EXPLORING THE SELF AS PART OF PRACTICE
Similar to the majority of students in term four, all students in term five also
agreed on the need for more practicum during their degree. As with the students
in term four, the basic reason why the students in term five generally wanted
more practicum was that it would have given them more opportunities to
recognise the many different aspects of social work before they finished their
degree.
When I asked the students what modules of their degree they experienced as
contributing to their development of professional practice knowledge, they
mentioned practicum first. However, besides the modules where they could put
theoretical knowledge into practice, the students also emphasised group projects
as helpful in their personal and professional development. The students
underlined that the present grading scale totally undermined their commitment as
they can only be awarded pass or fail grades in group projects. As a complement
to how the lecturers described isomorphism as one founding pedagogic model of
teaching professional practice knowledge in social work, the students stressed
the learning methods employed in the degree, such as group projects, were
equally important for how they come to learn professional practice knowledge.
From this perspective the present grading scale, which is exclusively focused on
individual merits, is problematic for degrees such as social work, where much of
the students´ development of professional practice knowledge is based on an
understanding of knowledge as a process that develops in the meeting and
dialogue with others. How to challenge and rethink the conventional academic
perception of knowledge as an exclusive matter of individual accomplishments
and merits thus seems to be one issue that social work and preservice teacher
education have in common.
Towards the reflective practitioner?
All of the lecturers and most of the students that I met agreed that the role of
professional practice knowledge in social work could be described as theory and
self-knowledge that enables a reflective approach in the communication and
meeting with others. The lecturers, and also several of the students, conceptualised
this understanding of professional practice knowledge in social work as a way of
thinking or an embedded approach towards the world and the self. Most of the
participants of the focus groups were thus keen advocates of the reflective learning
paradigm in social work and what Schön (1983) has described as the ‘reflective
practitioner’. Thus, apart from one student, none of the other participants in the
three focus groups argued in line with what Wilson and Berni (2010) describe as
the competence-based learning paradigm that emphasises students´ learning of
technical and practical aspects of social work.
However, while the majority of students argued in line with the reflective
learning paradigm, nearly all of them wanted more practicum. According to the
students, more practicum would have enabled them to grasp and understand the
field of social work more fully. This standpoint can be interpreted as an implicit
critique of the reflective learning paradigm. Theorising and reflecting on a
141
BRODIN
professional practice that still feels vague or unfamiliar is something that many
of the students in the focus groups felt uncomfortable with. According to these
students, more practicum would have helped them to broaden and deepen
their development of professional knowledge in social work. As previously
stated, this critique of the reflective learning paradigm was also explicitly
expressed by the student who identified with the competence-based learning
paradigm.
With its emphasis on theory and self-knowledge as the role of professional
practice knowledge, the reflective learning paradigm in social work can also be
related to Aristotle´s distinction between different forms of knowledge
(introductory chapter of this book by Matts Mattsson, Tor Vidar Eilertsen and
Doreen Rorrison). While theory obviously relates to Aristotle´s concept of
epistƝmƝ, self-knowledge refers to what Aristotle called phronƝsis, that is, the
ability to act wisely. In social work, students must come to learn by themselves,
how to act wisely. This is a necessity, as social work requires practitioners to set
aside their own feelings, emotions and values in order to honestly and, in a
trustworthy manner, meet the client/user sitting in front of them.
Missing in the conceptualisation of professional practice knowledge as theory
and self-knowledge is, however, the type of knowledge Aristotle referred to as
technƝ, that is, knowledge as know-how. The lack of technƝ was most prominent in
the lecturers´ focus group, as they indicated several times that the know-how
aspect of social work is something that the students will have to learn at the
workplace. As the lecturers also said, the main reason for leaving out the aspects of
technƝ in the social work degree is that the field of practice is so extensive that it is
simply impossible to educate students in the know-how of all the different forms of
practical social work. While some students seemed to accept this circumstance
rather uncritically, others were more inclined to criticise the degree for being too
focused on theory and self-knowledge.
In the students´ stories the reflective learning paradigm was also described as
fitting more closely with the vocational role of welfare officer than with the
vocational role of welfare administrator. The job in itself was not indicated as the
main reason for this. Rather, the student described how the practice architectures of
welfare administration put welfare administrators under such pressure that they
really do not have the time to develop reflective practices. Neither did the students
who had done their practicum as welfare administrators acknowledge the
theoretical knowledge and concepts that they had learned during their degree. One
of the students even compared welfare administration with unskilled, industrial
work. This was in contrast to students who had done their practicum as welfare
officers and who could identify both theoretical knowledge and reflection as
central to the professional role they had learned during practicum. The students´
practicum stories thus generate a question mark in relation to the notion of the
reflective practitioner, as this seems to be as a professional ideal that is hard to
realise in the administrative field of social work.
142
EXPLORING THE SELF AS PART OF PRACTICE
REFLECTIONS ON PRESERVICE TEACHERS´ PRACTICE LEARNING
FROM THE POINT OF SOCIAL WORK
The ‘reflective practitioner’ (Schön, 1983) is a professional ideal that also has
emerged within the preservice teacher degree and is emphasised as an important
part of both the practice and the ‘practicum turn’ (see for example Kemmis and
Smith, 2008; Mattsson, Johansson and Sandström, 2008). In what ways, then, can
the social work lecturers´ approaches and social work students´ reflections on
enabling the ‘reflective practitioner’ be taken into consideration to further
promote a ‘practicum’ turn in preservice teacher education? Here, the explicit
exploration of the self and the concept of self-knowledge, as it has been
incorporated in students´ reflections and practice learning in the social work
degree, are worth considering.
In both preservice teacher and social work education, the basic idea of reflection
is that it will help the students to prepare for situations or incidents that will occur
when they begin their career as professional practitioners. However, while
reflections on personal qualities and abilities are explicit in the practice learning of
social work, this is more implicit in preservice teacher students´ practice learning.
For example, in her study on the interplay of theory and practice in preservice
teacher education, Eriksson (2009) shows that reflections and discussions in study
groups are important for preservice teachers´ advancement of the professional role,
particularly discussions in those study groups connected to the practicum, as they
are usually mentored or supervised by inservice teachers (see also Mattsson,
Johansson and Sandström, 2008). However, although the students in Eriksson´s
(2009) study often touched upon emotional frustration in the confrontation with the
complex role of being a teacher and in relation to duties such as dialogues with
parents, pupils and policy makers, the discussions and reflections of the study
groups were articulated primarily within a framework of teaching. In regard to
reflections on teaching, the students were also more occupied with the application
of theories in practice than exploring practice from a theoretical perspective
(Eriksson, 2009, p. 195 ff).
Drawing on Eriksson´s (2009) study, including self-knowledge as an explicit
rather than implicit theme of reflection in preservice teachers´ practice learning,
might encourage students to overcome emotional barriers that can block their
ability to integrate practice and theory. In addition, explicit reflections on self-
knowledge could enable students to feel more confident in their professional
role, allowing them to integrate theory and practice in a more reflective manner.
For example, there are studies in teaching indicating that preservice teachers tend
to either reproduce supervisors´ teaching methods or become preoccupied with
technical skills if they have insufficient teaching experiences (Bergquist, 2000;
Eriksson, 2009, Rosenquist, 2002). Neither of these strategies, however, enables
the ‘reflective practitioner’ as they are mechanical rather than reflective working
methods. Here, explicit discussions and reflections on self-knowledge in relation to
practicum could increase preservice teachers´ awareness of how, when and why
they choose pedagogical tools or strategies, which in turn would enable them to
challenge and rethink their own as well as supervisors´ teaching practices.
143
BRODIN
From a more general perspective, the emphasis in social work of knowing
yourself, not only from a professional but also from a personal point of view, is a
useful approach that deserves attention in all professions in which communication
and interacting with people is central to the outcome of the work (see Croona,
2003). Basically, the reason for this is that in the meeting and interaction with
others, you as a person are often the most important tool you have to work with.
Thus, in all professions primarily based on human interaction, the concept of self-
knowledge can be seen as an integral part of what Aristotle called phronƝsis, or the
ability to act wisely. The need for more self-awareness of how they communicated
and interacted also emerged in the reflections of the preservice teachers
participating in Eriksson´s (2009) study, primarily when they discussed dialogues
with pupils, parents and policy makers. Here, explicit discussions and reflections
on self-knowledge in relation to practice learning might enable the preservice
teachers to confront the complexity characterising the day-to-day work of being an
inservice teacher in a more confident and reflective manner.
CONCLUDING REMARKS
One possible conclusion of the focus groups´ discussions that I established for the
purpose of this study is that in professions principally based on communication and
human interaction such as social work and teaching, professional practice
knowledge is actually hard to achieve. In social work this concerns primarily the
know-how aspect. The problem of narrowing down the know-how of social work
in the degree is, perhaps, not only explained by the extensive field of practice as
the social work lecturers argued, or too little practicum as the students emphasised.
Research, also, is significant. Both Trevithick (2008) and Kjørstad (2008) point out
that in social work, practitioners are often discontent with the relationship between
research and the field of practice. Consequently, practitioners of social work rate
informal knowledge gained in the field far higher than formal knowledge produced
by research institutes (Kjørstad, 2008). As a consequence, research is only used to
a modest degree to support and improve practice. According to Kjørstad (2008)
one basic reason why practitioners of social work do not make full use of research
is that the welfare office has tended to be treated as a black box by researchers. The
problems, situations and relationships that constitute the everyday experiences of
the majority of social workers are therefore overlooked in research. Thus, to make
research more useful for practitioners, Kjørstad (2008) argues that it is necessary to
develop concepts and methods that can capture the complexity of everyday
experiences and knowledge in social work.
The need to make knowledge in social work more accessible on a day-to-day
basis is also emphasised by Trevithick (2008). This need is not about providing
more technical information of how to do social work. On the contrary, it is about
defining a knowledge that can promote the development of critical practice. As
stressed by Trevithick (2008), one possible solution to this problem is to create
employment opportunities for practitioner-researchers who spend the majority of
their time in the work place but who also do research on the everyday problems
144
EXPLORING THE SELF AS PART OF PRACTICE
that confront them as practitioners of social work. If such practice-related research
was encouraged then perhaps the know-how aspects of social work would be easier
to narrow down and incorporate with the teaching of theoretical knowledge and
self-knowledge in the social work degree.
Similar to social work, there are studies in teaching that indicate the same
problems in the relationship between research and practitioners (see chapter 4 in
this edition by Eilertsen, Furu and Rørnes). Thus, both social work and teaching
could benefit from encouraging more practice-related research that explores the
complexity of practitioners´ everyday experiences at the same time as it highlights
the different aspects of the professional practice knowledge of both professions.
Self-knowledge can be defined as one important part of both lecturers´ and
social workers´ professional practice knowledge. However, while reflection on
self-knowledge is explicit in the social work degree, this is more implicit in the
preservice teacher education. Another possible conclusion of this chapter is
therefore that explicit reflections on self-knowledge in relation to preservice
teachers´ practice learning might enable students to overcome emotional barriers
that in some cases can block their ability to integrate practice and theory in
accordance with the ideal of the ‘reflective practitioner’.
ACKNOWLEDEMENTS
The author would like to thank the lecturers and students at the Study Programme for
Elderly and Differently Abled People at Stockholm University for sharing their experiences
REFERENCES
Alwall, J. (2004). (Ed.). Vägar till kvalitetsutveckling inom socionomutbildningen. Rapport från ett
pedagogiskt utvecklingsprojekt. Stockholm: Sköndalsinstitutets arbetsrapportserie 34.
Bergquist, K. (2000). Examensarbetet. Ett bidrag till vetenskapligheten i lärarutbildningen? Pedagogisk
forskning i Sverige 5(1), 1–18.
