representing more than individual qualities. Professional practice knowledge is
dependent on the interactions among certain individuals, in a particular context
and within a certain structure. It is formed by history and tradition and by the
universal qualities that are embedded in the tradition of the profession. It is
formed by the values that are held and realized by the professionals. Universal
qualities should be regarded as extra-individual features of practice (Kemmis &
Grootenboer, 2008; Mattsson, 2008a). In other words, professional practice
knowledge is formed through praxis.

‘Praxis’ is a key concept in this book. Praxis should be understood as a
dialectical process in which humankind changes the world and the world changes
humankind (Aristotle, 2004; Bernstein, 1981; Bourdieu, 1993, 1999; Freire,
1970/1996; Habermas, 1974; Marx, 1888). Several chapters in this book report
from action research projects. Mattsson and Kemmis (2007) use the concept
‘praxis-related research’. This concept is an umbrella-term including participatory
action research, dialogic research, co-operative inquiry, research circles,
collaborative research, action learning, learning studies, practitioner research and
research and development projects (R&D projects) of a variety of kinds. A
challenging approach to ‘praxis’ is presented by Kemmis and Smith (2008).
Inspired by Aristotle, they understand praxis as morally informed actions for the
good of humankind:

Praxis is a particular kind of action. It is action that is morally-committed,
and oriented and informed by traditions in a field. It is the kind of action
people are engaged in… when they take into account all the circumstances
and exigencies that confront them at a particular moment and then, taking the
broadest view they can of what it is best to do, they act (p. 4).

Kemmis and Smith focus on how to act wisely as an educator. They emphasise
that praxis includes sayings, doings and relatings. These human activities are in
turn formed by historical, cultural-discursive, social-political and material-
economic conditions. As already stated, professional practices are dependent on
how other professionals act. They are shaped by the ecology of educational
practice.

In our understanding intentions and values are important aspects of practice.
What takes place in a school or university is to some extent formed by the
educators´ visions of what should and could be achieved. Praxis refers to the
sayings, doings and relatings that people enact when they take into account the
universal values embedded in history and when they try to improve the world.
From a historical perspective, the consequences of certain practices may be good
or bad. History can facilitate as well as hamper certain practices.

3

MATTSSON, EILERTSEN AND RORRISON

Kemmis and Grootenboer (2008) talk about the social fields and structures that
hold practices in place. They emphasise the importance of ‘practice architectures’.
While referring to Schatzki (2001) and Lave and Wenger (1991) they state that:

…organisations, institutions and settings, and the people in them, create
practice architectures which prefigures practices, enabling and constraining
particular kinds of sayings, doings and relatings among people within them,
and in relation to others outside them. The way these practice architectures
are constructed shapes practice in its cultural-discursive, social-political and
material- economic dimensions, giving substance and form to what is and can
be actually said and done, by, with and for whom (Kemmis & Grootenboer,
2008, p. 57–58).

The context for educators is constituted by the practices performed by other
practitioners in the field of education. They shape and influence the way educators
may communicate, act and relate. Other practitioners and preservice teachers are,
in turn, themselves influenced by the structure of their university or school,
curricula and programs. General reforms are often introduced by agents far beyond
the realm of teacher educators and school teachers.

‘Practice’ is often used in this book as a more restricted, technical and
instrumental concept compared to ‘praxis’, which is here regarded as the broader,
more philosophical and, especially from an Aristotelian perspective, the more
normative concept. Praxis should be understood as history-making actions.

Compared to many other forms of knowledge, professional practice knowledge
has certain characteristics. There is an emphasis on performance and ‘doing’.
Practice knowledge is situated, context-related and embodied. It relates to what
particular people actually do, in a particular place and time. It contributes to the
formation of their professional identities. Kemmis (2009) summarizes several key
features of professional practices. One feature is ‘practical reasoning’:

Practice always involves ‘practical reasoning’, using knowledge in the face
of uncertainty, understanding that action is always a kind of exploration of
what might possibly be done, and understanding that the historical
consequences of practice in a particular case will only become apparent in
the future – and then only if people reflect critically on what was done in
particular cases of practice (Kemmis, 2009, p. 23).

Kemmis (2009), Carr (2009) and other representatives of a neo-Aristotelian
approach argue that practical reasoning is a constructive way to research
professional practice. This view gives us reason to reflect on the relation between
theory and practice.

THEORY AND PRACTICE

In teacher education, as well as in many similar professions, the relationship
between theory and practice is a controversial issue. Generally, theory and
knowledge based on research are given high priority in a university based
education. In a Platonic tradition, ideas, concepts and theories are regarded as

4

WHAT IS PRACTICE IN TEACHER EDUCATION?

representations of truth. Propositional knowledge is favoured. Generalised
knowledge is regarded as more important than contextual and situational
knowledge (Russell, 1991; Toulmin & Gustavsen, 1996). As a consequence,
university researchers from different countries use quite similar indicators for
assessing the quality of research. Researchers´ claims for truth are evaluated
according to similar criteria; criteria that have been developed over the hundreds of
years since Plato (Lindén & Szybek, 2003; Mattsson & Kemmis, 2007; Schwandt,
2002). They often focus on text and the cognitive, methodological and formal
aspects of academic reports.

Contrary to the dominant Plato-tradition, others argue that professional practice
knowledge has different characteristics, follows other routes and is constructed in
ways different from generalised and propositional knowledge. As indicated, some
researchers maintain that students should learn how to act wisely by being
participants in a community of practice (Lave & Wenger, 1991).

In the field of teacher education, preservice teachers are expected to develop
theoretical and reflective capacities as well as practical skills and knowledge.

These qualities may be regarded as complementary. For preservice teachers it
may be relevant to develop what are sometimes discussed as declarative
knowledge (knowing that), procedural knowledge (knowing how) and conditional
knowledge (knowing when and why to apply certain procedures) (Colnerud,
Karlsson & Szklarski, 2008; Eraut, 2006/1994). We understand professional
practice knowledge as a combination of declarative, procedural and conditional
knowledge. We would like to emphasise that professional practice knowledge is
the knowledge that professionals put into practice. Referring to Aristotle,
knowledge could be discussed in terms of epistƝmƝ (the disposition to attain
knowledge and contemplation of truth), technƝ (the disposition to act in a properly
reasoned way according to a rule) and phronƝsis (the disposition to act wisely and
prudently). PhronƝsis is an important disposition that should be in focus during
practicum.

As reported in Mattsson, Johansson and Sandström (2008) epistƝmƝ is given
high priority in the academic tradition. That is why preservice teachers are required
to demonstrate their knowledge in a small thesis or in other kinds of academic
reports. A dominant idea in teacher education is that if preservice teachers learn
how to reflect about certain situations or phenomena, they will be better prepared
to deal with them should they occur. From such a perspective, educational
situations and phenomena are often de-contextualised and treated as generalised
and propositional knowledge. Theories are abstracted from practice.

Alternative approaches in the study of professional practice knowledge have
been outlined by, among others, Carr and Kemmis (1986, 2009); Green (2009);
Korthagen (2001); Lave and Wenger (1991); Schatzki (2001) and Schön (1983).
Lave and Wenger discuss the learning processes that take place in a community of
practice. Schatzki is often referred to as a practice theorist. Schön discusses how
professionals think in action and offers arguments for ‘the reflective practitioner’.
Carr and Kemmis (2009) argue that practical reasoning is a constructive way to
research professional practice. Inspired by Aristotle they state that education as

5

MATTSSON, EILERTSEN AND RORRISON

well as research is a moral endeavour with the intention of improving the lives we
are living and the world in which we live. They say that the profession of an
educator is practical and that research is practical. Carr (2009) proposes that the
heart of the profession is not primarily theoretical or technical:

…education is primarily a ‘practical’ rather than a ‘theoretical’ or ‘technical’
activity, involving a constant flow of problematic situations which require
teachers to make practical judgements about what to do in order to translate
their general educational values (such as ‘the development of understanding’,
or ‘the realisation of individual potential’) into practice (p. 60).

Carr offers arguments for a practical philosophy - a way of thinking and acting that
is distinct from the mode of modernity and from theories influenced by post-
modernity. He is opposed to the assumption that educational theory “stands apart
from the practice it aspires to affect” (p. 56).From his perspective, practical
reasoning is an alternative to educational theory as it is conceived in mainstream
research. Educational theory is not an external or context-free phenomenon.
Generally, theories and concepts are parts of epistemologies that are historically
and culturally rooted. The aspiration of practical reasoning is to develop practical
wisdom (phronƝsis), a disposition that can only be demonstrated in practice.

This perspective is challenging to anyone writing a book about practice in
teacher education. It challenges the current approach and recommendations
advocated by the European Union (EU)that emphasises general ‘key competences’
(Council of European Union, 2007). The EU approach is based on the idea that a
national educational system should serve the aims of national and international
market economies. From this perspective education is instrumental. It is an
instrument to improve the ability of an individual and a nation to compete
internationally for positions, resources and higher growth and employment rates
(Liedman, 2011). Globally, there is now a move towards ‘the audit society’ where
external frameworks and ‘quality assurance’ serve as the legitimate point of
departure for judgments about ‘best practice’ (Grek, Lawn, Lingard, Ozga, Rinne,
Segerholm, et al., 2009; Lingard, 2006; Power, 1997). For many reasons there is a
public and international debate about what is best practice in education and how
best practice could be nurtured. Should judgements about ‘practice’ have external
and international frameworks as the legitimate point of departure or should these
‘judgements’ be formed by the professionals in their own communities of practice?
Both perspectives are relevant here.