Burr, V. (2003) Social constructivism. London: Routledge.
Butler, I. (2003). Doing Good Research and Doing it Well: Ethical Awareness and the Production of
Social Work Research. Social Work Education 22(1), 19–30.
Carlgren, I. (1996). Lärarutbildning som yrkesutbildning. In: Ds 1996:16. Lärarutbildning i förändring.
Stockholm: Utbildningsdepartementet.
Cooper B. (2001). Constructivism in social work: Towards participative practice viability. British
Journal of Social Work 31(5), 721–738.
Croona, G. (2003). Etik och utmaning. Om lärande av bemötande i professionsutbildning. Växjö: Växjö
University Press.
Eilertsen, Moksnes Furu and Rørnes (2011). Learning Beyond the Traditional. In M. Mattsson,
T.V. Eilertsen & D. Rorriso (Eds.), A Practicum Turn in Teacher Education (this edition).
Eriksson, A (2009). Om teori och praktik i lärarutbildningen. En etnografisk och diskursanalytisk
studie. Göteborg: Göteborgs Universitet.
Heggen, K. (2003). Kunnskapssyn og profesjonsutdanning. Studentane si forståing av kompetanse i
sjukepleie-, socialarbeidar-, førskule- og allmenlærarutdanning. Oslo: HiO-rapport nr. 8.
Högskoleverket (2009). Utvärdering av socionomutbildningen vid svenska universitet och högskolor.
Stockholm: Högskoleverket.
Johansson, S. and Andersson, K. (2002). Den sociala omsorgens akademisering. Stockholm: Liber.
145
BRODIN
Karlsson, P-Å. (2008). Yrkesförberedelser i socionomutbildningen – en nationell kartläggning.
Högskolan i Borås: Institutionen för vårdvetenskap.
Kemmis, S. and Smith, T. (2008) (Eds.). Enabling Praxis: Challenges for Education. Rotterdam: Sense
Publishers.
Kemmis, S. and Grootenboer, P. (2008). Situating praxis in practice: Practice architectures and the
cultural, social and material conditions for practice. In: Kemmis, S. and Smith, T. (2008) (Eds.).
Enabling Praxis: Challenges for Education. Rotterdam: Sense Publishers.
Kjørstad, M. (2008). Opening the Black Box – Mobilizing Practical Knowledge in Social Research:
Methodological Reflections based on a Study of Social Work Practice. Qualitative Social Work
7(2), 143–161.
Laclau, E. and Mouffe. C (1985). Hegemony and Socialist Strategy. Towards a Radical Democratic
Politics. London: Verso.
Lam, C.M, Wong, H. and Leung, T. T (2007). An Unfinished Reflexive Journey: social Work Students´
Reflection on their Placement Experiences. British Journal of Social Work 37(1), 91–105.
Mattsson, M. Eilertsen, T.V. & Rorrison, D. (2011).What is Practice in Teacher Education? Chapter 1,
this edition.
Mattsson, M., Johansson, I. and Sandström, B. (Eds.), (2008). (Eds.) Examining Praxis: Assessment and
Knowledge Construction in Preservice teacher education. Rotterdam: Sense Publishers.
Morgan, D. (1988). Focus Groups as Qualitative Research. Newbury Park: Sage.
Rosenquist, I. (2002). Att vända en oceangångare eller det saknade mittfältet. Malmömodellen – en
fallstudie av partnerskolsystemet inom grundskollärarutbildningen i Malmö. Malmö: Malmö
Högskola.
Schön, D. (1983). The reflective practitioner. How professionals think in action. New York: Basic
Books.
Trevithick, P. (2008) Revisiting the Knowledge Base of Social Work: A Framework for Practice.
Brittish Journal of Social Work 38(6), 1212–1237.
Wibeck, V. (2000). Fokusgrupper. Om fokuserade gruppintervjuer som undersökningsmetod. Lund:
Studentlitteratur.
Wilson, G. and Berni, K. (2010). Evaluating the Effectiveness of Social Work Education: Preparing
Students for Practice Learning. British Journal of Social Work 40(2), 1–19.
Helene Brodin
the Research and Development Centre
for the Care of Older and Differently Abled People,
Stockholm, Sweden
146
PETER EMSHEIMER AND NILANI LJUNGGREN DE SILVA
8. PRESERVICE TEACHERS´ REFLECTIONS ON
PRACTICE IN RELATION TO THEORIES
A preservice teacher writing in an examination paper about her experiences and
work with pupils in her practicum reported a number of events connected to
different theories belonging to that subject on assessment. These factual reports
were followed by personal reflections. Metaphorically speaking this preservice
teacher turned around and looked back on the journey just made. In reflecting on
her experiences, she tried to see things in a different way, not only by assessing
pupils´ learning but also through relating her teacher activity to pupil activity,
discussing what is required of the teacher, particularly in terms of formative
assessment. She also discussed ideas from literature on theories of assessment. The
turn-around she experienced provided opportunities for her to discover further
perspectives than were evident in her first attempt.
We regard this as a creative way of dealing with experiences – not only talking
about them but also trying to understand experiences in the light of theories. The
turn-around resulted in an understanding of the demands for teacher activity to
increase pupils´ learning. It also fore-grounded the role of formative assessment
from both a theoretical and an observation point of view.
This ‘turn’ constitutes an advanced form of reflection connecting experiences
and theories. This preservice teacher´s learning proved to be deepened by the
theories and the understanding of theories deepened by connecting them to her
experiences. Her personal experiences were understood in light of theories on
assessment and vice versa – her understanding of theories on assessment were
deepened by connecting them to experiences in practicum. It is an example of
reflection properly connecting theory and practice. The example is not typical and
is given in order to contrast it with other examples that will be commented on later
in the text and compared to other examples of preservice teachers´ reflection.
This chapter is about how preservice teachers relate their practicum experiences
to theories. We can identify different options of reflecting on practice and relating
to theory. From both an empirical and a theoretical perspective, we will scrutinise
how different structures of course experiences contribute to preservice teachers´
understanding and their ability to handle theoretical knowledge in relation to
practical experiences.
AIM AND BACKGROUND
This study has two purposes: firstly, to understand the preservice teachers´
perception of different educational theories and reasoning about these and
M. Mattsson, T.V. Eilertsen and D. Rorrison (eds.), A Practicum Turn in Teacher Education, 147–167.
© 2011 Sense Publishers. All rights reserved.
EMSHEIMER AND LJUNGGREN DE SILVA
secondly, to understand how preservice teachers connect their understanding of
educational theories to experiences gained in practice. By this we mean how they
relate to what was learned from experience in practicum and in studies of
educational theories at university. We believe that the organisation of teacher
education to improve preservice teachers´ ability to relate to and establish a
conscious relationship between theory and practice is an important aspect of
professional development.
Drawing on different epistemological views on theory and practice and using
multiple research strategies, namely focus group discussions and in-depth interviews
with preservice teachers, we hope to provide an understanding of how preservice
teachers deal with practice and theories during their teacher education program.
In the following section we begin by discussing various approaches and
suggestions made by different scholars about the relationship between theory and
practice in teacher education (Korthagen, 2001, Kvernbekk, 2001, Gordon, 2007,
Remington Smith, 2007, Bolhuis, 2006; Biggs, 2003). We hope that by giving an
account of these views we will shed some light on how we can understand the
experiences, ideas, theoretical insights and difficulties of our respondents. We
will use different ideas on the form of teacher education to identify and discuss
how our respondents have learned in their present subjects and how they might
learn in a subject formed by these or alternative principles. The main theme in
this chapter uncovers how preservice teachers connect different experiences in
practicum and in university studies and to what extent it is possible for
preservice teachers to connect to different types of learning in their education
course.
PERSPECTIVES OF EDUCATIONAL FRAMEWORK
The question of the relationship between theory and practice is widely discussed in
education literature and provides a number of different interpretations. In this
section we will discuss some of the literature and educationalists that have
influenced our understandings.
Theory First
It could be said that teacher education was earlier organised predominantly to
enhance preservice teachers´ ability to apply acquired knowledge to solving
practical problems. Georg Friedrich Herbart, one of the early educational theorists
with a strong impact on European educational thinking, emphasised the
introduction of theories and concepts as a starting point and the subsequent
application of theories in practice. For centuries this stance played an influential
role in the educational context not only in Sweden but also in other western
countries. There was still a strong demarcation between how theory is learned and
practice is introduced. University education was organised to provide preservice
teachers with theoretical knowledge at the beginning of their course and often with
a practicum to follow-up at a later stage.
148
PRESERVICE TEACHERS’ REFLECTIONS ON PRACTICE IN RELATION TO THEORIES
Practice First
During centuries the debate and studies of education have continued and in
different ways questioned the Herbartian way of regarding education. Korthagen
(2001), a modern Dutch educationalist, discusses the order between theoretical
studies and the possibilities of gaining experiences in education, especially in
teacher education. He proposesa model, called ALACT (see figure 1) that could be
adapted into teacher education. To some extent, this model resembles Kolb´s
model17 of experiential learning (Kolb 1984) and is based on three principles: The
first principle states that a teacher´s professional learning will be more effective
when directed by an internal need of the learner (see for example Fullan, 1991;
Maslow, 1968), the second that a teacher´s professional learning will be more
effective when rooted in the learner´s experiences (see for example Piaget, 1970)
and the third that a teacher´s professional learning will be more effective when the
learner reflects in detail on his or her experiences.
Figure 1: Korthagen´s ALACT Model
The ALACT model has five steps that form a circle of actions. We can see that
experiences are the central focus here but with an interplay that is based on
theoretical reflections, thus probing different ways of relating events, phenomena
and theories to each other.
––––––––––––––
17 Korthagen (2005) himself identifies some important differences to Kolb by pinpointing that his
model also includes emotional aspects. Levels in reflection: core reflection as a means to enhance
professional growth, Fred Korthagen and Angelo Vasalos, Teachers and Teaching: theory and
practice, Vol. 11, No. 1, February 2005, pp. 47–71
149
EMSHEIMER AND LJUNGGREN DE SILVA
Theories For Direct Application
According to Gordon (2007), one of the most difficult challenges faced by teacher
educators is to convince preservice teachers of the need to relate to theory in
practice. According to Gordon, learners seem to share a widespread misconception
that educational theories are there to be taken in their entirety and put into practice.
It appears their perception is that theories provide direct answers to practical
problems. Gordon states that “students are under the impression that theories can
be ‘plugged’ into an actual situation and yield direct results. If the theory does not
work, then it is a bad theory” (Gordon, 2007, p 122.). Gordon problematises
learners´ lack of understanding of theoretical dispositions. In his view, theories are
nothing but powerful tools that provide teachers with a frame of references and
guidelines to analyse critically daily problems that they encounter in authentic
classroom settings.
Preservice Teachers´ Limited Ability To Understand Theory
Kvernbekk (2001), on the other hand, has another starting point. In her view
preservice teachers´ experiences have limitations in inducing a theoretical
knowledge search. Preservice teachers have a tendency to draw incorrect
conclusions about cause and effect, which means they take the effect of a certain
cause for granted. She provided an example where preservice teachers were of the
opinion that positive feedback tends to improve pupils´ work, that is intrinsic
motivation is at play. However Kvernbekk states that the opposite might be the
case, as pupils can become too dependent on teachers´ feedback. In this case, she
argues, preservice teachers tend to neglect different ways of interpreting the effect
of positive feedback. It is not simply cause and effect but Kvernbekk also
emphasises the importance of a high level of theoretical knowledge to construe
practical experiences.
Although scientific theories and models can deepen the understanding of
contexts, we need to be aware that theories or scientific knowledge do not always
represent a truth and therefore cannot always suggest universal answers to practical
problems. According to Rolf (2006), there is a clear hierarchy that exists between
theory and practice and thus one needs to be cautious and rethink the saying
“nothing is as good practice as a good theory” (Rolf, 2006, p. 84). Carr (1995) also
adds to the complexity of the issue by stressing that educational practice is not the
application of educational theory but rather rational planning, guided by
disembodied, abstract theories. Both Korthagen (2001) and Kvernbekk (2001)
make a distinction between particular18 and general knowledge and take different
points of departure to explain the learning process. However, in our opinion, they
––––––––––––––
18 General knowledge is about general principles and major relations in different aspects of life.
Particular knowledge can be about specific situations and does not have general implications. For
example, you cannot generalize from particular knowledge.
150
PRESERVICE TEACHERS’ REFLECTIONS ON PRACTICE IN RELATION TO THEORIES
do not show clearly how learners combine and contrast general knowledge and
particular knowledge, so do not explain practice learning sufficiently.
A Teaching Stance
Remington Smith (2007) examines this problem in a different way and in her view
preservice teachers continually engage in a process of developing a teaching
stance. Referring to Robert Fried (1995), she defines teaching stance as “a
philosophy, an attitude, a bearing, and [it is] a physical, emotional and intellectual
process” (p. 139). This stance is formed through experiences. In other words, it is
formed through an integrative process combining lived experience, experience
encountered in practicum and theoretical knowledge acquired at the university.
That means the stance in itself represents the intersection between different
experiences and theoretical knowledge and often also a value base – such as, what
is considered as important in learning and teaching.
Remington Smith emphasises as follows:
One of the first goals of my subject is to help my students to recognize: a)
that they have a stance towards teaching English; b) what this stance
includes; and c) how they will draw on this stance to identify and study their
practice and the theories that shape it (p. 33).
The integrative process in particular allows learners to extract knowledge from
different sources. This is done by testing and relating a stance through a process of
trial and error. The important point in this way of working, according to
Remington Smith, is that there should not be just one idea about how things should
be done but that it is possible to test through a number of different options. In fact,
the testing option is a path to developing a teaching stance. In doing so, learners
are able to alter and improve their stance over time. In other words, developing a
stance will help preservice teachers to understand that there is no one-to-one
relationship between theory and practice as there are different ways of
understanding and arguing theories and a particular practice. In our study we will
examine how preservice teachers in our sample develop this stance.
Other Views
Bolhuis (2006) questions the practical knowledge preservice teachers acquire and
argues that not all school teachers whom preservice teachers come across during
their practicum necessarily possess good teaching skills, and all tacit knowledge
need not necessarily be constructive. Therefore, one cannot generally assume that
everything that preservice teachers encounter and learn in practicum will
contribute to their understanding of teaching processes, as they might encounter a
number of problematic and less developed concepts of teaching. Bolhuis writes:
Recent research on teachers tends to honour their experiential knowledge as
‘practical knowledge’ or ‘practical wisdom’ (Meijer, 1999). On the other
hand the tacit or implicit results of learning are not per se contributing to
151
EMSHEIMER AND LJUNGGREN DE SILVA
expertise but may also comprise restricted or wrong understandings and
behaviour. When teachers’ experiential knowledge and skills remain implicit,
this may have several disadvantages (Bolhuis, 2006, p. 239).
Relating to her study on preservice teachers, Bolhuis also explains that learners
who have a high tolerance for conflict situations are more likely to go deeper into
investigating when facing contradictions, while less tolerant learners tend to block
contradictions. What Bolhuis is trying to highlight here is that learners have
different ways of confronting and constructing knowledge, depending on their
experience, disposition and prior knowledge. This is also commented on by
Korthagen (2001) in a statement referring to how some preservice teachers may be
open to change while some may not. The significance of this for our study is that
we have to consider the impact of our respondents´ degree of tolerance for
conflicting concepts. If it is low, this might explain some interpretations of what
they encountered. The preservice teacher initially mentioned in our introduction
may represent an example of high tolerance of conflicts.
SUMMING UP THEORETICAL POSITIONS
To sum up, Korthagen emphasises practical experience as a point of departure to
develop preservice teachers´ understanding of theories. According to this
perspective theories are important but must be related to learners´ experiences.
Kvernbekk (2001), on the other hand, warns that the limited experience of
preservice teachers makes it difficult to induce appropriate theoretical awareness.
Their knowledge is too sparse and fragmented to build a good base for theoretical
arguments. Remington Smith (2007) points out the need to develop a teaching
stance that is based on theoretical foundation as well as on practical and personal
experiences. Her teaching stance is somewhat more dialectical than Korthagen
(2001), as she elaborates on and emphasises an integrative process representing the
interplay between experiences and theoretical knowledge and also considers early
pre-teacher education experiences of preservice teachers. Bolhuis´ (2006)
statements give us a warning about the value of what preservice teachers
sometimes experience in their practicum as well as their different dispositions.
These ways of regarding educational processes will have consequences for how we
interpret respondents´ comments in this study and therefore also what can
constitute constructive learning processes for preservice teachers.
If someone mainly emphasises practice first this will imply a framework of their
education course experiences giving priority to gain experiences in practicum. If
theories are emphasised they will be important in an introductory part of their
course. In the end, if the interplay between experiences and theoretical knowledge
is emphasised, there may be a demand to structure a subject that will give
possibilities for the exchanging and understanding of different ways of learning.
The analysis of our respondents´ comments will expose how different foci within
the subjects can be perceived and understood by preservice teachers and how this
could either create problems or help these preservice teachers to relate theories and
experiences in practicum.
152
PRESERVICE TEACHERS’ REFLECTIONS ON PRACTICE IN RELATION TO THEORIES
THE EMPIRICAL STUDY
Methods
This is a small case study at one university. The design engages qualitative
strategies to collect the data through the recording and transcription of preservice
teachers´ voices. The study uses focus group interviews and in-depth interviews
with a group of preservice teachers who completed their program in the year 2010.
The samples were randomly selected from the student register at the Stockholm
Institute of Education. The preservice teachers in the sample had already
completed their practical studies. We selected 15 preservice teachers, ten of whom
volunteered to take part in the focus group discussion and five in in-depth
interviews. The focus group interviews were conducted for about two hours on two
different occasions. We used semi-structured themes and open-ended questions to
provoke discussions. The in-depth interviews were conducted using open-ended
questions but guided by some themes to support the questions of the study.
During the interviews we gathered data about how our respondents understood
theories and their relation to practice in order to understand their theoretical
knowledge building as well as to examine how they relate their knowledge to
practice and apply practice to enhance a teaching stance. The responses we
received reflected both respondents´ general epistemological understanding – what
a theory is – as well as how the respondents understood specific theories taught in
teacher education. This means that epistemological misconceptions interfered with
the understanding of theories taught in education. Our respondents´ perceptions of
what a theory is in general were that it is and ought to be a guideline for action in
practice. The theory could just be ‘plugged in’.
We introduced the interview by saying that we were looking for how our
respondents relate theories to practice and vice versa. The initial question was “If
you encountered something strange in your practicum – how did you handle it, and
how did you relate it to theories learned?” After the initial question the interview
proceeded with an open-ended interview technique, amongst other things asking
for examples of theories they found relevant in practicum.
Results -Perceptions of Learning Theories
In this section we present the preservice teachers´ responses and their general
understanding of the theories mentioned; in other words, how they reflect and
comment on these. Respondents´ perceptions on theories are introduced by the name
of the fore-grounded theoretician because this reflects the way respondents talk about
them. Some of our respondents made statements. Although there are naturally a great
number of theories on education the respondents mostly referred to Vygotsky, Piaget
and Skinner, with some also mentioning Bourdieu. The theories were referred to by
the names of the theoretician, rather than by the content. The respondents claimed
that these theorists are the most important and relevant for most questions about their
coming work.They were introduced to these theories at the beginning of their
program in a compulsory subject on Educational Theories introducing learning
153
EMSHEIMER AND LJUNGGREN DE SILVA
theories. The limits of the theories remembered from that subject might also tell
something about the education being a bit narrow but it could be that the preservice
teachers had limited interest at the time. Even though it appears only three general
theories were taught, they could have engaged with other literature and referred to
that. But this was not the case. Interestingly Sjølie (2011) found similar features in a
study in Norway, although somewhat different theories were named. A common
feature in these studies is that the theories appear to have been discussed (or at least
remembered) as if they were the very sole educational theories of the world.
Vygotsky and the Zone of Proximal Development
The theories of Vygotsky were the ones most favoured by our respondents. They
identified the very basics of Vygotsky´s concept of a Zone of Proximal
Development (ZPD). We asked them to explain how they relate to ZPD in practice,
in a classroom situation:
Making pupils work together in different combinations and allowing them to
collaborate so that they learn from each other (Preservice teacher 1).
In their collaboration they learn from each other and perform better
(Preservice teacher 2).
Cooperative learning among pupils. ZPD is some kind of application or
method? (Preservice teacher 3).
This suggests that the respondents´ declarative knowledge was good enough to
define what ZPD is about. But when asked how ZPD can help to understand a
practical situation, the answers were ambiguous:
We tried ZPD but cannot really say how it works.
It was difficult, we could not really figure out how to use it.
I tried to think about it when we did group work.
In general, preservice teachers regarded the ‘idea of ZPD’ as something that could
be connected or applied when challenging pupils in a learning situation. However
their experiences might have been too sparse or inadequate for theoretical
reasoning as suggested by Kvernbekk (2001). As Remington Smith (2007) would
propose, at this particular point in their education they had not arrived at a point
where they were better able to discuss theories and experiences and needed time to
develop this.
Another important perspective for our respondents was Vygotsky´s socio-
cultural theory. They gave significant weight to this theory but with sparse
explanations:
You cannot regard a child as a person in its own right, because a child
doesn’t have a personal character in that way. It has to be regarded in its
context. Behaviour is formed by the environment (Preservice teacher 1).
154
PRESERVICE TEACHERS’ REFLECTIONS ON PRACTICE IN RELATION TO THEORIES
You have to vary group constellations with pupils, in order to give them a
chance to address different behaviours amongst group members (Preservice
teacher 2).
Respondents had a reasonable declarative knowledge of the socio-cultural
approach but were limited to what they could label, identify, and vaguely explain
the probable significance of. We did not find signs of in-depth reflections on socio-
cultural theory to enhance practice.
Understanding Piaget
One respondent explained the difficulties in using Piaget theories in practice:
The teacher must know which stage their pupils are at in order to be able to
make tasks reasonably difficult (Preservice teacher 1).
The teacher has to challenge pupils and always be one step ahead.
Challenging also means not “helping” pupils19 (Preservice teacher 2).
This also involves teachers knowing their students adequately; otherwise
there is a risk of holding back pupils´ development (Preservice teacher 3).
This way of working involves the teacher working as some sort of a
supervisor! (Preservice teacher 4)
When talking about being one step ahead of the pupil, the respondent could not
specify how this could be done in order to improve classroom learning. Although
such difficulties were in fact evident even in other contexts in terms of relating
acquired knowledge to practical situations, it appears to have been a particular
problem with Piaget´s theory. One respondent was uncertain as to how she could
identify whether or not a pupil was at the ‘right’ stage.
Another respondent, who favoured challenging pupils, reflected on Piaget´s theory
by picking up on statements that matched his own way of looking at educational
practice. Respondents also referred to Piaget and to Vygotsky in similar ways,
expressing the view that pupils should be allowed to use their own experiences to
take their own initiatives. One respondent, who disliked Piaget´s theory, later
mentioned that he was not really clear about Piaget´s theoretical dispositions and
could not understand how to analyse practical situations using Piaget. It is possible
that he understood the contours of the theory but not the implications.