COMMUNITIES OF ENQUIRERS

Learning processes may be promoted by participation in authentic settings where
preservice teachers have to demonstrate their disposition to ‘act wisely’ and in an
‘informed way’. This is a main feature of Korthagen´s (2001) concept of ‘realistic’
teacher education. Instead of an epistemic approach, which introduces theory that
subsequently should be put into practice, the ‘realistic’ alternative is ‘practice
first’. Reflection also includes the process of forming concepts and theories related
to authentic cases and experiences. According to Korthagen this approach is a shift

6

WHAT IS PRACTICE IN TEACHER EDUCATION?

from epistƝmƝ towards phronƝsis in teacher education by challenging and
developing what really matters: Preservice teachers ‘gestalts’ their preconceptions,
personal theories, values and sentiments (Korthagen, 2001). We understand
Korthagen´s view as part of ‘a practicum turn’. This ‘turn’ alludes to Schatzki´s
arguments for ‘the practice turn in contemporary theory’ (Schatzki, 2001). A
crucial question in this perspective is: What characterises the practice architectures
that may promote reflections that could make a difference, not only in terms of
practical-technical skills, but also in terms of values, norms and a critical-
emancipatory disposition?

The division between ‘theory’ and ‘practice’ is manifested in numerous and
often subtle ways, including linguistically. However, in our view, theory is not
necessarily something categorically different from practice. Korthagen (2001)
regards theory and practice as an integrated whole. Dale (2005) talks about ‘the
practical-educational knowledge regime’ as an educational and philosophical strain
of thought. Prominent educational theorists like Joseph Swab and Lawrence
Stenhouse have made use of key concepts like ‘practical theory’ and ‘practical
professional theory’ indicating that pedagogy is not a theory ‘about’ or ‘for’
practice; it is a theory in practice (Lövlie, 1973). Schön (1983/2003) rejects ‘the
model of Technical Rationality’ and argues for ‘an epistemology of practice’:

Let us search, instead, for an epistemology of practice implicit in the artistic,
intuitive processes which some practitioners do bring to situations of
uncertainty, instability, uniqueness and value conflict (p. 49).

Carr and Kemmis (1986) use ‘critical praxis’ as a concept indicating that a critical
perspective should be acted upon. Action is more likely to make a change
compared to a critical perspective that is just an intellectual attitude:

A critical social science will be one that goes beyond critique to critical
praxis; that is, a form of practice in which the ‘enlightenment’ of actors
comes to bear directly in their transformed social action (p. 144).

Carr and Kemmis offer arguments for ‘critical self-reflection’ and maintain that
teachers on a local level should collaborate with action researchers to bring about a
change. ‘Emancipatory action research’ provides a means:

… by which teachers can organize themselves as communities of enquirers,
organizing their own enlightenment…This unity of method between the
development of the profession and the education of students is a distinctive
feature of the educational profession. Emancipatory action research provides
an approach through which the development of a theoretical and research
base for professional practice can be accomplished (pp. 221-222).

The perspective outlined here is not just a matter of identifying key concepts. It is a
perspective that challenges the way teacher education is generally organised,
especially regarding practicum. In some of the projects referred to in this book,
local school leaders and teachers serve as teacher educators. Preservice teachers
participate in local development projects nurtured by a community of inquirers.

7

MATTSSON, EILERTSEN AND RORRISON

Preservice teachers’ learning in teacher education is promoted by their
participation in practices where they are expected to demonstrate their practical
wisdom in authentic settings.

As authors of this book we aim to contribute to a better understanding of
professional practice knowledge and practicum. We will try to analyse some of the
ideas, models and actors that shape teacher education.

MODELS FOR PRACTICUM

Practicum in teacher education is dealt with in different ways at different universities.
Different models are applied depending on different national, regional and local
contexts. Different resources are allocated in terms of persons, time, equipment and
economy. Curricula differ and the procedures for assessing professional practice
knowledge differ. Sometimes the local mentor/supervisor has a final say about
preservice teachers who may pass or fail. Often these decisions are taken by
university based teacher educators. Practicum is generally part of a particular
educational system and should be discussed in relation to that specific system.
Practicum may be integrated into teacher education to greater or lesser extent. Even
if they overlap, different models can be identified. They emphasise different ideas,
aspects and qualities. They have different historical roots and they represent different
views on how professional practice knowledge is best nurtured (Eilertsen & Strøm,
2008; Eraut, 1994/2006; Haugaløkken & Ramberg, 2005; Kvale, 2000; Lave &
Wenger, 1991; Lindström, 2008; Mattsson, 2008a; Mattsson 2008b, Ponte, 2007;Van
de Ven, 2011; Wenger, McDermott & Snyder, 2002). These models are supported in
the literature and they are relevant within the contexts of the research projects
reported in this volume. In short, they could be described as follows.

(1) The Master-Apprentice model. From a historical perspective this has been the
way to introduce a novice (preservice teacher) into the profession. A novice
learns the profession from somebody who masters the profession. The master
and his colleagues are expected to know the practice knowledge that is worth
knowing and developing. They know the tradition.

(2) The Laboratory model (övningsskola). In this model the university (or teacher
training institute) has established a University Teacher Training School for
practicum learning. The idea is that preservice teachers should be offered
practicum learning in a good educational environment by excellent professional
teachers.

(3) The Partnership model is based on agreements between a university and local
schools that have been carefully selected. The local schools offer opportunities
for practicum learning. Local mentors/supervisors are appointed for preservice
teachers. They are expected to offer a good educational environment.

(4) The Community development model is often applied in rural settings. The idea
is that preservice teachers during practicum should bring new ideas and
methods to schools and teachers in need of improving their pedagogical
standard. While contributing to school development, preservice teachers learn
the profession in relation to the ‘real’ problems they confront.

8

WHAT IS PRACTICE IN TEACHER EDUCATION?

(5) The Integrated model is practised by universities and communities who have
agreed to share responsibility for a teacher education where practicum serves as
an integrative element. Local authorities may be in charge of certain
educational arrangements, for example introducing preservice teacher to the
field of practice. The university may be in charge of certain aspects, for
example assessment of practicum learning. This model is based on the idea that
preservice teachers should learn from a variety of schools and teachers that
may differ a lot in quality.

(6) The Case based model. The idea is that preservice teachers, in an educational
practice inspired by the practical wisdom of medicine, should encounter a large
number of authentic cases in order to learn how to identify resemblances and
distinctive traits. They should learn how to analyse and interpret cases in the
light of research, theory and experience.

(7) The Platform model symbolises a framework of teacher education that is more
flexible and open to preservice teachers´ individual needs and interests. The
model offers opportunities for preservice teachers’ participation in projects that
transcend the traditional practicum periods and provide closer and more
versatile links between universities and schools. Different and more varied
ways of reporting and examining are encouraged.

(8) The Community of practice model is based on the idea that learning is part of a
social praxis where participants learn from each other. Preservice teachers are
socialised into a culture of inquiry. They are offered opportunities to participate
in different practices. Preservice teachers are provided with experiences,
competencies and the confidence that is likely to make a difference in their
prospective professional practice.

(9) The Research and Development model. This model is based on agreements
between universities and communities about how to collaborate in order to
improve relevant research as well as school development. Different names are
used, for example, ‘universitetsskole’ (Tromsø), ‘fältskola’ (Stockholm) and
‘academische opleidingsschool’ (the Netherlands).

These models may be combined in different ways. It is important to note that they are
models for certain ways of organising practicum learning, not necessarily models of
how practicum is in fact organised. Generally, a model could be regarded as a
construct which prefigures the participants´ roles, responsibilities and their division
of labour. Such a construct serves as a model for practicum only if participants´
support the explicit and implicit ideas of how they should interact in order to promote
practicum learning. Otherwise the models might serve mainly as rhetoric.

Even though the models are described only briefly here, they indicate that teacher
education and practicum could be organised and structured in certain ways to promote
practicum learning. However, it seems that practicum is often left to chance and that
there is a need for improved models, principles and practices to ensure that preservice
teacher learning during practicum is supported. Rorrison (2008) maintains:

There is a need to ensure that the practicum (previously known as ‘prac
teaching’, ‘student teaching’, ‘field experience’ and ‘clinical supervision for

9

MATTSSON, EILERTSEN AND RORRISON

student teachers’) is a valuable professional learning experience. My recent
research indicates that practicum learning is currently often left to chance and
many learning opportunities are wasted. It seems evident that the practicum
is often a time of tension, frustration, misinformation, confrontation,
acquiescence and poor communication (Rorrison, 2008, p. 10).

Rorrison emphasises that many learning opportunities are wasted. Research about
practicum is often neglected. One reason for this state of affairs might be a
historically rooted disregard among universities for practice knowledge and a
historically rooted disregard among many school teachers for knowledge based on
research. Whatever practicum model is applied, we think that teacher education
institutions should allocate proper time, economy, personal and material resources
for practicum. Research about professional practice should be encouraged.

NEW MANAGERIALISM

In many countries, there is a conflict between those who argue that teacher
education should be more ‘academic’ and those who argue for more ‘practice’ in
teacher education. In general, the university tradition maintains that educational
activities should, to a greater extent, be based on research and that teacher
education would be improved if occupied by an increased number of doctorate
teachers. They maintain that more attention should be paid to the quality of
preservice teachers´ academic papers and degree projects. The degree projects
(small thesis) should primarily meet the agreed standards for academic reports.
Priority should be given to knowledge that is based on mainstream research. The
university tradition emphasises that a teacher should have thorough knowledge of
his or her teaching subject, for example language, mathematics, biology. The idea
is that if you know your subject very well, you will be a good teacher.

From this perspective, the main object of schools is to teach the core subjects
such as reading, writing and mathematics. The state has a certain responsibility to
guarantee equal quality of education all over the nation. That is why we can
observe an increased interest in elaborated methods for assessment of student
learning on all levels in the educational system. The PISA reports have become
part of public, international debate on schools, educational systems and teacher
education (OECD, 2010).

This trend is linked to an increased influence of ‘New Public Management’,
neo-liberalism and ‘evidence-based’ approaches in education (Liedman, 2011).
Many educationalists these days are advocates for ‘a scientist-practitioner model’
which is a ‘model’ based on the assumption that generalisable knowledge is
applicable, in a rational way, to individual cases where situations, contexts and
relations differ (Bradley, 2009).