Overall, it could be said that preservice teachers discussed the theories of Piaget
with certain reservations and a somewhat critical manner compared to those of
Vygotsky and Skinner. Our respondents reported that some teacher educators are
sceptical of Piaget´s stage theory, interpreting it as a static theory of stages of
development.
––––––––––––––
19 This sounds almost identical to common perceptions of ZPD.
155
EMSHEIMER AND LJUNGGREN DE SILVA
Skinner
When the preservice teachers were asked to explain their understanding of
behaviouristic theories one respondent explained as follows:
That means the teacher begins teaching with less difficult tasks so that pupils
don’t fail, become disappointed, and lose interest.
This statement suggests that the respondent understood that by giving positive
reinforcement, one could expect a better result. Another respondent, who wanted to
apply behaviouristic theory directly to a practical situation to solve a problem was
confused about how to deal with it and said:
When pupils are misbehaving the teacher should try to ignore such behaviour
but it did not work. When there are too many students it is hard to ignore
students who are misbehaving20.
According to this interpretation of the behaviouristic theory, bad behaviour could
be reinforced by giving it too much attention. The preservice teacher had tried that
way of working for a while but found it to be unsuccessful as pupils continued
misbehaving. She finally concluded that behaviouristic theory could not work. Her
attempt to apply this theory directly to the situation resulted in her rejection of the
theory. Her understanding was that theories should work as blue prints or as a
standard set of rules to solve problems as discussed by Gordon (2007).
Summing up the different perceptions on learning theories we can say that the
‘three theories’ discussed seems to be perceived as three parallel but independent
entities. The preservice teachers seem not to see common tracks either
epistemological nor in the way phenomena are understood. They cannot see, for
example, that Piaget and Vygotsky approach similar research questions but solve
them differently.
Different Perceptions on Using Theories
We will continue this section by discussing how preservice teachers perceive
theories in general, epistemologically, how they evaluate theories differently and
which challenges they faced in particular. The way preservice teachers perceive
theories in general will also have an impact on their reception of specific theories,
as for example didactics. When discussing theory as a general phenomenon the
respondents seemed to be under the impression that things such as ‘correct
attitudes’ or curricula and syllabus can be regarded as theories. In their minds,
theories could also be methods of teaching and a good theory is there to be applied
directly to a situation in practice. It appears that they understand it means that a
theory can be plugged into an actual situation and yield direct results as was
previously introduced by Gordon (2007). Most respondents were not able to reflect
––––––––––––––
20 As they will otherwise take over.
156
PRESERVICE TEACHERS’ REFLECTIONS ON PRACTICE IN RELATION TO THEORIES
on theories as tools for understanding or use theoretical reasoning to expose
alternative interpretations of practical situations.
It appears that practicum does not always encourage preservice teachers to
search for or understand theoretical knowledge. Instead preservice teachers are
struggling to learn, understand and make use of theories, ideas and different
concepts without a sophisticated view of the nature of theories. This may be due to
their epistemological positions believing theories can be plugged into action. It
might also be due to a general limitation in understanding of scientific reasoning.
When it came to general or grand theories, preservice teachers could talk about
them in a broad way, without being able to explain when and how such knowledge
could be processed. On the other hand, our respondents had a better understanding
of the theories that had a direct bearing on practice, such as didactic theories21.
This might be as Korthagen (2001) explained because such theories are more
related to their reality. Our respondents had difficulties explaining a practical
situation in which they have made use of a theory in order to shed light on the
situation and understand it better. The statement below indicates a respondent´s
demand for direct connection between theories and practice in a specific context.
We think it is a disaster having to learn so many theories especially when
reality is very far away from theory…
Gordon (2007) argued that one cannot expect preservice teachers who are just
about to embark on their career as teachers to be proficient. Nevertheless, the
variation in their understanding of important theoretical perspectives raises
questions about how theories were taught and why the respondents give preference
to some theories and ignore others. This question is important in the further
analysis of looking into how preservice teachers prefer to learn theories.
Theories As Guidelines For Action.
Our respondents expressed the view that theories are there to be adapted to
‘reality’. When they were asked to explain their understanding of behavioural
theories, one respondent explained as follows:
That means the teacher starts teaching with less difficult tasks so that pupils
don’t fail, become disappointed and lose interest.
This respondent understood that teachers could give a positive impression of a
subject by giving an achievable task first. He also understood that through positive
reinforcement one could expect better results. Simultaneously however we note
that he had a conflict with a Vygotsky notion about challenging pupils. He showed
difficulty in relating these two ways of working (which need not be contradictory)
using both Vygotsky´s notion and behavioural perspective. Combining two
perspectives seemed difficult.
––––––––––––––
21 In this text didadctic theories are used for educational content knowledge.
157
EMSHEIMER AND LJUNGGREN DE SILVA
It appears that if the respondents had not believed applying a theory would work
they might not have dismissed them as ‘not working’ quite so easily. This notion of
plugging in theories to action in practicum might also have made it more difficult
to let theory shed light on situations. Action instead of understanding may be the
outcome.
Theory As a Base For Reflection
There was some confusion about concepts such as scaffolding and ZPD and how
both concepts were understood and operationalised. Some pupils were identified as
being unable to work without teachers´ assistance through ZPD. Scaffolding was
interpreted as meaning that the teacher should lead the pupil forward in some way
but how this should be done could not be specified. The preservice teachers
managed to label these concepts although their level of reflection related to ZPD
and scaffolding went somewhat astray. One respondent explained the difficulty of
learning theories in isolation:
It is difficult to learn theories or concepts when you do not really know where
they fit. Perhaps we are introduced to theories too early (Preservice Teacher 2).
Our transcripts show that this statement was supported by a number of other
respondents. It indicates that theories are best illuminated when they related them
to practice. Preservice teachers encounter difficulties in explaining practical
situations in which they could use a theory.
It appears that the way theory subjects were organised has negative implications
as respondents suggest there was a lack of time and space available to reflect on
what they learned. The attribute of gradualness that was discussed by Korthagen
(2001) with a demand for rational planning (also discussed by Carr (1995) point to
a more prudent way of organising theory and practice subjects in order for
preservice teachers to enter into a reflection process. One respondent said that
learning theories, particularly those of Vygotsky, Piaget and Skinner, expanded her
knowledge and perspectives and that she returned to texts read earlier to deepen
her understanding and clear up certain misconceptions whilst on teaching practice.
Unfortunately she was the only respondent who mentioned referring back to books.
Possibilities of Reflection.
The respondents claimed there were not enough opportunities in their teacher
education program to nurture reflection as, for example, having seminars on
important issues. According to Dewey (1984) in moments of perplexity individuals
start to reflect. In this case preservice teachers reflected around their personal
experiences in order to find direct answers rather than by trying different
interpretations and constructing new knowledge as suggested by Emsheimer
(2005). At the end of our focus group discussions almost all the respondents stated
that this discussion (our interviews and focus group discussions) had been a type of
dialogue on learning that they had rarely had before. We interpret this as a contrast
158
PRESERVICE TEACHERS’ REFLECTIONS ON PRACTICE IN RELATION TO THEORIES
to the possibilities usually present in their education and that their theoretical
understanding would have been enhanced if they had been given the opportunity to
discuss and compare different concepts with their peers with the help of a mentor,
in seminars or discussion groups. In their own words:
We read different theories and we don’t have many opportunities to discuss
them (Preservice teacher 1).
Didactics Is Important
The respondents who participated in our study had different career paths; among
other things some of them were aiming to work as pre-school teachers and others
to teach at vocational school or to become teachers of physical education. In spite
of choosing different career paths they all perceived that didactical theories are the
most useful components in their study program. Some mentioned that their
learning was enhanced by the way in which teacher educators brought examples
from their own teaching experiences when explaining different didactic methods.
One of the respondents made the distinction between general theories (grand
theories, e.g. Vygotsky) and specific theories (didactic theory). He claimed to have
understood specific theories better than the grand theories. This might be because
the specific, didactic theories are closer to his experiences than the grand theories,
as was explained earlier. On the other hand this also could be explained as
Remington Smith (2007) argued, by the fact that preservice teachers are in a
process of developing a teaching stance and in that process they are inclined to
relate first to theories they perceive most relevant to their own practice. The
understanding of the specific theories can interplay with the preservice teachers´
experiences in practicum and in this way it might be more sophisticated.
How Do Respondents Prefer to Learn Theories?
When we asked how they would like to learn theories most respondents stated that
teacher educators emphasising practical implications of theories by relating them
to authentic examples would enhance their theoretical understanding. A statement
made by one respondent emphasises this:
Of course I’m developing! Not only from reading books or attending classes
but also from looking at other people´s experiences and reflections on how
they use theories in their teaching practice, and teaching practice to
understand theories.
It is our view that theories cannot be understood in isolation but need to be
contextualised. Learning abstract concepts had not been much of a help to the
preservice teachers and hardly gave them enough leverage to reflect or to
produce new understanding of situations in practice. Rather, the opportunity to
develop theoretical understanding is at its best when a lecturer, colleague or
someone more experienced in the field describes practical aspects of theoretical
concepts by illustrating classroom experiences. This line of reasoning also
159
EMSHEIMER AND LJUNGGREN DE SILVA
related to preservice teachers´ way of developing teaching stance as it was
explained by Remington Smith (2007), where she points out how a relationship
can be created between personal experiences, theories and understanding of
teaching situations and that this requires processing. An example of this is
related by one of the respondents:
We had three semesters with different subjects, lots of ideas and facts. …
There was one lecturer – a super teacher – who taught us about Islam, and
Mohammad, and showed us different stages using stairs, visual and practical
examples. When I was doing my practicum, I could use the same method to
explain things to my pupils.
This preservice teacher believes that a higher level of understanding of different
concepts can reached if teacher educators can draw on their own practice to explain
theories.
According to our respondents teacher educators who did not have teaching
experience at school-level had not been able to offer practical examples. Instead
theories were taught and knowledge was assessed in abstract forms and in
isolation. The question is whether preservice teachers have the opportunity to gain
practical examples when they are participating in professional experience or
practicum. The preservice teacher who mentioned that she had difficulties
reflecting on theories and concepts and relating them to classroom practice raised a
question about the perspective of theories being introduced at such an early stage
of their program. This also supports the idea of gradualness, when introducing
theories, concepts and approaches, that is argued for by both by Korthagen (2001)
and Gordon (2007). Both recommend not introducing theories all at once and
giving ample opportunity for preservice teachers to develop a teaching stance
gradually. That means providing the opportunity to connect practical and personal
experiences and theory in order to probe different stances in relation to each other
(Gordon, 2007; Korthagen, 2001; Remington Smith, 2007).
The plea for concrete examples can be regarded as a reasonable demand for
understanding and action orientation. Not understanding theories can certainly be
regarded as a shortcoming. Put bluntly these claims by our respondents imply that
teacher educators should present the theory unadorned, explain its uses and offer
personal experiences of these ‘uses’. In one way it might seem as if they want to be
spoon-fed. We can sum up by saying that some comments asked for more effective
teacher educators who were less theoretical and explained things contextually and
some statements asked for greater opportunities to nurture reflection. As already
intimated very few statements were about their own efforts for better learning. Our
respondents did however report about having become more conscious of their own
identity when considering different theoretical perspectives, although we perceive
that they tend to identify with theories that suit their own experiences or are
understandable for them. Skinner is one of the theories that is easiest for them to
understand. In their learning process they were applying Skinners theories by
engaging themselves and their previous experiences and struggling to construct
new knowledge.