On the other hand, as we have maintained previously, there is a ‘practice-
tradition’ that emphasises practice knowledge as it is fostered and demonstrated by
experienced and professional teachers in learning communities. The practice-
tradition pays more attention to professional experiences and the context where
these experiences are made. Priority is given to the way teacher educators and

10

WHAT IS PRACTICE IN TEACHER EDUCATION?

school teachers communicate, act and relate to those involved in education. Models
for practicum are formed to facilitate preservice teachers’ collaboration with
experienced teachers in ‘a community of practice’. An important idea here is that
the educational system should contribute to democratic, critical and participatory
citizenship (Liedman, 2011). Education should contribute to enlightenment in a
broad sense. The concept of ‘bildung’ is important in this perspective. So is the
Aristotelian tradition, emphasising that education is a moral and political
endeavour nurtured by the profession (Kemmis, 2008).

When we take into account different tendencies in our time we observe ‘a
practicum turn’, a phenomenon that may be understood in different ways. We note
that several universities and researchers give priority to collaborative and action
research. We note that there is an increasing interest in Aristotle and in practice
theory (Kemmis & Smith, 2008; Schatzki, 2001).

We do not want to maintain a superficial polarisation of different traditions and
approaches. We recognize that teacher education and practicum are complex
endeavours formed by history, different traditions and conflicting interests. Different
approaches are relevant for different purposes. In this book we will explore how
teacher education practicum is dealt with in some national contexts and local
settings.

CHAPTER BY CHAPTER

Now, let us briefly introduce the contents of the edited volume, chapter by chapter:

Chapter Two. Border Crossing in Practicum Research: Reframing how we talk
about Practicum Learning is written by Doreen Rorrison, Australia. She argues for
a ‘practicum turn’ – an episode uncovered through qualitative, critical and
participant oriented research. Based on seven guiding principles of practicum
learning that emerged from acting upon empirical data through the critical
questions in previous research, the author reframes conversations around the
practicum in teacher education. The study draws on research carried out in
Australia, Canada and Sweden.

Chapter Three. Memorable Encounters: Learning Narratives from Preservice
Teachers’ Practicum is written by Sirkku Männikkö Barbutiu, Sweden and Doreen
Rorrison, Australia together with Lin Zeng, China. Practicum is examined through
the experiences of preservice teachers ‘in their own words’, in three different
countries and within three different teacher education programs. The varying
political, historical and social conditions may define the practicum giving it a
particular local character. The narratives of the preservice teachers also show the
universal nature of being and becoming a teacher.

Chapter Four. Learning Beyond the Traditional: Student teachers as partners in
school development is written by Tor Vidar Eilertsen, Eli Moksnes Furu and Karin
Rørnes, Norway. They report from an action research project aiming to promote
preservice teachers´ competencies and motivation for professional learning,
research and development. Two R&D projects highlight the comprehensive

11

MATTSSON, EILERTSEN AND RORRISON

learning experiences preservice teachers gain from such participation, how they
move from positions of observers to legitimate, central participators. The authors
discuss possibilities to strengthen the relationship between theory and practice by
institutionalising dialogue conferences.

Chapter Five Integrative Pedagogy in Practicum: Meeting the Second Order
Paradox of Teacher Education is written by Hannu L. T. Heikkinen, Päivi Tynjälä
and Ulla Kiviniemi, Finland. The authors have conducted an action research
project in order to promote preservice teachersƍ professional autonomy. The multi-
professional collaboration between teachers, teaching assistants and other staff
members is highlighted. They introduce a new model of integrative pedagogy.

Chapter Six. Situated Professionalism in Special Education practice: Educating
preservice teachers for special education/inclusive education is written by Lotte
Hedegaard-Sørensen and Susan Tetler, Denmark. ‘Situated professionalism’ is a
concept developed from field studies of teachers’ professional knowledge and way of
knowing in differentiated educational practice. It bridges the dichotomy between
theory and practice and emphasises situated and timely judgements as well as
reflection in practice. Danish teacher education in inclusive practices is
problematised as illustrated by the new main subject ‘special education theory’.

Chapter Seven. Exploring the Self as part of Practice.Reflections on students’
practice learning from the social work perspective is written by Helene Brodin,
Sweden. She explores how social work teachers and social work students reflect on
and conceptualise professional practice knowledge. She identifies two different
paradigms: the reflective learning paradigm and the competence-based learning
paradigm. One conclusion is that a teacher as well as a social worker must learn to
synthesise theory, know-how and prudence in order to become a wise practitioner.

Chapter Eight. Preservice Teachers’ Reflections on Practice in Relation to
Theories is written by Peter Emsheimer and Nilani Ljunggren de Silva, Sweden.
Drawing on empirical data and different views on theory and practice, the authors
explore how different educational models contribute to preservice teachers’
understanding of theoretical knowledge. The authors claim that there is “a need to
induce new theoretical understanding from practical experiences”. Preservice
teachers are not offered real opportunities to develop their reflective capacity.

Chapter Nine. Assessing Teacher Competency during Practicum is written by
Anders Jönsson and Matts Mattsson, Sweden. Recently, instruments for assessing
preservice teachers during practicum have been introduced at Malmö and
Stockholm University. These instruments facilitate discussions about teaching and
offer opportunities to reflect upon crucial pedagogical issues. However, the same
instruments do not seem to serve the purpose of summative assessment equally
well. In this chapter, a model for using these instruments for a more reliable and
valid assessment of student performance during practicum, is discussed.

Chapter Ten. Reflections from a ‘Dutch’ Perspective is written by Piet-Hein van de
Ven, the Netherlands. Referring to Dutch experiences of workplace learning he is

12

WHAT IS PRACTICE IN TEACHER EDUCATION?

quite sceptical of the notion of ‘a practicum turn’. Van de Ven maintains that one
of the consequences of the school-based placement in the Netherlands is that the
role of theory has decreased sharply. Practicum is just taken for granted.

Chapter Eleven. Reflections from an ‘Australian’ Perspective is written by Roslin
Brennan Kemmis and Sharon Ahern, Australia. Referring to Australian
experiences of vocational education and training (VET), they offer new
perspectives on the practicum issues. The authors discuss the relation between
theory and practice in teacher education.

Chapter Twelve. Conclusions and Challenges is written by Matts Mattsson,
Sweden, Doreen Rorrison, Australia and Tor Vidar Eilertsen, Norway. Based on
the previous chapters, the authors draw conclusions and present challenges. They
outline a framework and offer recommendations that may be helpful in
understanding, researching and improving practicum in teacher education.

REFERENCES

Aristotle. (2004). The Nicomachean ethics (A. K. Thomson & H. Tredennick, Trans.). London: Penguin
Classics.

Ax, J., & Ponte, P. (Eds.) (2008).Critiquing praxis: Conceptual and empirical trends in the teaching
profession.Rotterdam: Sense Publishers.

Bernstein, R. J. (1971). Praxis and action. Contemporary philosophies of human activity. Philadelphia:
University of Pennsylvania Press. (Fifth printing 1980).

Bourdieu, P. (1993). Kultursociologiska texter. Stockholm: Brutus Östlings Bokförlag.
Bourdieu, P. (1999). Praktiskt förnuft. Bidrag till en handlingsteori. Uddevalla: Daidalos. [Bourdieu, P.

(1998). Practical reason: On the theory of action. Oxford: Polity].
Bradley, B. (2009). Rethinking ‘Experience’ in professional practice: Lessons from clinical psychology.

In B. Green (Ed.), Understanding and researching professional practice. Rotterdam: Sense
Publishers.
Carr, W. (2009). Practice without theory? A postmodern perspective on educational practice. In
B. Green (Ed.), Understanding and researching professional practice. Rotterdam: Sense Publishers.
Carr, W. & Kemmis, S. (1986). Becoming critical: education knowledge and action research. Deakin
University Press.
Colnerud, G., Karlsson, I. & Szklarski, A. (2008). Alltid redo: lärarstudenters handlingsberedskap för
varierande uppgifter i klassrummet. [How preservice students are prepared for a variety of tasks in
the classroom]. Linköping: Institutionen för beteendevetenskap och lärande, Linköpings universitet.
Council of European Union (2007). Council Resolution of 15 November 2007 on education and
training as a key driver of the Lisbon Strategy (2007/C 300/01). Official Journal of the European
Union.
Dale, E.L. (2005) Kunnskapsregimer i pedagogikk og utdanningsvitenskap. [Knowledge regimes in
pedagogy and education]. Abstract forlag, Oslo.
Eilertsen, T.V., Strøm, B. (2008).Towards a Symbiosis of Learning and Examinations in Teacher
Education. In M. Mattsson, I. Johansson and B. Sandström, Examining Praxis: Assessment and
Knowledge Construction in Teacher Education Rotterdam: Sense Publishers.
Eraut, M. (2006/1994). Developing professional knowledge and competence. London: Falmer.
Freire, P. (1970/1996). Pedagogy of the oppressed. (New rev. ed.) Harmondsworth: Penguin Books.
Grek, S., Lawn, M., Lingard, B., Ozga, J., Rinne, R., Segerholm, C., et al. (2009). National policy
brokering and the construction of the European Education Space in England, Sweden, Finland and
Scotland.Comparative Education, 45(1), 5–21.

13

MATTSSON, EILERTSEN AND RORRISON

Green, B. (Ed.), (2009). Understanding and researching professional practice. Rotterdam: Sense
Publishers.

Habermas, J. (1974). Theory and practice. London: Heinemann.
Haugaløkken, O. K., Ramberg, P. (2005). NTNUs partnerskapsmodell: Et samarbeid mellom skole og

laererutdanningsinstitusjon. Evaluering og analyse. Trondheim: NTNU.
Kemmis, S. (2008). Praxis and Practice Architectures in Mathematics Education. In M. Goos, R.