160
PRESERVICE TEACHERS’ REFLECTIONS ON PRACTICE IN RELATION TO THEORIES
All these perceptions of theories, proposals and wishes from respondents once
again illustrates their general idea of what a theory is – a set of ideas that they
would be able to carry in the pocket and take out when needed in a certain
situation.
Limited Possibilities for Developing A Stance
As already mentioned Dewey states that a starting point for reflection is perplexity.
In order to grasp the preservice teachers´ reflections we asked them to explain
situations that had perplexed them. One respondent replied that she experienced
perplexity when pupils did not obey her or did not listen to her instructions.
Another example was when a pupil failed to understand a given task. Her
perplexity was due to her difficulties in understanding the pupil´s horizon or
profile. A more frequent response involved perplexity related to surprise at how
some teachers behaved during their practicum in terms of their lack of
collaboration with pupils. They claimed that teachers did not always treat pupils
with respect and did not understand pupils´ problems. We believe that our
respondents may not have noticed the interplay between the pupils and themselves
in the first instance, and between the teachers and the pupils in the second case,
only connecting with just one side of the problem. Relating to different experiences
and understanding them in their interplay is a condition for developing a reflection
stance. When getting perplexed because of others shortcomings – pupils or
teachers – the reflection does not search for different interpretations. Thus, the
reflection does not expand the person´s teaching stance. A higher level of
perplexity – meaning reflecting about different interpretations, trying to solve
problems or reconstructing – would lead to a better ability to relate to theoretical
and experiential learning. Respondents in this study had difficulties in
reconstructing theories. What is the problem? Is it a lack of perplexity or a lack of
tools for working with complex and perplexing situations?
The Framework of Education - Ideological hegemony
Preservice teachers were also not always clear about the distinction between theory
and ideology. We consider ideology as arguments on education with or without
theoretical reasoning. How someone ought to work in school is connected to
fundamental values that may or may not be shared by everyone. For example one
of the respondents talked about the Vygotskyan sledgehammer, meaning that the
teacher educators always seemed to let the Vygotskyan ideas win over other ideas.
This sledgehammer phenomenonmay be one of the reasons why preservice
teachers are more attracted to Vygotsky than to other theorists, as the teacher
educators give priority to Vygotskyan theories. However, the preservice teachers
did not engage in any critical discussions on this disposition. This example shows
how a preservice teacher has perceived what is ‘right’. The perception of ‘good’
ways of working might be the preservice teachers´ perception but it might also
reflect an education permeated by values mixed up with theories. As we have not
161
EMSHEIMER AND LJUNGGREN DE SILVA
studied the education in itself but regarded it through the eyes of the respondents,
we can only guess if this is a reflection of how the education is performed, in terms
of an ideological hegemony or taken for granted views of what values or theories
are privileged.
“Correct” Values and Attitudes
We learned that our respondents expressed a need to hold on to certain attitudes
and beliefs. Emsheimer (2000) shows a tendency for preservice teachers in their
teacher education to rarely be introduced to conflicting concepts simultaneously
and equally. If conflicting concepts are introduced they are introduced on different
occasions. In an evaluation of a subject for special needs teachers, Emsheimer
(2003) shows that inclusiveness was mostly treated and perceived as an ideological
concept. The main thing was to have an inclination towards inclusiveness but not
having tools for working inclusively. (The political and ideological underpinnings
in special education are discussed at length in Hedegaard-Sørensen, L and Tetler, S
(2011). Situated Professionalism in Special Education Practice, chapter six of this
edition.) If this is true there might be a strong ideological impact on the educational
learning, which can be counter-productive to preservice teachers developing their
reflective and critical capacity. It might also be a hindrance to connecting
theoretical understanding to experiences in practice. The ideological stance can
prevent them from testing alternatives.
Connected to the ideological character of education is the fact that our respondents
perceived a great deal of value-based content. It seems that the preservice teachers
have a better understanding of values and attitudes than of educational theories, by
which we mean attitude-related conceptions such as gender equality, inclusive
education etc. Perhaps such attitude-related conceptions have a direct influence on
their daily life and prior beliefs. At the same time, some respondents were not able to
say how a certain attitude can be ‘practised’. One of the respondents who was very
keen on gender questions appreciated the learning about gender questions and how to
treat her pupils better – by, for example, promoting young girls´ self-confidence.
Some of the respondents advocate inclusive strategies so that everybody has the
same opportunities.Preservice teachers also see tolerance as an important ingredient
in improving their attitude. Equal opportunity is also seen as an important feature.
The list of examples in this category could be very long with some of the items
connected to what is called ‘the base of values’ which presides in Swedish schools as
well as in teacher education. Even though there was a problem giving examples of
how to work with the values, this part was most appreciated with respondents more
willing to talk about these issues and more vivid in their expressions.
Few Possibilities to Gain Personal Experience
The total time for practicum in the respondents´ teacher education is at most
27 weeks. During this time, the preservice teachers are often restricted either by
subject tasks from the university or by the planning of the teacher of the practicum
162
PRESERVICE TEACHERS’ REFLECTIONS ON PRACTICE IN RELATION TO THEORIES
school. On top of that, only a minor part of these weeks is dedicated to their own
teaching. Our respondents iterated the lack of opportunity available to experiment
with their ideas and experiences and to acquire knowledge during teaching
practice, owing to the short periods of practicum (in some cases less than a week
for a specific period). In addition to this problem some supervisors were unwilling
to hand over the classroom responsibility to preservice teachers, which in turn
limited their opportunity to gain adequate experience. This led to preservice
teachers in our sample suggesting that they had not had enough opportunities for
experiential learning. We believe that this claim is one of the crucial hindrances for
developing a reflective stance on teaching.
DISCUSSION
This section summarises and discusses further the research findings and looks into
understanding the preservice teachers´ perception of different theories and
theoretical reasoning and how they relate to what was learned from experience in
practicum and in theoretical studies at university. We can say that respondents
communicated different ways about how they relate to theories, to practice and
between theory and practice. Here we analyse how this process has taken place and
how the conditions for this process related to the organisation of their teacher
education course.
Preservice Teachers´ Strengths and Limitations
It is clear from our study that respondents paid a lot of attention to didactic
theories. They sometimes used these theories in various constructive ways to
enhance their practice, such as gender theory and inclusive educational concepts. It
appears that preservice teachers work hard to relate to different parts of their
education and to build a teaching stance, as they identified a number of
experiences, theories learned, and ways of thinking about teaching. The process of
constructing a stance, as was argued by Remington Smith (2007), varied and
depended on prior experiences and both practical and theoretical knowledge. The
limitations concerning the short time spent in classrooms during the practice,
however, had negative effects. Some respondents felt that the practical experience
was too short to develop a teaching stance that involves theoretical reasoning. This
is to say that the theories that were learned in isolation at the very beginning of the
course were of least benefit. The respondents also felt that to clarify their
understandings about the relationships between theory and practice, teacher
educators ought to teach theories by using more explicit examples from classroom
situations.
On the whole, respondents´ interpretations were biased with a strong tendency
towards one interpretation of situations. Kvernbekk´s (2001) warning that
preservice teachers make ad-hoc interpretations of theories on a poor theoretical
and empirical basis should be taken into consideration when judging what
preservice teachers need most. Is practical experience an alternative to induce a
163
EMSHEIMER AND LJUNGGREN DE SILVA
deeper theoretical understanding as was argued by Korthagen? Clearly the
superficial and one-dimensional understanding of grand theories (Vygotsky, Piaget
…) is problematic and it is essential to find out what can be done to deepen it.
Were our respondents merely poor preservice teachers or was there another
reason? Is it a matter of how such theories are introduced? Do teacher educators
advocate an education course with bias, as for example specifically advocating
Vygotskyan theory and not encouraging different interpretations? Perhaps teacher
education is often too value based. What is the impact of a particular ideological
focus on the possibilities to develop a reflective stance? Or is the time gap between
theories being taught and the opportunity for practice a problem?
Framework of Preservice Teacher Education
In order to be able to judge preservice teachers´ learning we have to examine the
structure of their education. Our respondents were mostly subjected to an
educational organisation that introduced theories first, with some practicum strips
amalgamated in between theory subjects. They were expected to apply theoretical
knowledge in the periods of practicum. Respondents claimed too few opportunities
to practise reflection using theories and practical experience as a form of
discussion in a similar way to Korthagen´s (2001) emphasis of the importance of a
one-to-one-relation in order to give a space for revision and discussion. Some
respondents asked for something like brain storming sessions, in other words the
opportunity to work together with their peers and with teacher educators who could
inspire them and show them what it could mean to engage in theoretical and
practical enquiry. This involves a need for discussion and competence-building
sessions not only to develop a teaching stance, but also to build up theory-practice
relationships.
There is also the question of to what extent the present education course reveals
alternative interpretations and possibilities to inquire and reflect around these
possibilities. Our respondents reported that the subjects were one-sided and if true
the preservice teachers´ one-sidedness may reflect the one-sidedness of their
course. Our respondents also perceived rapid changes of direction in their subjects
moving from one subject to the next with few links in between. If preservice
teachers are required to try alternative interpretations, Remington Smith gives an
option for how practical learning and theoretical learning can be related. Her
teaching stance is not only a concept – it implies an open ended method for
understanding how the different learning situations can be combined, emphasising
the process of testing and using different sources. Through our respondents´
answers concerning the relation between theory and practice, it is not a question of
either practical or theoretical knowledge first, if we understood their difficulties in
creating an intellectual interplay between theories and experiences correctly.
Preservice teachers acquire some knowledge at university and some during their
practicum. They need to experience both contexts. One problem we observed was
their difficulty in connecting practical wisdom to understand theories, or vice
versa. If they fail to do so, they generally use their personal theories or rationalities
164
PRESERVICE TEACHERS’ REFLECTIONS ON PRACTICE IN RELATION TO THEORIES
– their own experiences as students - to reason the practice. How do we help
preservice teachers process experiences and how do they reflect on theories and
give theories ‘a chance’ to enrich their understanding of what is experienced in
practicum?
CONCLUSION – POOR STUDENTS OR…?
To address our research foci: 1) Preservice teachers´ perceptions of different
theories and theoretical reasoning and 2) to understand how preservice teachers
relate to theories and practice, we have conducted a deep analysis of the responses
of fifteen preservice teachers. Our respondents showed limited understanding of
grand theories and did not probe different alternatives. It appears that their
understanding of theories and their ability to relate theories to experiences and vice
versa is not very dynamic, possibly through epistemological misunderstanding of
what theory is or can be. It seems to be more of a one-sided process than dialectical
interplay. Our respondents seemed at least to be eager to learn and if they are not
learning enough we should question the structuring of the course. Some features of
their education might limit their understanding. We have scrutinised the questions
from the aspect of the need to develop teachers´ practical competence based on and
supported by theoretical understanding. There is a need to induce new theoretical
understanding from practical experiences. Seen from that perspective, it seems our
respondents have not had enough opportunities to develop their reflective capacity.
Our respondents complained about the gap between theoretical and practical
learning, between theories and praxis. This gap seems wider if we perceive theory
as a guideline for action.The gap can be regarded as a difference and the difference
has to be handled by the preservice teachers, as differences and not gaps. Regarded
in this way, the differences will constitute another demand on preservice teachers
in their educational work.
The respondents suggest a ‘seminar education’, meaning large possibilities for
seminar discussions as they believe this would have given them better possibilities
of developing their understanding of teaching as well as of theories and relating
them. This view is conflicting with the tendency of higher education which is
becoming more academic, where theories are taught and it is then up to the learner
to make his or her own adaptations.
The initial example in this chapter of the preservice teacher giving a thorough
example of reflection highlights the possibilities there might be. The character of
her writing was reflective, looking back and trying to regard experiences from
another angle, taking into consideration a number of aspects in the analysis
process. As she seemed to us to be an advanced student, we question if such a
process could have been possible for a less advanced one. Theoretically, this
should have been possible also for our respondents, but in our interviews at least,
they did not show this ability (though we cannot exclude the possibility that they
actually did something similar in their examination). We must ask ourselves what
changes in the course structure might improve the chances or possibilities for them
to do so.
165
EMSHEIMER AND LJUNGGREN DE SILVA
Finally, we return to Remington Smith (2007) and the essence of her writing.
Preservice teachers need to be able to consciously activate old ideas on teaching
from their own schooling, combined with experiences in teacher education and
theoretical studies. In a dynamic system in which it is imperative to try different
alternatives, we can imagine the demand for being spoon-fed is not particularly
strong, as preservice teachers will then be less anxious to test their own ideas. This
process is many-sided and more akin to being multiple dimensional. In working in
a more many-sided way it will be difficult to view experiences or theories from
one single point of view. Alternative interpretations will be revealed that will
require the learners to seek their own answers, without knowing what is ‘right and
wrong’. In this process they will be called on to let theoretical knowledge and
practical experiences interplay in their mind. Whatever conclusion they come to,
they should be eager to test it – and have the opportunity to do so in their
practicum.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
I wish to thank the department of Didactic Science and Early Childhood Education in the
University of Stockholm that sponsored my research. Peter Emsheimer
REFERENCES
Biggs, J (2003). Teaching for Quality Learning at University, The society for Research into Higher
Education, Philadelphia:Open University Press.
Bolhuis, S. (2006). Professional Development Between Teachers´ Practical Knowledge and External
Demands: Plea For a Broad Social Constructivist and Critical Approach, in Competence Oriented
Teacher Training. Old Research Demands and New Pathways, Oser, Achtenhagen and Renold (ed),
Sense Publishers.
Carr, W. (1995) For Education: Towards Critical Educational Inquiry. Buckingham: Open University
Press.
Dewey, J. (1933/1984).How We Think. A restatement of the relation of reflective thinking to the
educative process (Revised edition.), D.C. Boston: Heath and Company.
Emsheimer, P. (2000), Lärarstudenten som Subjekt och Objekt, Kritiskt Tänkande och Disciplinering i
Lärarutbildning.[Teachers Student as Subject and Object, Critical Thinking and Disciplining in
Teacher Education.] HLS Förlag, Stockholm.
Emsheimer, P. (2003), - Vem är i Behov av Särskilt Stöd – Utvärdering av Kompetensutvecklingskurs i
Specialpedagogik, [Who Needs Special Support? An Evaluation of a Competence Development
Course in Special Education], http://people.su.se/~petems/dok/specialpedagogik.doc
Emsheimer, P. (2005), Likheter, skillnader och bearbetande – En studie av studenter i examens,
http://people.su.se/~petems/
Fried, R (1995). The Passionate Teacher: A Practical Guide. Boston: Beacon Press.
Fullan, M. (1991). The New Meaning of Educational Change. London Cassel.
Gordon, M. (2007). How Do I Apply This To My Classroom, Relating Theory to Practice? In Gordon
& O’Brian (Eds.), Bridging Theory and Practice in Teacher Education. Sense Publishers
Hedegaard-Sørensen, L and Tetler, S (2011) Situated Professionalism in Special Education Practice.
Educating preservice teachers for special education/inclusive education. Chapter 6 of this edition.
Kolb, D. A. (1984), Experiential learning: experience as the source of learning and development,
Prentice Hall.
166
PRESERVICE TEACHERS’ REFLECTIONS ON PRACTICE IN RELATION TO THEORIES
Korthagen, F.A.J. (2001). The Pedagogy of Realistic Teacher Education. Lawrance Erlbaum Associate
Publishers: Mahwah, New Jersey.
Korthagen, F. (2005) Levels in reflection: core reflection as a means to enhance professional growth. In
Fred Korthagen and Angelo Vasalos, Teachers and Teaching: theory and practice, Vol. 11, No. 1,
February 2005,pp. 47–71
Kvernbekk, T. (2001). Erfaring, praksis og teori i Pedagogikk og laererprofesjonalitet. Kvernbekk, T.
ed. Gyldendal.
Maslow, A.H. (1968). Towards a Psychology of being, NY: Harper & Row.
Piaget J., (1970). Piaget´s Theory in P. H. Mussen (ed), Carmichael´s Manual of Child-Psychology.
NY: Wiley.
Remington Smith, E. (2007). Integrating theory and practice in an English methods course. Developing
a Teaching Stance, in Bridging Theory and Practice in teacher education. Gordon & O’Brian (ed).
Sense Publishers.
Rolf, B.(2006). Tre kunskapsmodeller.In Verklighet Verklighet edited by Bronäs, A and S Selander, S
(red.), Nordstedts Akademiska förlag, Stockholm.
Saugstad, T. (2006) Aristoteles tankar om yrkesutbildning. In Verklighet Verklighet edited by Bronäs, A
and S Selander, S (red.), Nordstedts Akademiska förlag, Stockholm.
Sjölie, E. (2011). http://elasjolie.com/2011/02/10/the-vygotskian-sledgehammer/#more-59.
Peter Emsheimer
Department of Didactic Science and Early Childhood Education
Stockholm University, Sweden
Nilani Ljunggren De Silva
Stockholm University, Sweden
167
ANDERS JÖNSSON AND MATTS MATTSSON
9. ASSESSING TEACHER COMPETENCY DURING
PRACTICUM
INTRODUCTION
It usually requires several years of qualified experience to learn the art of teaching.
In fact, Aristotle once maintained that it is not possible to transform knowledge
into teaching until the knowledge is deep enough (e.g. Liedman, 2011). From this
perspective, it cannot be expected that preservice teachers develop into full-fledged
professional teachers during their education. Still, it is important to assess
preservice teachers´ teaching skills, both in order to track and support their
development, as well as to be able to certify that their competencies reach
acceptable standards. In this chapter we will therefore discuss some of the
difficulties involved in judging whether a preservice teacher ‘has what it takes’ to
become a professional teacher.
There are several reasons for introducing this discussion, but in recent years
there has been a growing concern about the heavy reliance on traditional exams to
support such judgments. However, the results from such tests do not easily
extrapolate to professional practice. Therefore, the assessment of theoretical
knowledge is most often complemented with other means of assessment, such as
the direct assessment of preservice teachers´ teaching skills in the classroom. But
even if these assessments are indeed more authentic than written exams, and results
more easily extrapolate to professional practice, there are other issues that need to
be addressed. These issues include the lack of consensus on what qualities should
in fact be assessed, the difficulties of assessing actual performance in vivo, and the
often small and fragmented sample of assessment data. This chapter will highlight
and discuss some of these issues in relation to the assessment of preservice
teachers during their practicum.
ASSESSING COMPETENCY
Teacher education is a professional education, the purpose being to prepare
preservice teachers for their prospective profession. To educate for a profession
means that the students have to develop integrated knowledge, skills, attitudes and
values, so that they can handle relevant tasks, relations and situations (Taconis,
Van der Plas, & Van der Sanden, 2004). This conceptualisation of professional
competency differs from some other frequent uses of the same term (for an in-
depth discussion, see Eraut, 1994). For example, in the behaviourist tradition
competencies can be divided into a number of sub-skills, which can be described
M. Mattsson, T V. Eilertsen and D. Rorrison (eds.), A Practicum Turn in Teacher Education, 169–186.
© 2011 Sense Publishers. All rights reserved.
JÖNSSON AND MATTSSON
and assessed independently and without regard to a particular context. Another
example is what Eraut refers to as a generic approach to competency, where
competency is placed more or less on a par with personal attributes (sometimes
called “key competencies”, see e.g. OECD, 2005). As used here, however,
competency means to be able to act knowledgably in relevant situations;a
definition which emphasises: (a) the integration of knowledge, skills, and attitudes
into a functional whole; (b) that competency is something that we acquire and not
something that we are born with, and (c) the situated nature of knowledge, where
competency depends not only on the individual but on contextual factors and the
actions of others (cf. Baartman et al., 2007). This definition thus resembles what
Aristotle once called “phronƝsis”, which is often translated to “practical wisdom”
(Aristotle, 2004).
Following the definition of competency as stated above makes assessment of
competencies a very complex undertaking. For example, since competency
consists of several aspects (i.e. knowledge, skills, attitudes, and values) no single
assessment method can be used to ‘capture’ the full range of a person´s
competency. As a consequence, a mix of methods must be used, where both
traditional modes of assessment and different forms of authentic assessments22
might be necessary components. This methodology, where different assessment
methods are combined to give a richer and more valid picture of a preservice
teachers´ competency, is sometimes referred to as “competency-assessment
programs” (Baartman et al., 2006). For example, in assessing the competency of a
preservice physics teacher it is necessary to ensure he or she uses their subject-
matter knowledge when planning and performing instruction (i.e. authentic
assessments). However, since it is not always possible to assess a broader sample
of subject-matter knowledge in this way, authentic performance assessments might
have to be complemented with more traditional forms of assessment. Still, if the
different aspects of competency are indeed to be integrated, the assessment of
knowledge in physics in a decontextualised manner, without any relation to the
context of teaching, might say very little about the competency as a whole. This
calls for assessments to be contextualized, so that there is always a clear
connection to the competency to be evaluated.
Although competency assessment programs may provide a more valid picture of
preservice teachers´ competency, a problem facing such programs is that much less
is known about authentic assessments as compared with more traditional modes of
assessment. For instance, there is a general consensus of acceptable levels of
reliability and generalisability in traditional testing, as well as methods to attain
these standards. Authentic assessments, on the other hand, are known to be less
reliable due mainly to low inter-rater agreement and the large variability of student
––––––––––––––
22 The term “authentic assessment” refers to assessments that have some authentic component(s), for
instancean authentic contextthat reflects the complexity of professional work (Darling-Hammond &
Snyder, 2000), along with the use of authentic assessment criteria, which reflect what is considered
quality within a specified “community of practice” (Lave & Wenger, 1991; Wiggins, 1998).
170
ASSESSING TEACHER COMPETENCY
performance on performance tasks (see e.g. Dunbar, Koretz, & Hoover, 1991; Linn
& Burton, 1994; Mclellan, 2004).
Initially the reliability of authentic assessments might seem to be of lesser
importance because of their “closeness” to professional practice, where the tacit
knowledge of the experienced assessor becomes a warrant for credible assessment.
However, this does not account for the fact that the assessment then depends
greatly on which assessor is assigned to the preservice teacher, making chance an
important part of preservice teacher examination. This situation may not pose any
serious problems when assessing formatively, although the feedback offered – and
therefore also preservice teacher learning – will differ from assessor to assessor.
This, however, can have severe consequences on summative assessments. If
reliability is low, a preservice teacher´s grade might actually tell you more about
the assessor than about the preservice teacher´s competency. These concerns call
for at least some level of reliability for authentic assessments as well.
As mentioned above, there are two main sources of variability in authentic
assessments that contribute to low reliability. These are the assessors and the
sampling of tasks. We will deal with them in turn, starting with the assessors.
Reliability issues: The assessors
In every assessment the preservice teacher has to do something that the assessor
can observe. It might be only to tick one of four alternatives in a multiple-choice
question, or it might be to teach a class for a whole lesson, but the assessor has to
have some data to go on. From this data, the assessor performs an assessment,
which means interpreting the data and making a judgment based on the
observation. The results from this assessment can be presented in many ways, for
instance in a spectrum from a single numerical score to a more comprehensive
description of the qualities displayed. When addressing reliability issues, one of the
core questions is whether two different assessors would make the same judgment
from the same observation. If the assessment was indeed performed through
multiple-choice questions, and both assessors had access to the right answers, they
are very likely to make a similar interpretation of the data and assign the same
score. If the assessment is based on classroom observation, where the surroundings
are much more complex and therefore it is more difficult to distinguish the
qualities sought, the assessors might possibly come to different conclusions about
the same performance.