Brown, & K. Makar (Eds.), Proceedings of the 31st Annual Conference of the Mathematics
Education Research Group of Australasia. © MERGA Inc. 2008.
Kemmis, S. (2009). Understanding professional practice: A synoptic framework. In B. Green (Ed.),
Understanding and researching professional practice. Rotterdam: Sense Publishers.
Kemmis, S., & Grootenboer, P. (2008). Situating praxis in practice: Practice architectures and the
cultural, social and material conditions for practice. In S. Kemmis & T. J. Smith (Eds.), Enabling
praxis: Challenges for education. Rotterdam: Sense Publishers.
Kemmis, S and, Smith, T. (2008). Praxis and Praxis Development. In S. Kemmis & T. J. Smith (Eds.),
Enabling praxis: Challenges for education. Rotterdam: Sense Publishers.
Korthagen, F. (2001). Linking practice and theory: the pedagogy of realistic teacher education.
Mahwah, N.J.: L. Erlbaum Associates.
Kvale, S. (red.) (2000). Mästarlära: lärande som social praxis. [Master knowledge: learning as social
praxis] Lund: Studentlitteratur.
Lave, Jean & Wenger, Etienne (1991). Situated learning: legitimate peripheral participation.
Cambridge: Cambridge Univ. Press.
Liedman, S-E. (2011). Hets!: en bok om skolan. [Stress! A book about school in Sweden] Stockholm:
Bonnier.
Lindén, J., & Szybek, P. (Eds.) (2003). Validation of knowledge claims in human science.
L’Ínterdisciplinaire Psychologie, Lyon Limonest.
Lingard, R. (2006). Globalisation, the research imagination and deparochialising the study of education.
Globalisation, Societies and Education, 4(2), 287–302.
Lindström, L. (2008). The Teacher as Servant of Nature. In M. Mattsson, I. Johansson and B.
Sandström (Eds.) Examining Praxis: Assessment and Knowledge Construction in Teacher
Education Rotterdam: Sense Publishers.
Lövlie, L. (1984): Det pedagogiske argument. (The educational argument). Cappelen, Oslo.
Marx, K. (1888). Teser över Feuerbach [Theses on Feuerbach]. In F. Engels (Ed.). (1946) Ludwig
Feuerbach och den klassiska tyska filosofins slut. Stockholm: Arbetarkulturs förlag. (Original work
published 1888).
Mattsson, M., & Kemmis, S. (2007). Praxis-related research: Serving two masters? In Pedagogy,culture
& society, 15(2), 185–214.
Mattsson, M. (2008a). Degree Projects and Praxis Development. In M. Mattsson, I. Johansson and
B. Sandström. (Eds.), Examining Praxis. Assessment and Knowledge Construction in Teacher
Education Rotterdam: Sense Publishers.
Mattsson, M. (2008b). What is at Stake? In M. Mattsson, I. Johansson & B. Sandström (Eds.),
Examining Praxis. Assessment and Knowledge Construction in Teacher Education Rotterdam:
Sense Publishers.
Mattsson, M. (2008c). Conclusions and Challenges. In M. Mattsson, I. Johansson & B. Sandström
(Eds.), Examining Praxis. Assessment and Knowledge Construction in Teacher Education
Rotterdam: Sense Publishers.
Mattsson, M., Johansson, I. & Sandström, B. (Eds.), (2008). Examining Praxis: Assessment and
Knowledge Construction in Teacher Education. Rotterdam: Sense Publishers.
Mattsson, M., & Waldenström, C. (2008). Approaches to teaching. In J. Ax & P. Ponte (Eds.),
Critiquing praxis: Conceptual and empirical trends in the teaching profession. Rotterdam: Sense
Publishers.
Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (2010). PISA 2009 results: what makes a
school successful? Vol. 4, Resources, policies and practices. Paris: OECD.

14

WHAT IS PRACTICE IN TEACHER EDUCATION?

Ponte, P. (2007). Postgraduate education as platform. A conceptualisation. In J. van Swet, P. Ponte, &
B. Smit (Eds.), Postgraduate programmes as platform. A research-led approach. Rotterdam: Sense
Publishers.

Power, M. (1999[1997]). The audit society: rituals of verification. Oxford: Oxford Univ. Press.
Rorrison D. (2008) Jumping Through Spinning Hoops; Stories of the Middle Schools and Secondary

Practicum. Cengage: Melbourne, Australia.
Russell, B. (1991). Västerlandets filosofi. Borås: Natur och Kultur. [Russell, B. (1961). History of

Western philosophy. London: George Allen and Unwin].
Schatzki, T.R. (2001). Practice mind-ed orders. In Schatzki, T.R., Knorr-Cetina, K. & Savigny, E.V.

(Eds.) (2001). The practice turn in contemporary theory. London: Routledge.
Schwandt, T. A. (2002). Evaluation practice reconsidered. New York: Peter Lang.
Schön, D.A. (2003[1995]). The reflective practitioner: how professionals think in action. (Repr.[= New

ed.]). Aldershot: Arena.
Stockholms universitet (2009). Lärarutbildningsnämndens beslut om förväntade studieresultat under

VFU. 2009-03-18. Arbetsgruppens delrapport 2, Att bedöma kursens verksamhetsförlagda del
(2009-03-18).
Stockholms universitet (2010). Från nybörjare till kompetent lärare: Underlag för handledning och
bedömning av lärarstudenters verksamhetsförlagda utbildning.Lärarutbildningsnämnden,
Stockholm: Mars 2010.
Toulmin, S., & Gustavsen B. (Eds.) (1996).Beyond theory: Changing organizations through
participation. Philadelphia; Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publ., cop.
Van de Ven, P H (2011). Reflections from a Dutch Perspective. In M.Mattsson, T.V. Eilertsen
&D. Rorrison (Eds.), A Practicum Turn in Teacher Education. Rotterdam: Sense Publishers.
Wenger, E., McDermott, R. & Snyder, W.M. (2002). Cultivating communities of practice: a guide to
managing knowledge. Boston: Harvard Business School Press.

Matts Mattsson,
University of Tromsø, Norway

Tor Vidar Eilertsen,
University of Tromsø, Norway

Doreen Rorrison,
Charles Sturt University, Australia

15

PART I
BORDER CROSSING AND NARRATIVES

DOREEN RORRISONi

2. BORDER CROSSING IN PRACTICUM RESEARCH

Reframing how we talk about practicum learning

This chapter argues for a ‘practicum turn’ – an episode uncovered through
qualitative critical and participant oriented inquiry. Based on seven guiding
principles of practicum learning that emerged from acting upon empirical data
through the critical questions in previous research, this chapter reframes
conversations around the practicum in teacher education. New ways to ensure that
practicum learning for preservice teachers is meaningful, rigorous, authentic,
relevant and connected and not left to chance are uncovered through cross border
research in practicum classrooms on three continents and from kindergarten to the
final year of schooling. A range of theoretical perspectives is introduced to
underpin the substantial critique that goes deep into the practicum classroom. The
situated nature of participant research, international perspectives, critical reflection,
ideological and societal polity and communities of learners and thinkers provide
theoretical points of departure. This recent research in Swedish schools highlights
the challenges of defining preservice teacher practicum learning and the different
lenses that can be used to identify and engage with the teaching and learning
process.

The philosophers have only interpreted the world, in various ways: the point,
however, is to change it. (Marx, 1978, p. 145)

THEORETICAL PERSPECTIVES

Through presenting some perspectives of preservice teachers and their mentors in
Australia, Canada and Sweden new ways to talk about practicum learning are
introduced. Although the practicum has traditionally offered novice teachers an
opportunity to ‘practise’ what they have learned during initial teacher education
courses and gain experience in, and of, teaching children in schools, there has been
limited international debate or agreement about the learning experiences that the
practicum actually delivers or how this can best be achieved or measured. We cannot
leave preservice teacher learning to chance, so I am suggesting that a theoretical
framework for practicum learning that has its roots in tacit and situated knowledge
might provide a new lens for these things we don’t yet fully understand and are not
yet agreed. Through this new conceptual framework we can go beyond merely
identifying problems with current approaches and offer fresh propositions on which
to base some guidelines for practicum learning. This chapter aims to create space for

M. Mattsson, T.V. Eilertsen and D. Rorrison (eds.), A Practicum Turn in Teacher Education, 19–44.
© 2011 Sense Publishers. All rights reserved.

RORRISON

these debates based on seven guiding principles (appendix 1) and introduces the
concept of a ‘practicum turn’. The seven principles of practicum learning have been
developed from over 500 hours of observation of preservice teachers during their
practicum in schools and early childhood services in twelve Australian schools, six
Canadian schools and more recently in six Swedish schools. Observation field notes
were used to write fictional composite narratives that were read by fifty six readers
world wide. These readers responded through 4,481 written comments on the story
booklets, providing a wide range of perspectives in relation to the authenticity of
narrative as research and the important themes and ideas in relation to practicum. It
was, however, the understandings uncovered through the critical analysis of the
responses to the stories that has led to my current positioning and the views and
propositions reported in this chapter. The stories that elicited the overwhelming
responses from the teachers, teacher educators and preservice teachers who read
them are discussed more fully later in this chapter.

The reflective work of Dewey (1933) and Schön (1983), followed by Giroux’s
(1992) critical analysis of border crossing experiences, provide entry into the
critique. Tangling with organisational practices and processes that are ‘taken-for-
granted’ or from traditions that vary considerably on a global, national and local
level, is challenging. My point of departure is to acknowledge the complex interplay
between the development of educational ideologies and polities within each nation
state and the sensitivity of cross-border research. By unveiling the dynamics of
tradition and power and through recognising my own part in the construction and
continuation of the hegemony, I turn a critical lens on the practicum in the tradition
of the Frankfurt School, Gramski (1971) and Freire (1998). Through my positioning
as an international researcher and “border crosser” (Romo and Chavez, 2006, p. 142)
I also discuss the fragility yet richness of cross international research.