There is a number of ways to deal with the possible low agreement of different
assessors in authentic assessments. A main concern, however, is that they should
avoid limiting the performance so that the assessment becomes less valid, for
instance by replacing actual performance with written performance or by only
observing students in artificial situations (such as role plays), even if such
standardisations typically increase reliability (Brennan, 2000). Instead of
restricting the performance of the preservice teacher, measures can be taken to
increase the agreement between assessors. Examples of such measures are the use
of explicit criteria so that all assessors focus on the same qualities as well as the
171
JÖNSSON AND MATTSSON
training of assessors to use the criteria and to make valid observations (Dunbar et
al., 1991; Linn, Baker, & Dunbar, 1991). For instance scoring rubrics, which is an
assessment tool that combines criteria with descriptive standards for each criterion,
has in some studies been shown to make performance assessments acceptably
reliable (Jonsson, Baartman & Lennung, 2009; Jonsson & Svingby, 2007). There
are, however, strong indications that assessors need training in order to assess
performance assessments reliably, even with the aid of rubrics (see e.g. Rezaei &
Lovorn, 2010).
Reliability issues: Task sampling
One of the major threats to reliability of performance assessments is the large
variability in preservice teacher performance. This means that the preservice
teacher might perform well on one task but then perform poorly a very similar task,
for instance due to differences in the context. Again, if the assessment is performed
through multiple-choice questions, it is easy to include a number of similar
questions in order to see whether the preservice teacher displays an even
performance on similar questions or not. However, given the time and cost that is
often associated with more authentic assessments, this might not always be
possible, once again making mere chance an influential factor in assessment. This
problem has led to an increased interest in using ICT when assessing, since
computers make it possible to standardise situations and also to render the
assessment process more effective (see Jönsson, 2008). The use of simulations and
other ICT solutions can, however, only complement (and not replace) authentic
assessments of preservice teachers acting in the classroom in teacher education.
Still, since all assessments are in fact artificial in some respects, a combination of
various assessments with different degrees of authenticity could contribute to a
more valid picture of preservice teacher competency. At the very least, the
assessors of preservice teachers´ competency should have access to a
systematically collected sample of data covering student performance in several
situations in order to minimise the impact of chance.
INTRODUCTION OF RUBRICS
To recap, we contend that assessing authentic performance is an important part of
assessing preservice teacher competency. However, such assessments are complex
undertakings and there are issues relating to validity and reliability that need to be
addressed if these assessments are not to be influenced more by chance than by
actual preservice teacher competency. As indicated by research on performance
assessments, the most challenging issues are often those of inter-rater reliability
and task sampling (e.g. Mclellan, 2004). That these concerns are indeed
problematic is corroborated by recent research on Swedish teacher education,
where Hegender (2010) shows that assessors of teaching performance seldom use
commonly agreed upon criteria but instead refer to their own subjective
experiences. Furthermore, the occasions where preservice teachers´ performances
are observed are infrequent and non-systematic. Sometimes these assessments are
172
ASSESSING TEACHER COMPETENCY
also indirect, relying on the observations and interpretations of others (i.e. the
supervising and the preservice teachers). Taken together, these results indicate a
clear risk of assessments of preservice teachers´ competency being subjective and
arbitrary, perhaps even based on misinterpretation and biased information.
Recently, several teacher education institutions have implemented the use of
scoring rubrics as instruments for assessing preservice teachers during their
practicum (see Table 1 for an example). Although not always used as the sole
instrument of assessment, or even primarily a summative one, rubrics do provide
explicit criteria as a basis for assessment. This could possibly lead to a situation
where assessors focus on the same aspects of competency to a greater extent, thereby
reducing the influence of factors not relevant (i.e. reducing ‘construct irrelevant
variance’, see Messick, 1996). Furthermore, the use of scoring rubrics has been
shown to increase agreement between assessors (Jonsson & Svingby, 2007), which
means that both validity and reliability might potentially be improved by the
introduction of rubrics. Ultimately, however, this would depend not only on the mere
presence of rubrics but on how they are designed and used. This chapter therefore
aims to investigate the pre-requisites for improved quality in assessing preservice
teacher competency by analysing the rubrics in two of the major teacher education
institutions in Sweden, as well as their intended and actual use. In order to do this,
the potential of using rubrics to increase reliability needs to be addressed.
Rubrics as a means to increase inter-rater reliability
As reported by Jonsson and Svingby (2007) there are a number of studies in which
the inter-rater reliability of rubrics has been investigated and in the majority of
these the results reported that assessor reliability did not reach the criteria set for
reliable scoring, such as 70 percent agreement for exact agreement or.70 for
correlation of scores among assessors. To a great extent this is due to the task
assessed. When all students do the same standardised task the reliability is most
often high but when students perform different tasks, choose their own topics or
produce unique items, then reliability is often lower. As a consequence,
performance tasks like essay writing and oral presentations typically produce
relatively low levels of reliability. However, the reliability also depends on the
instrument used. In the review by Jonsson and Svingby (2007) results from
different studies were used to get a picture of how to make rubrics for performance
assessments more reliable. According to this synthesis of research, rubrics should
preferably be analytical (as opposed to holistic), task-specific (as opposed to
generic) and have relatively few quality levels in order to increase reliability. Even
if these results imply that the ‘perfect rubric’ would be specifically tailored for
each assessment event and have but two levels, these attributes must, of course, be
balanced against other needs and purposes. For instance, if there were to be one
specific rubric for each assessment event then there would be a risk of literally
drowning in rubrics. Furthermore, it would be difficult to give feedback that would
help the preservice teachers perform better the next time they encounter a similar
(but not identical) task. A rubric optimized for high levels of reliability therefore
tends to interfere with the formative purpose of assessment, that is, to support
173
JÖNSSON AND MATTSSON
preservice teacher learning through feedback. The same is true for having a rubric
with only two levels; while this might be optimal for the summative purpose, the
need to give nuanced feedback will suffer.
Another aspect of rubric design that might have an impact on inter-rater
reliability is how the standards are formulated. For example, if the levels form a
continuum from less to more rather than being distinct categories, this could be
expected to lead to less agreement among assessors. This is because it is more
difficult to reach a consensus around relative measures as compared to distinct
categories. Compare for instance the recognition of colours; it is easier to agree
upon whether something is red, blue or green as compared to agreeing upon
whether something is light blue, dark blue, clear blue, etc. In the latter case we
need something to compare with, since dark blue is defined in relation to
something that is lighter in appearance and without such comparison it is difficult
to decide which is lighter or darker. Another example of formulations that might
impact on reliability is to what extent the features expressed in the standards are
observable. For instance, if the standards refer to non-observable features such as
‘the preservice teacher understands’ or ‘the preservice teacher knows’, then each
assessor must first operationalise these features before assessing them. Again, this
could be expected to lead to lower levels of agreement as compared to the situation
where the standards refer to observable features, such as ‘the preservice teacher
discusses’ or ‘the preservice teacher describes’ – given, of course, that the
assessors agree as to what concepts such as ‘discuss’ and ‘describe’ means.
Besides designing the rubric for reliable assessment the assessors need to be
well acquainted with the criteria and concepts used in the rubric so that they
interpret the criteria in a similar way. This might be accomplished for instance by
discussions among the assessors in order to reach a mutual understanding of the
criteria or by training to assess with the use of benchmarks and examples.
Ofcourse, to minimise the impact of non-relevant factors when assessing, the
assessors would need to really stick to the rubric, avoiding letting their own
preconceived ideas influence the assessment. For example Thornberg (2010) has
shown that teachers assessing mathematical performance sometimes negotiate the
meaning of the criteria in the rubric in order to justify their judgments, which
might be based on previous performance and/or personal characteristics of the
pupils. Obviously the mere presence of a rubric – no matter how well designed –
will not automatically increase reliability.
Rubrics as a means to support task sampling
In order to assure that preservice teachers are not assessed on too few and
randomly chosen occasions, a task-sampling matrix can be used. A rubric can
assist this process by providing the criteria that should be assessed so that the
assessor can make sure that relevant criteria are covered. Furthermore, the levels of
quality in the rubric can also aid in deciding whether observations of preservice
teacher performance are generalisable, for instance by comparing the performance
from different occasions to see if preservice teacher performance is stable across
174
ASSESSING TEACHER COMPETENCY
occasions or if there are great fluctuations from time to time. For a rubric to play
such a role in the assessment of preservice teachers, the rubric would need to be
analytical, so that individual criteria can be checked. Also, assessors would need to
use the rubric continuously to get enough data for judging the degree of
generalisability of the observations made. This data need not necessarily be
collected by the teacher educator alone. Rather, supervising teachers and
preservice teachers could also provide data for a more comprehensive assessment.
This, however, would require that supervising teachers and preservice teachers be
well acquainted with the criteria so that the evidence collected is valid. Taken
together the assessment could be compared with a portfolio where all those
involved try to gather as much evidence as possible to support the judgment of
preservice teacher performance in relation to the rubric.
DATA
Data for this study consists of a scoring rubric from the School of Teacher
Education at Malmö University, documents explaining the context and intended
use of the rubric (i.e. the organisation of the practicum and the assessment of
preservice teacher performance respectively). Furthermore, semi-structured
interviews with teacher educators at the university have been conducted (four
interviews: two males and two females from three different departments), together
with observations of actual assessment events of preservice teachers, including
participation at ‘assessment dialogues’ (i.e. follow-up discussions after the
classroom observations, where teacher educators, preservice teachers, and
supervising teachers are all present) in schools.
Corresponding data have been collected from the Teacher Education course at
Stockholm University: Two group interviews, including in total 15 teacher educators
(twelve females, three males from five different departments); three classroom
observations in three different schools with classes at different educational levels
(primary and upper secondary school); and participation at three assessment dialogues
(two female teacher educators and one male from t two different departments).
RESULTS
The rubrics
The rubric used at Malmö University (Sweden) actually consists of three sub-
rubrics aiming to assess three different areas of progression in the development
from novice to professional teacher. These are progression towards a: ‘Personal
practical theory and thereby a professional identity’, ‘Didactical awareness’, and
‘Communicative, democratic leadership’. In relation to each of these areas, there
are three criteria (or indicators), as well as four levels of quality for each criterion,
making the entire rubric a 9 × 4 matrix. As an example, the criteria for the area of a
‘Communicative, democratic leadership’ are the abilities to: (1) Lead and give
influence, (2) Act in accordance to the values expressed in the school curriculum
and handle conflicts, and (3) Communicate and cooperate. For each of these
175
JÖNSSON AND MATTSSON
criteria there are four levels of quality, expressing a number of different standards.
Examples of standards are given in Table 1. Since the rubric used at Malmö
University was used as a source of inspiration for the rubric used at Stockholm
University, the rubrics are almost identical.
While all of the standards shown in Table 1 are skills in some respect (i.e. focus
on what the preservice teacher can do or take part in), there are also a number of
standards focusing on what preservice teachers know. For instance, preservice
teachers are supposed to make reference to theories on learning and development
and they are required to have knowledge about the aims governing the educational
system. There are also a number of standards that refer to non-observable and
sometimes personal features, such as whether preservice teachers have found their
‘personal style of leadership’ or whether they ‘strive to become democratic role
models’. The standards are expressed as distinct categories and not as a gradient
from less to more.
Table 1. Excerpt from the rubric at Malmö University, giving examples of criteria and
quality levels (Malmö University, 2008, p. 42. Translation Jonsson, 2011)
Area of progression Progression towards a communicative, democratic leadership
Criterion Communicate and cooperate
Standards Level 1
Shows openness for establishing contact with children/pupils.