Of course there are many similarities between preservice teacher experiences
in the three countries, yet areas of important difference have emerged. By
entering the debate through the work of Bernstein (1971), who suggested that the
polity of a society defines how that society will view educational knowledge, this
chapter begins to uncover deep ideological issues that might reframe how we talk
about practicum learning. The concept of a ‘practicum turn’ emerged from
qualitative critical and participant oriented research and conversations in our
international collaboration between researchers1. The concept reframes
conversations around the practicum in teacher education ensuring that practicum
learning for preservice teachers is meaningful, rigorous, authentic, relevant and
connected and not left to chance. My recent research in Swedish schools
highlights the challenges of defining preservice teacher practicum learning and
the different lenses that can be used to identify and engage with the teaching and
learning process. The chapter concludes with a discussion of the initial research
where the theoretical arguments were generated, the new empirical work in

––––––––––––––
1 The Pedagogy, Education and Praxis (PEP) collaboration fosters conversations between different

European and Anglo-American perspectives and arose from shared concerns among educational
researchers from Australia the Netherlands, the Nordic countries and the United Kingdom.

20

BORDER CROSSING IN PRACTICUM RESEARCH

Swedish schools and the emerging distinguishing characteristics that provide
opportunities for further theory building.

A ‘CRITICAL’ THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK

A ‘challenge’ identified in the final paragraphs of the previous book in this series,
‘Examining Praxis’ (Mattsson, Johansson & Sandström, 2008), was to extend into
the international arena that process of understanding teaching practice in terms of
its moral positioning. In relation to the practicum this involves a better
understanding of the complex processes and structures that enable preservice
teachers to not only learn about teaching but also learn how to respond and
‘demonstrate’ wise and capable (well reasoned) professional practice. The
‘Pedagogy, Education and Praxis’ (PEP) collaboration of which this research is a
part, also aims to explore the use of and development of key understandings within
different research traditions. My involvement in the collaboration has afforded me
opportunities to learn more about the processes and policies in Sweden that inform
practicum and work place learning. Through comparisons of the lived experience
of preservice teachers in Swedish schools with those in Canadian and Australian
schools, similarities and differences across international boundaries have begun to
generate new understandings in terms of preservice teacher learning and how this
learning is designed and implemented. Underpinning this understanding is my
concern to ensure that it is a morally committed, informed and oriented endeavour
(Kemmis and Smith, 2008), based on the responsibility to “do good for oneself and
humankind” (Ax & Ponte 2008, p. ix). The Aristotelian concept of praxis, with its
focus on moral and ethical choice, is blended with my critical views where notions
of lived experience, identity, differential power relations and social politics are
critiqued. By locating my research in the ‘critical’ or ‘resistance’ qualitative
research paradigm it is my intention to “stand apart from the prevailing order of the
world and ask how that order came about” (Cox, 1980, p. 129). By researching
with a critical vein I can challenge the uncontested status of the practicum with a
view to deepen understanding and ultimately generate new theories that inform the
complex practices, procedures and reasonings of practicum. The research tools of
listening to previously silenced voices, working within multiple perspectives,
problematising and situating knowledge and valuing contradiction, allow me to
interrogate, provoke and ‘poke holes’ (Lather, 1991; Smyth, 2001) in assumptions
of normality. The richness, intensity and context specific nature of this research
deep into classrooms suggests a design that can accommodate the complexity and
allow the space for unexpected turns.

PRACTICES, PROCEDURES AND REASONING

If we add to the endeavour to situate our understandings in their lived context the
asking of the ‘critical’ questions -‘What does it look like? Who benefits? Who is
disadvantaged? How did it come to be this way? and What can we do about it?’
(Smyth, 2001, personal communication), then we can begin to deconstruct and
reconstruct the practicum landscape. Meanwhile this ethical and critically focused

21

RORRISON

language deliberately challenges the marketplace and accountability discourse
currently infiltrating education, by introducing instead an attitude of social and
political action and moral agency. These processes and practices are discussed as
‘practice architectures’ by Kemmis & Smith (2008) who refer to the sayings,
doings and relatings of teaching and learning relationships. Such discussions bring
into sharp relief the diversity of teachers, mentors, teacher educators and preservice
teachers. They are not a homogenous group; they have a multiplicity of
knowledge, experience, social, cultural and “racialised practices” (Ford, 2009, p. 4)
that are frequently not sufficiently considered. Ax and Ponte (2008) suggest such
discussions “lead back time and time again to the question of legitimacy of our
practice” (p. x) and to Steiner´s (2004) work, referring to the need “to pause and
reflect on the ‘mystery of what happens’ in schools and on teacher education
courses” (Ax and Ponte, 2008, p. ix).

I work from the understanding that what we perceive and the ideas and constructs
that orient our thinking, filtered through our sense of the world, provide a scaffold for
connecting new ideas (Rorrison, 2007). Because there will always be other aspects of
situations of which we are not aware, any understandings we have will be partial,
selective and ‘interested’/ ‘dis-interested’. We only take notice of, or turn our
attention to, activities, incidents, processes and structures when they fit within our
understanding of ‘reality’, which is a product of our biography, culture and politics.
This is my understanding of a postmodern sense of reflective and critical
consciousness. It is the position from which we allow ourselves to read the world. As
our lenses can be both conscious and unconscious, further reflection or critique of
any experience or data is necessary to ensure that we move beyond this ‘partial’,
‘selective’ or ‘localised’ perspective. This understanding is also based on Dewey´s
(1933) view when he writes “Reflection is an active, persistent, and careful
consideration of any belief or supposed form of knowledge in the light of the grounds
supporting it and future conclusions to which it tends” (p. 6). Schön (1987) extends
this view to professional learning in the professions in general but warns us about the
‘indeterminate swampy zone’. Schön (1995) argues that practice is uncertain,
changing and unique while Kincheloe (2004, p. 61) introduces his concern that we
might be dishonest in our pretence that the “positivistic epistemology of the
contemporary university” is actually capable of guiding preservice teachers in their
understanding of practical experiences. Indeed it appears that teacher educators and
preservice teachers are faced with huge diversity in beliefs, attitudes and
understandings about practice and ‘practise’ during initial teacher education. It is no
surprise that the result is variously acquiescence, frustration, confusion, resentment
and sometimes ‘disempowerment’ through lack of clarity about practicum learning
(Rorrison, 2007, 2008; Smagorinsky, Lakly & Johnson, 2002) and teacher education
is looking at new ways to guide and support preservice teacher learning.

Although the practicum has a long tradition in teacher education, the fluidity of
social, cultural and political practices may not have been sufficiently addressed in
practicum processes. Recent changes in those attracted to teaching as well as
changes in the purpose of education, the culture of schools, classroom dynamics
and our understanding of young people and how their learning is constructed, have

22

BORDER CROSSING IN PRACTICUM RESEARCH

resulted in new expectations of the work of teachers. My previous study (Rorrison,
2007) of the practicum in Australia concluded that:

The practicum sits within a very full and demanding teacher education course
structure and on the periphery of a complex and only partially understood
education system. What are needed are better understandings of the attitudes,
beliefs and practices of those involved so that changes in attitudes and ways
of conducting the practicum relationships become possible. By situating
understandings within tentative new theories of the practicum learning
process, teacher educators and preservice teachers can together uncover the
issues, interruptions and inconsistencies that have previously worked to
disempower these novice teachers (Rorrison, 2007, p. 301).

While this search for new ‘theories’ or new ways to frame how we talk about
practicum learning continues, what is being uncovered is that these changes in
teacher roles, classroom pedagogy and learning ‘outcomes’2 calls for substantial
changes in teacher knowledge, actions and theories about teaching and learning at
a global level. It appears that classroom practice has changed and the practicum is
no longer a time (if it ever was) where ‘how to teach’ and ‘what to teach’ are a
given that can be observed, internalised and passed on from teacher to teacher. The
neophyte teacher is faced with an array of teacher qualities and dispositions,
diversity of schools, differences between classes even at the same school, as well
as a range of theoretical traditions that guide teachers (who themselves have a wide
range of positions and perspectives about teaching) (Rorrison, 2007, 2008). This
can result in more questions than answers. Questions like, What is the purpose of
education? Why do teachers do what they do? What does learning look like? and
‘What is my role as a teacher in all of this? need to be addressed. It is possible that
the entire premise on which we base our understanding of how teachers learn
during practicum needs to be reframed. Although we may never find the definitive
‘essence’ of the practicum experience, this chapter looks at the application of seven
guiding principles of practicum learning (the finding and recommendations from
previous research) across international borders in an endeavour to better
understand practicum and workplace learning, and provide some theoretical
constructs for the suggested ‘practicum turn’.

WORKING ACROSS CULTURAL AND NATIONAL BOUNDARIES

It is important to position the research within current understandings of transformation,
hegemony and inter-national research. Ideas presented in the transformative work of
O’Sullivan, Morrell and O’Connor (2002) demonstrate how the change process might
work and lead to more inclusive ways of knowing through embracing and integrating

––––––––––––––
2 The concept of outcomes is another that has different meanings within different educational

contexts. In Australia the term is considered positive, inclusive, germane and developed from Spady
(1993) OBE (Outcomes Based Education) but in Sweden the concept is more narrow, restrictive and
lacks individual expression or freedom. Consequently I will use it sparingly.

23

RORRISON

data of which our cognitive system had previously been unconscious. The work also
points out that it is difficult to let go of habits of mind unless a crisis or deeply
problematic experience leads to a search for a different worldview.

While the complexity and fragility of cross international research is becoming
better understood (Bagshaw, Lepp and Zorn, 2007; Lingard, 2009), the difficulties of
developing trust and understanding the subtleties of different cultural traditions needs
to be acknowledged. Bagshaw and his colleagues (2007) speak of the ‘shadow side’
(p. 433) and stress that time together is important to develop trusting, effective and
culturally sensitive relationships. By learning more about distinguishing
characteristics such as goals, processes, aspirations, traditions and policies,
international collaborations can uncover important contrasts that can act as a
springboard to interrogate current understandings. Lingard (2009) enters the
international comparison debate through his understanding that the distribution of
power and the levels of social control in a society will define how educational
knowledge is understood. He goes on to highlight different approaches categorizing
them as Anglo-American, Scandinavian, East Asian developmental state or Chinese
market-socialism. Clearly this understanding is important when comparing Swedish,
Canadian and Australian educational politics. Through his highlighting of the
differences between the Scottish and English educational ideologies, Lingard (2009)
identifies for me a deep ideological issue that helps explain the differences I feel
while researching in the ‘borderlands’, particularly in Scandinavia. Lingard (2009)
claims that Scottish education is more akin to the northern European social-
democratic polities than the Anglo-American polities, while Australia [and Canada]
are more likely to follow the Anglo-American model.

NARRATIVE AS METHOD

During the last eight years I have been studying the practicum in teacher education,
firstly in Australia and then in Canada (Rorrison, 2007, 2008, 2010), and I have
developed seven ‘guiding principles for practicum learning’ (appendix 1). For the
first five years (see figure 1, phase 1) I observed preservice teachers in middle
schools and secondary schools. Using the field data collected from over 200 hours
of observation and ‘immersion’ in the preservice teacher classroom, I crafted six
‘stories of practicum learning’ ensuring that although the wide range of
experiences in the stories were based on ethnographic study, no person, incident or
place was recognisable. The stories were fictional composites.

There is much support in the extant literature for stories or story-ing as a
powerful heuristic for lifting some tentative ideas, impressions and beliefs into the
world of readers and I contend that it is through deep engagement with the
responses of the reader/respondents to the stories that we might reframe how we
talk about practicum learning. Creswell (1998) recommends a

…fictional representation form in which writers draw on the literary devices
such as flashback, flashforward, alternative points of view, deep
characterisation, tone shifts, synecdoche, dialogue, interior monologue, and
sometimes omniscient narrator (p. 185).

24

BORDER CROSSING IN PRACTICUM RESEARCH

Figure 1 Phases of Research

Ely and her associates (1997) recommend carefully adapting
…the various tools of narrative – characters, setting, sequences of events,
atmosphere, plot, theme, dialogue, motifs, figurative language, and many
other literary devices [to] render the stories complex and significant. (Ely,
Vinz, Downing &Anzul 1997 p. 64)

while Beattie (2001, p. 165) encourages the writer to make careful decisions about
audience, content, structure, form and style. As it was critical to the research
design that readers resonated with the stories as trustworthy representations of

25

RORRISON

practicum experiences, I carefully heeded this advice while crafting the stories.
The stories were intended to be rich, dense, absorbing and enjoyable as well as
evocative and informative. They are fictional yet believable. Some of the stories
continue through two practica, some barely touch on one. There is an attempt to
develop the characters and the context yet there is so much more that could be
written. I left space for readers to add their perspectives. I even invited them to
write their own stories, recommend plots for missing stories, and suggest further
chapters or alternate endings. To maintain the idea that the stories are fictional the
preservice teachers who are the main characters in each story, are identified by a
single letter of the alphabet. A very brief introduction to the stories follows.

The first story is about T who is a male in his early twenties who entered
university straight from school. He came from a poor country family who moved
from place to place in his early years and he attended many different schools. T’s
first practicum included both supportive and ‘laissez faire’ mentoring, but it was
other aspects of school culture and politics that had the most influence on his
practicum experience. R is a middle aged female who experiences difficulties
adapting to the move from the work place to the university and when her practicum
placement was changed at the last minute her insecurities re-emerge and she
decides to withdraw from her practicum. A middle aged migrant from the Indio-
Pacific region ‘Dr B’ hopes to teach English and English as a Second Language
(ESL) but unfortunately doesn’t have the background knowledge. His mentors
were carefully chosen but B tries to work full time and participate in his practicum
at the same time. Eventually he realises he needs more time to fully understand the
school culture and engage with his study. During her practica Q is able to observe
and work with some fine teachers but due to her mentor´s family emergency she is
left to fend for herself and although capable the experience is one of survival rather
than learning. D is ‘Y’ generation and rebelled against everything middle class. It
wasn’t until her practicum that she was forced to confront who she was and what
she was doing with her life. A remote placement with many challenges helps her
decide that teaching may after all be a worthwhile vocation. V is a young man who
had no intention of becoming a teacher when he completed his education degree
but despite an error of judgement and through the guidance and support he
received from dedicated mentors and teacher educators, decided to teach after all.
M had always wanted to work with children but her disability prevented her from
enrolling in teacher education until later in life. Her first practicum was an
unmitigated success, both mentor and mentee learning a great deal. G had spent her
early years in a developing country. She was overwhelmed by her first classroom
experience. Through the support of her well informed and energetic mentor and
understanding teacher educator, G was given a second chance when things went
awry. C was a thorough and dedicated preservice teacher but failed to develop a
supportive relationship with her mentor. Fortunately she was able to develop a
successful ‘mentoring’ relationship with another teacher whose pedagogy
resonated with her own theories of teaching and learning and reinstated her
confidence in her own ability. E’s first practicum in the education course had been
a ‘paired practicum’ and he and his partner had been well supported by the early

26

BORDER CROSSING IN PRACTICUM RESEARCH

childhood teacher. However E’s second practicum uncovered some of his old
insecurities. E eventually realised that mentoring can be provided in many different
ways and a quality learning relationship is dependent on both parties. J is far from
home, struggling financially and has just established a valued relationship with a
same-sex partner. Due to her enthusiasm and genuine desire to make a contribution
to the school community J accepted additional roles in the after-school care unit but
was finding the long hours and the demands of her university assignments were
beginning to affect her health. The twelfth and final story is about Y, an immature,
over-protected and indulged young person who was quite unprepared for the
demands of the grade two classroom or the lack of support from her mentor teacher.

The ethnographic data for analysis was collected through the 4,481 notations on
the story booklets by the readers. The criteria for quality qualitative research guided
the data analysis. To ensure the veracity of the research Noreen Garman´s tests of
verity, integrity, rigour, utility, vitality, aesthetics, ethics and verisimilitude
(Piantanida & Garman, 2009) provide a range of evaluation cannons that relate well
to narrative inquiry such as this. Verisimilitude, understood as being recognisable as
conceivable experience (Creswell, 1998; Richardson, 1994) was seen to be the most
important of all to this project in the initial stages. The original six stories were
circulated and critiqued by 35 volunteer reader/respondents (preservice teachers,
teachers, mentors and teacher educators) from five different countries. It was made
very clear to the volunteers who read the stories that they represented the writer´s
perspective and were only a few of the possible stories that could have been written.
Nearly 3,000 notations, highlighted sections, exclamations, comments, ticks and
crosses on the text, as well as some other stories to add to my collection resulted.
This data was open coded through identification of recurring words and phrases as
recommended in the research methods literature, (e.g. Johnson and Christensen,
2008, p. 413-414) then sorted through connections with the research questions. Ely
and her associates (1997) in the book ‘On Writing Qualitative Research. Living by
Words’ suggest that theory building such as this develops through deep engagement
with the data. This analysis resulted in a number of themes emerging and these were
acted upon by the critical questions (Describe, Inform, Confront, Reconstruct)
(Smyth, 2001) as previously discussed -see also the ‘critical spiral’, figure 2) and
through this theorising the guiding principles of practicum learning (appendix 1)
emerged as propositions for quality practicum processes.

The second phase of my practicum research involved observations in early
childhood and primary schools in Canada and Australia, followed by the writing of
six more (though shorter) stories of the elementary and early childhood practica
(see figure 1, phase 2). These were circulated and critiqued by 23
reader/respondents, the majority from Australia, Canada and Sweden. Again the
responses were coded, sorted and analysed, this time through their connection with
the guiding principles that were the outcomes of the first study. This resulted in a
refining of the principles of practicum learning to ensure they were applicable to
all education levels and a subsequent rewording of the original nine guiding
principles into the current seven. Hoping to interrogate the principles further I then
conducted around 150 hours of observations of preservice teachers in six Swedish

27

RORRISON

schools during February and March 2009 (see figure 1, phase 3). This study was
conducted on several fronts. The primary focus was the gathering of observation
data while shadowing preservice teachers in Swedish schools. At the same time, as
a researcher, I worked with Swedish practitioners to encourage deeper
understandings of practicum learning and mentoring through introducing the seven
guiding practicum learning principles at schools, basgrupp3 and university
departments of education. As mentioned Swedish practitioners were also invited to
comment on the ‘stories of the primary and early childhood practicum’ that had
been developed from the field observations in Australia and Canada.

The data analysis process was varied for the Swedish study. Unlike the previous
research where stories of the practicum were crafted from the descriptive field
notes then the responses of the reader/respondents to the stories were ‘open coded’,
the field notes from the Swedish observations were instead sorted directly against
the existing list of meaning units that were the result of the reader/respondent
annotations in the two previous story booklets. The Swedish meaning units were
then linked to the seven guiding principles (see figure 1, phase 3). While new
stories of the practicum could have been crafted and shared with the teaching
community, this process is slow and at this stage of the project seemed
unnecessary.

If I had chosen to write more stories to develop the character of the Swedish
preservice teacher and the ecology of the Swedish school based on my field notes
it may have looked like this;

The classroom was calm, yet it was clear that there was rigorous discussion
within the pupil groups. The preservice teacher and the classroom teacher
were both moving from table to table fielding questions, redirecting
discussion, asking probing questions and generally remaining engaged in the
learning. When I first arrived I had been unable to identify the preservice
teacher, with no uniforms and no titles the early morning preparations for
class had involved everyone on an equal basis, and apart from one small
group who were obviously playing children´s games, I really found it hard to
differentiate.

Overall the classroom design was fairly traditional, something I noticed
throughout my pre-school and nine-year compulsory school visits in Sweden.
The classrooms would be considered rather ‘barren’ from an Australian or
Canadian perspective. This was explained to me as a deliberate decision not
to over stimulate the children, and from my observations it seemed to be
successful. The lack of technology used in the classrooms also surprised me.
Particularly in Australia, but also in Canada, interactive whiteboards were
present in the majority of classrooms I visited…

––––––––––––––
3 These ‘study and conversation’ groups have been introduced at the municipality level to support the

preservice teachers while they are in the schools.

28

BORDER CROSSING IN PRACTICUM RESEARCH

There appeared to be a definite focus in the classroom to facilitate
opportunities for the preservice teacher and the mentor teacher to work
together with a seamless relationship to the lesson content and the pupil
learning. A strong sense of self worth and professionalism pervaded as did a
sense of equality that valued the very ‘humanity’ of those in the room
(including myself). Never had I felt so welcome and ‘included’ in a
classroom so quickly... (A possible narrative from Swedish classroom
observation, Rorrison, 2011).

THEORY BUILDING-PRESENTING RESULTS

Through exploring the lives, perspectives, pedagogies, practice and
understandings of those involved in the practicum to try to understand what is
happening in their “professional, public, private, personal and learning lives”
(Rorrison, 2001, p. 1), a reframing of the conversations around practicum
learning is possible. As already mentioned the narratives tell stories from early
childhood, primary, middle school and secondary settings and participants in the
field who volunteered to read the stories were asked to add their “perspectives
and amend, contest, agree with [the stories by using] the spaces on the pages to
comment, annotate, rewrite, argue, dispute, criticise or affirm my perspective of
the practicum [and to] circle, underline, mark and comment on the written text”
(Rorrison, 2007, p. 2; 2008, pp. 5-6). By offering opportunities for voices to be
heard without the filtering of an ‘expert’ author, perspectives have been
uncovered that present ideas that “student teachers and experienced school
teachers do not frequently discover and tell” (Mattsson, 2008, p. 216). They
contain “unwelcome truths about how things are here and now, and how they
have come to be” (Kemmis, 2006, p. 461), as well as concepts and ideas that
provide valuable knowledge and learning for preservice teachers and their
mentors in the university, the local education instrumentalities4 and in the
schools. Such critical reflection is an unnerving experience, particularly when
taken for granted beliefs are being subjected to scrutiny and challenged.

When the Swedish observation field notes were sorted against the previous
meaning units then against the seven principles for practicum learning the most
dramatic outcome was the different ways they connected with some of these
guiding principles. I will also use the steps of the critical spiral (figure 2) to help
articulate the meaning of this data through actions that describe, inform, confront
and reconstruct (Smyth, 1992) our understandings. This is the analysis process that
was used to interrogate the data collected during the first study and resulted in the
(then) nine guiding principles (Rorrison, 2007).

––––––––––––––
4 These vary between countries. In Canada these are local ‘Boards’, in Sweden the Municipality

Basgrupps and in Australia the State teacher ‘institutes’ and regional/state Departments of
Education.

29

RORRISON

Analysis of data through applying the critical questions to the (now) seven
principles of practicum learning

In an effort to continue to refine the practicum learning principles as a
framework for looking with fresh eyes at the practicum a number of questions
need to be asked of the new data. How do the principles of practicum learning
stand up to further scrutiny in the non-Anglo-American context? Do they merely
reify the practicum learning process? Are they merely constructs of an over
zealous researcher keen to explain the ‘practicum turn’? What value are they and
what is missing?

The first step in the critical process is to ‘describe’ the way things are (what
does it look like?) and I previously did this through analysis of the responses of the
reader/respondents to the stories. The data tells a story when it is sorted into
manageable and meaningful concepts through deep engagement with it. As Ely and
her colleagues (1997) suggest, the building of theories does not emerge like ‘Venus
on the half shell’ (p. 205) but develops through deep engagement of, and thinking
about, the data. I liken this to Archimedes ‘epiphany’ in the bath, suggesting that it
was his deep engagement with the problem and his scholarly practice (that
included reflection and drawing on experience) that led to his ‘eureka’ theory of
volume and displacement.

For the Swedish phase of the study (phase 3, see figure 1) the first step is a
description of how the empirical data links or connects with the seven guiding
principles of practicum learning. The second step in this critical spiral asks the
question ‘how did it come to be this way? This is where the cultural and historical
conditions are rubbed against the description to uncover the meanings behind what
we are describing. This is followed by Smyth´s (1989) third ‘moment’, an act of
confrontation, where we ask ‘who benefits?’ and are led to confront whether what
we do, or the assumptions we make, are legitimate, reasonable, informed, innocent
or just. It is only with this understanding that the fourth ‘moment’ in this critical
spiral, a moment of reconstruction and change, can begin, there-by making it
possible to repeat the procedure in the theory building process.

Guiding principle 1 (Theories of Learning)

Guiding practicum learning principle 1 states:

Productive and transformative pedagogies linked to transparent and robust
theories of learning should be clearly constructed, and the related teaching
experiences carefully scaffolded, for preservice teacher learning during the
practicum.

It appeared from my previous study in Australia and Canada that productive and
transformative pedagogies and theories of learning were introduced in university
but were not well scaffolded for novice teachers during practicum. For teachers
who will begin their teaching careers in the next few years and continue for maybe
half a century, a deep understanding of past and current learning theories is critical.
How else can they keep abreast with the changes in society, schools, learners,

30

BORDER CROSSING IN PRACTICUM RESEARCH

Figure 2. The critical spiral (modified from Smyth ‘critical cycle’, 1989)

expectations and quality teaching and learning relationships? It becomes apparent
that the major responsibilities of the schools and universities in preparing teachers of
the future relates to their understanding of what teachers do. Can we ensure that
robust theories of learning are clearly understood and applied during teacher
professional learning? Whether these are personal and pedagogical theories
constructed through reflection and experience or theories introduced through
association with major educationalists like Vygotsky, Piaget, Dewey or Schön I
contend that preservice teacher engagement should be supported and scaffolded. The
data from discussions and observations within the schools and the universities visited
in Stockholm provided few references to either productive or transformative

31

RORRISON

pedagogies or robust theories of learning. The work of Peter Emsheimer & Nilani
Ljunggren De Silva (Chapter 8 this edition) and Männikkö-Barbutiu and Rorrison
(chapter 3 this edition) have a more thorough discussion of preservice teacher use of
learning theories and seems to concur with this observation. My field notes from
basgrupp visits, classroom teaching and preservice teacher discussions with mentor
teachers tends to focus more on discussions around the planning of content and
organisational issues or classroom dynamics and relationships. Meanwhile my own
conversations with preservice teachers provide evidence of their understanding of the
importance of education for the citizens of the future but very little awareness of
educational paradigms, educationalists or theorists beyond Steiner, Vygotsky, Piaget,
Bronfenbrenner and Montessori.

The second of the critical questions asks how did it come to be this way? Why
are preservice teachers not relating to theories of learning and teaching? Are the
theory and the practice not being satisfactorily scaffolded or connected for them? If
not, whose responsibility is it to ensure that this happens? If indeed it is too
difficult for the teacher educators either at university or as mentors in the schools
to fulfil this role then it is important that this is made transparent. The
theory/practice gap is very apparent in the practicum classroom and the traditional
view of learning about teaching through ‘apprenticeship’ style observation and
modelling is alive and well.

The question of who benefits from the current situation is a difficult one and
possibly the answer is ‘no-one’, certainly not the preservice teacher or the pupils who
are both supposed to be learning in the practicum classroom. It appears that
hegemonic forces are at work and those who support the status quo are the only ones
who would benefit. Finally in terms of what can be done about this, processes and
understandings are needed in teacher education to transform this situation so we can
reconstruct how robust theories of learning can be scaffolded to inform productive
and transformative pedagogies for preservice teachers during practicum.

Guiding Principle 2 (Collaborative Relationships)

Guiding practicum learning principle 2 states:

Collaborative relationships between schools and university schools of
education should be underpinned by a shared understanding of how theory
and practice intersect to inform preservice teachers about engaging pupils in
quality learning that will prepare them for a future of change, challenge and
lifelong learning.

The relationships between universities and schools appear to be as fragile in the
settings I visited in Sweden as they were in the Canadian and Australian schools I
visited. It appears that in Sweden there is little communication between the schools
and the university schools of education. Indeed it was pointed out on many
occasions that teacher educators from the university had very little role in the
practicum, were not always qualified or experienced classroom teachers, and were
more of a scholarly support to preservice teachers than a practical support.

32

BORDER CROSSING IN PRACTICUM RESEARCH

Although practicum has become subject based rather than a subject in its own right
since the most recent educational reforms in 2008, the overwhelming impression I
gain from my field notes is that the university lecturers set the work but it is up to
the school based mentor and preservice teacher to negotiate its process and
presentation. The effectiveness is therefore dependent on that conversation. I did
observe a more seamless transition than I observed in Australia and Canada from
the school based teacher as classroom teacher to the preservice teacher as
classroom teacher. The placement of the preservice teacher at the same school
throughout their teacher education might have an influence here as the focus
moves from continual establishment of relationships and knowledge about a school
community to engaging pupils in quality learning.

So why is the relationship between the schools and the university so fragile?
How did it come to be this way? It appears that an anti-intellectual attitude that
leads to the separation of theory and practice during the practicum is pervasive and
that in each country there are some teachers who are ‘stuck’ (Mac an Ghaill, 1992;
Campbell and Kane, 1998; Rorrison, 2001) in a traditional paradigm, with beliefs
and pedagogy informed by cultures and society quite different from contemporary
understandings. Clearly this is an important issue, the willingness and/or ability of
human beings to adapt to change is difficult to explain and will always influence
both systemic and ideological transformation. Furthermore it is always difficult to
engage those not interested in change in investigative research, though this appears
to be the same across international borders. Stories as research do appear to go
some way towards reducing this reluctance.

In terms of the third critical question- who benefits and who is disadvantaged by
this situation? it becomes clear that again hegemonic forces benefit those who
currently hold the most powerful positions. Whether those who do not wish to
work collaboratively are school or university based, the failure to let go of the
beliefs that have guided them in the past, disadvantages those who wish to work in
new ways. The increasing interest in participant action research in schools might
be one way to counter anti-intellectual attitudes towards the practice/theory
dialectic. Support for this mode of learning in schools is strongly implicated in this
new sense of the ‘practicum turn’. We can do things differently and talking about
new ways to frame the practicum is a good start.

Guiding Principle 3 (Recognition of Different Learning Needs)

Guiding practicum learning principle 3 states:

The different learning needs of preservice teachers must be recognised and they
should be given the space at university and in the schools to learn about teachers´
work in ways that are empowering and transformative for their practice.

This sentiment is frequently alluded to in the field notes and connects to a significant
number of meaning units that emerged from observation of and conversations with
both preservice teachers and their school based mentors in Sweden. There were many
comments akin to “we let them make their own decisions about what they want to

33

RORRISON

achieve”, “I recommend they get a feel for the class and let me know what I can do
to help them fit” and “they just tell us what they need to do” from the mentors,
suggesting a complete confidence in the ability of the preservice teacher to find their
own learning spaces. Meanwhile the preservice teachers told me they found their
mentors “helpful”, “accommodating”, “inspiring” and “obliging”. My own
observations revealed very casual, low-key relationships where the preservice teacher
was generally trusted and valued. Those I watched teach appeared to be confident
and at ease with their teaching task and did not seem to be overly burdened by the
presence (or frequently absence) of their mentor teachers.

How does it come to be that the ecology in the Swedish classrooms I observed
appeared different from that in the Canadian or Australian classrooms that I visited?
Firstly in the Australian and Canadian schools it is, in most cases a legal requirement
that mentor teachers are present in the classroom at ALL times, mainly to ensure a
positive classroom climate is maintained (and there are no legal repercussions in
relation to ‘duty of care’ expectations). The Swedish classrooms appear generally
calmer and the ethos is one of trust and confidence in the ability of the preservice
teacher. Clearly when we ask who benefits it appears that when the pupils are more
accommodating and engaged it is easier for the preservice teacher to learn about
teachers´ work and establish effective pedagogy. Although it is less likely that
researchers are invited into classrooms that are viewed as ‘difficult’ there is
significant contrast in the discussions in staffrooms and preservice teacher meetings
to provide evidence of the calmer nature or the Swedish experience when compared
with the Australian and Canadian classroom ecologies.

Guiding Principle 4 (Transparency)

Practicum Learning Principle 4 states:

Worthwhile outcomes must be established and clearly articulated for any
observation and teaching experience during the practicum. The diverse
cultural, socio-political and learning contexts of practicum settings should be
transparent, valued and shared in collegial ways as part of learning about
teaching.

In the Swedish schools I visited there appeared to be a general and accepted
understanding that each practicum classroom and school setting was unique, and
surprise at the suggestion that the differences could work against the preservice
teacher. It appears that placement policy focuses on preservice teacher choice and
their time in the schools is worked around their own personal schedule, not that of
the school. In my experience of practicum in Australia and Canada, the preservice
teacher is expected to attend the school full-time on the days that are allocated to
professional work experience. In fact, their registration as a teacher is dependent
on a set number of full days in schools, depending on their course. This added
pressure appears to work against how preservice teachers value the practicum.
Some see it as a time to be ‘endured’ while they ‘jump through hoops’ instead of a
carefully negotiated and mutually beneficial learning experience. Eilertsen, Furu

34

BORDER CROSSING IN PRACTICUM RESEARCH

and Rørnes in chapter 4, this edition, comment that a new role for the practicum is
to contribute to school renewal through inquiry, reflection and action research
while simultaneously the schools can contribute to the preparation of teachers
through rich experiences and professional discourse. This is consistent with
practicum learning principle four where transparency is stressed, though the focus
on inquiry as suggested by this project in Norway, opens up further possibilities for
the partnerships that need to develop.

My field notes, however, comment many times that there appeared to be much
harmony and few tensions in the mentor/preservice teacher relationships and the
preservice teachers generally appeared confident and self-contained. This is,
however, a feature of Swedish behaviour I have been conscious of at the
university, in life in general, as well as in the schools. I have immersed myself in
Swedish life on the many occasions I have visited, as I did while researching in
Canada, and have become very much aware of the different ways the politics,
culture and history of the different countries affect their attitudes, perceptions and
interpersonal relationships. In terms of ‘how did this come to be?’, the second
critical question, one young man pointed out in Sweden, “we may look the same
but our backgrounds have created many differences” (February 2009, personal
communication) and one Swedish teacher asked me how I was coping with the
cold and added “you know the weather is cold and they say so are the people”
(March 2009, personal communication). Although I was quite surprised by the
comment at the time I can only conclude that while I had become used to the
Swedish pragmatism,some outsiders might see it as ‘cold’ or unenthusiastic.

It appears in terms of the third critical question, who benefits, the preservice
teachers in Sweden were less fazed by authority figures and less driven by fears of
assessment of their teaching with the result that they could focus more on
‘practising’ their teaching pedagogy and skills. How this attitude can be ‘captured’
and employed elsewhere is an important question to address.

Guiding Principle 5 (Learning Community)

Guiding practicum learning principle 5 states that:

It is the responsibility of teacher educators, as committed and informed
teachers, to support classroom teachers to mentor the preservice teacher
learning while maintaining a receptive and involved interest. Timely
guidance and support will foster successful learning relationships while
conversations with peers will aid reflection and transformation of the sense
of ‘self’ as a teacher within a learning community.

There is little in my Swedish field notes that engage with the first sentence of this
principle. I have stated above there is little contact between the teacher educators
and the school-based teachers, as the basgrupp and the local educational authorities
have the responsibility for the practicum. There is, however, much potential for
conversations with peers and timely guidance and reflection through the basgrupp
days. Clearly the conversations around ICT, Web 2.0 technologies, challenging

35

RORRISON

classroom relationships, reflective strategies and the myriad of other topics I noted
that were discussed during basgrupp, have developed through a conscious decision
to situate this learning in the school settings rather than the university. This
acknowledges that, just as each classroom is different and each pupil has different
learning, emotional and social needs, so too the learning context of each preservice
teacher is different. I have frequently advocated (practicum learning principle 3)
that the different learning needs of preservice teachers should be recognised in
ways that are empowering and generate the skills, knowledges, understandings and
dispositions we value in our teachers (Rorrison, 2010). It appears that preservice
teachers benefit from their involvement in a community of learning that focuses
more closely on timely guidance and support in the particular settings of the
practicum. Both the preservice teachers and their mentors were involved in
rigorous discussions about professional practice as well as having access to expert
advice and information from educational leaders from the wider community.

Guiding Principles 6 (Reflective Dialogues) and 7 (International Perspectives)

The final two practicum learning principles focus more on the method and purpose
of the research and are less relevant to this chapter. Guiding practicum learning
principle 6 states:

Conversations about the practicum learning experience can prepare
preservice teachers to look with a fresh lens on contentious and previously
silenced issues. Narrative grounded in ‘truly conceivable experience’ can
provide examples of quality mentoring and pedagogy as a valuable teacher
education resource

However it does appear, from the discourse analysis of the comments in my field
notes, to be a genuine interest in narrative methodology and stories of practicum
learning by preservice teachers, classroom teachers, mentors and principals in
Sweden, with many offering to read and comment on the stories. There was also
some interest shown at the university with several teacher educators volunteering
to read the booklets of stories. As the stories were written in English it may
however have been a daunting task with only five of the 15 booklets returned to
me with comments or annotations. Nevertheless I remain convinced that
conversations around contentious and previously silenced issues as well as robust
discussions related to theories of learning and philosophies of teaching, are
valuable teacher education resources. Obviously, however, stories written in
one’s own language are going to be more resonant and accessible and lead to
more vibrant discussion. Language issues such as these add to the complexity of
cross border research yet, as you will read below, there was considerable interest
expressed in both knowing how the practicum was organised in other countries
and how their own experience in Sweden could add to an international
understanding. Indeed this is the purpose of studying and sharing perspectives
across borders. This relates directly to the purpose of this project and guiding
practicum learning principle 7 that states:

36

BORDER CROSSING IN PRACTICUM RESEARCH

Increased collaboration between universities at a national and international
level is necessary if we are to develop a conceptual framework to articulate
the important understandings of practicum learning.

COMPARISONS THAT EMERGE

Interestingly the patterns that emerged from the analysis of the primary and early
childhood story booklets by the five Swedish reader/respondents who returned
their booklets demonstrated some quite marked differences. When the responses
were sorted against the guiding practicum learning principles they did not fit the
general pattern established by the responses from the other 19 Canadian and
Australian reader/respondents. A remarkable fifty-four percent of the total
responses that connected with practicum learning principle 7 were from the five
Swedish reader/respondents, though overall this practicum learning principle that
relates to international collaboration had the least number of total responses (24 of
1623). It appears that the Swedish respondents were much more interested in a
global perspective. Meanwhile the lowest response rate for the Swedish
reader/respondent was 18.5 per cent of the total for practicum learning principle 5,
while this practicum learning principle had the second largest total of responses
overall. This is the learning principle that relates to the need for support by
university based teacher educators and is consistent with the analysis of my field
notes where I comment above “there is little contact between the teacher educators
and the school-based teachers, as the basgrupp and the local educational authorities
have the responsibility for the practicum”. Unlike their Australian and Canadian
counterparts the Swedish respondents appear to be comfortable with the lack of
involvement of the university during the practicum.

The patterns of responses from Swedish, Australian and Canadian
reader/responders were more similar for practicum learning principles 2, 3 and 4.
Although the structure varies between Sweden and the Canadian and Australian
systems, there is an uncomfortable relationship between learning from practice and
learning from scholarly activities (i.e. at the university) in all three countries. There
is agreement that the ability to engage pupils in quality learning is the purpose of
teacher education (practicum learning principle 2) but still an acknowledged
reluctance by some school based teachers to embrace the notion that practice is (in
part) informed by theory, and that the learning of educational theory is critical.
Interestingly, those who responded were very positive themselves about the
fundamental intersection of theory and practice but related stories of others in the
schools who were less convinced. Perhaps it is the age old adage of preaching to
the converted

Despite the differences in classroom ecology I note above- the calmness of the
Swedish classroom as opposed to the more restless Australian and Canadian
classrooms I visited- there were a similar number of responses from reader/
respondents from each of the three countries about the need to acknowledge the
different needs of the preservice teachers and the importance of allowing them
space during the practicum to develop the pedagogies and teaching strategies that

37