Standards Level 2 Expresses engagement and interest in the children/pupils and their
conditions and needs.
Shows a will to cooperate with other staff members and an openness
to establish a dialogue.
Sees and confirms each individual.
Can lead reasoning conversations in a sensitive way with
children/pupils both individually and in groups.
Is able to use a narrative and explaining mode of delivery.
Takes active part in the staff team´s current work.
Uses opportunities at hand to gain knowledge about the school and
the school system.
Shows social competency when working with other staff members
and in relation to parents.
The assessment contexts
There is no single subject, or set of subjects, in which the practicum periods are
gathered at either university. Instead, with the exception of the ‘practicum groups’
in Stockholm23, the practicum periods are always integrated with campus-based
education subjects into overall subjects encompassing learning of both a practical
and academic nature. To pass such a subject the preservice teacher must therefore
––––––––––––––
23 In Stockholm, the preservice teachers come together in ‘practicum groups’ (basgrupp) at each local
community for four days each year. In this constellation they reflect on general professional issues
together with experienced teachers. See chapter 1, 2, 3 and 8 of this edition.
176
ASSESSING TEACHER COMPETENCY
achieve the objectives of both the campus-based as well as the school-based
components of the subject. In both cases the university has the responsibility for
assessing preservice teachers although for the school-based components of the
subject there should be consultation with the supervising teachers about preservice
teacher performance. The supervising teachers are therefore requested to give
written reports on preservice teachers´ progress each semester, which are then to be
used as a basis for examination and grading of the preservice teachers. At Malmö
University, preservice teachers´ performances during certain campus-based
meetings with their assigned teacher educators will also, along with the reports
from the supervising teachers, count as part of their grades.
At Stockholm University the practicum is graded according to a two level
grading system (Fail or Pass), while at Malmö University the practicum is graded
according to a three level grading system (Fail, Pass, and Pass with Distinction)
during some of the semesters and according to a two-level system during others.
Therefore, besides the learning objectives of the courses containing practicum
periods that specify what is needed in order to achieve a passing grade, there are
also explicit grading criteria. These criteria express what the preservice teachers
must accomplish in order to be awarded the grade Pass with Distinction during
their practicum. The relation between the learning objectives and the grading
criteria on one hand, and the rubric on the other, is, however, not straightforward.
Although the rubric “mirrors” (Malmö University, 2008, p. 38) the learning
objectives, it represents a development that goes beyond the teacher-education
program, stretching into the future role of preservice teachers in the profession.
The use of the rubrics
Two of the teacher educators interviewed at Malmö University did not actually use the
rubrics when assessing preservice teachers during their practicum. Instead, both of
them considered an earlier instrument much more appropriate. This instrument does not
present the different aspects of teacher competency in the shape of a matrix but
discusses them in relation to different ‘themes’, such as ‘Documentation, reflection,
and analysis’, ‘Communication skills’, ‘Leadership’ etc., and gives a number of
questions to guide the assessment in relation to each theme (Malmö University, 2003).
According to one of the teacher educators these themes are more easily used as a
starting point for discussion with the preservice teachers than are the categories in the
rubric. She thought the themes reflected a more natural way to classify the different
aspects of teacher competency, although she admitted there were many similarities and
interconnections between the two instruments. Another reason for not using the rubric
was the preference for a more inductive approach to assessment starting in situations
that came up naturally during the observations instead of a deductive approach where
the instrument to a larger extent decided what to look for.
The view described above is in part confirmed by the other teacher educator not
using the rubric. She claimed that the levels in the rubric did not agree with her
experiences and she painted a different picture of the novice-to-professional
development. She also thought that the connection between the criteria in the
177
JÖNSSON AND MATTSSON
rubric and the learning objectives in the subject documents was too weak. Since it
is the learning objectives that form the basis for grading she preferred to work
directly with these objectives, steering clear of the rubric. She did, however,
recommend the preservice teachers to use the rubric as a tool for self-assessment
although she does not in any way make sure that they do.
The other teacher educators interviewed at Malmö University did use the rubric
but not so much as an assessment tool but as a basis for discussion and reflection
on preservice teacher performance. According to these teacher educators the
greatest potential of the rubric lies in the fact that it makes it possible to put words
to preservice teacher progression, which is otherwise difficult to articulate. Using
the rubric as an assessment instrument, however, is to some extent seen as
problematic. This is especially true for summative purposes since it is considered
of minor interest whether the preservice teacher reaches for example level 3 on all
scales, as compared to focusing on (holistic) progression towards becoming a good
teacher. For grading purposes then, there is a greater focus on the learning
objectives as compared to the rubric although one of the teacher educators claimed
that the rubric made it easier to pinpoint and explain to preservice teachers why
they had failed during their practicum.
A difference between the two interviewees who actively used the rubric and
those who did not was that the former ones claimed to see a clear connection
between the subject objectives and the rubric. One of them, however, did
acknowledge that this was not obvious to him at first. Instead, this connection was
made apparent to him during a session with other colleagues. As a result, the rubric
has gradually been given further attention, using it more and more.
At Stockholm University, all of the teacher educators in this study expressed
their appreciation of the new model and instrument for assessing preservice
teachers during their practicum. Furthermore, all of those observed actually used
the rubric in order to assess the preservice teachers. The assessment dialogues were
conducted immediately after the classroom observations, where the teacher
educators served as chairs and the preservice teachers used the opportunity to
receive feedback on their performance. In most cases the supervising teachers were
not as active in this dialogue as were the teacher educators and the preservice
teachers, who seemed better informed about the prerequisites and the aims for the
dialogue. For instance, when the discussion deviated from the agenda, the teacher
educator was the one who called the participants back on track. Interestingly, the
assessment dialogues were almost exclusively formative in nature and only
occasionally displayed summative characteristics, which is shown by the short
excerpt below.
Teacher Educator: In the rubric there is a paragraph about structure and
clarity in the leadership. Do you think that you will now qualify for a
position between level two and level three? I noticed that you responded
immediately when a pupil tried to make some fuss. What would have
happened if you had not stopped him?
178
ASSESSING TEACHER COMPETENCY
Preservice teacher: The volume would have increased. They would have
started something. You have to calm down; it is no good just shouting.
Supervising Teacher: When you asked the pupils to complete their
assignments there was a hidden praise in your words “Write as good as you
did before”. When they heard your voice they understood what kind of
behaviour you expected. You have definitely reached level three.
As indicated by the dialogues the subject knowledge of preservice teachers seemed
to be less of a problem. Instead, the issues raised and problematised during the
dialogues were more often about how to include all pupils, both socially and in
productive learning processes. For instance a pupil diagnosed as dyslexic is a
challenge, as are pupils who do not seem to be interested in what is being taught.
Overall, the assessment dialogue – as practised at Stockholm University – seems
to give the participants an opportunity to conceptualise professional experiences
and the art of teaching. The rubric facilitated this dialogue by structuring the
discussion and by offering opportunities to reflect upon critical pedagogical issues.
Task sampling
The main answer to the question “What evidence do teacher educators have when
assessing the preservice teachers?” is observation notes from school visits. Other
than this common ground, however, it differs. On the one hand, the evidence can
be quite scarce and unsystematically collected, based more on intuition than
evidence. For instance, according to one of the teacher educators at Malmö
University, the major data sources are informal observation notes from school
visits and oral discussions with the preservice teachers, which means that very little
data on preservice teacher performance is documented or possible to re-evaluate.
On the other hand, some teacher educators systematically request written material
from the preservice teachers, such as lesson plans and reflections, along with the
observation notes. One of the teacher educators even claims to copy-type the
observation notes after the visit, sending one copy to the preservice teacher and
keeping one as documentation.
Although the observation notes are without question the most important data
source when assessing actual teaching skills, the observations are often validated
against the supervising teachers´ experiences: Does this lesson reflect the common
behaviour of this preservice teacher? The supervising teachers´ experiences are
collected by requesting them to provide the teacher educators with written reports
on preservice teachers´ achievements. According to most of the teacher educators,
however, these reports are often of questionable quality, stating for instance
“everything is OK”. The experience of most of the teacher educators is that the
supervising teachers seldom take notes on preservice teacher performance, leading
to a lack of feedback for the preservice teachers and reports that focus on personal
attributes rather than performance in relation to criteria – a phenomenon also seen
in Stockholm. As a consequence, the reports do not always have a major impact on
preservice teachers´ grades, although a comparison is made with the teacher
educators´ own observations and the supervising teacher´s report.
179
JÖNSSON AND MATTSSON
The number of visits (and hence the number of occasions to observe the
preservice teachers) seems to vary among the teacher educators, with a minimum
of four visits in total for each preservice teacher during the entire course, to
perhaps six or seven at the most. A principle used by a couple of the teacher
educators at Malmö University was to have one visit for each of the semesters
where there are practicum periods, except for the first semester where there is no
school visit even though preservice teachers do have a practicum period during this
semester (i.e. 2nd, 3rd, 6th and last semester).
Another important assessment situation is the campus-based meetings at
Malmö University, which occur with groups of preservice teachers
approximately three times each semester. Again there is variation among the
teacher educators on how to use these meetings for assessment purposes. While
one of the teacher educators claims that the assessment during these meetings is
not based on the assessment criteria, other teacher educators repeatedly make
reference to the rubric as a basis for the discussions during the meetings. One
teacher educator also makes it very clear to the preservice teachers that their
performance during these meetings will count towards their grades, although
there is no formal documentation of preservice teacher performance during the
meetings. At Stockholm University similar campus-based meetings are
sometimes organised by some of the eight departments involved in teacher
education. However, it is unclear how the outcome of these meetings relates to
the assessment of preservice teacher performance.
DISCUSSION
The aim of this chapter was to highlight and discuss some problematic issues
relating to the assessment of preservice teachers´ competency. This was done by
analysing the rubrics at two of the major teacher education institutions in Sweden,
as well as their intended and actual use.
Are the rubrics designed for reliable assessment?
In order to support reliable assessment, rubrics should preferably be analytical and
task-specific as well as having relatively few quality levels. The rubrics used at
both Malmö and Stockholm University are in fact analytical but not entirely task-
specific and also have four levels of quality. This means that the rubrics are not
designed for maximum reliability. As was discussed above, however, there is a
trade-off between summative and formative purposes, where the generic design
and multiple levels can be considered important in order to support preservice
teacher learning through nuanced feedback and the possibility to track preservice
teacher progress. Therefore, it is quite understandable that the rubrics are not
entirely task-specific and do not have only two quality levels. Still, this means that
if the rubrics are to be used summatively as well as formatively actions may be
needed in order to implement the rubrics so that different assessors will not
interpret the generic (and consequently abstract) criteria and quality levels in very
180
ASSESSING TEACHER COMPETENCY
different ways, leading to low levels of reliability. Such actions might include the
distribution of descriptions and examples of preservice teacher performance that
are to be used alongside the rubric, and/or initiation of discussions among
assessors, the ultimate goal being that they reach a common understanding of the
concepts used. At Malmö University none of the interviewees referred to such
actions of implementation although two of them stressed how important the
discussions in their respective teams of teacher educators were for understanding
the concepts used in the rubrics. At Stockholm University the teacher educators
had asked for examples of preservice teacher performance as complements to, and
illustrations of, the rubric. However, to our knowledge, relevant experiences and
examples have not yet been exchanged systematically.
Other features of the rubrics are that the standards are expressed as distinct
categories (and not as gradients from less to more) and that there are a number of
standards that refer to non-observable features. While the former may promote
agreement among the assessors, the latter may do the opposite. Therefore, in order
to optimise for reliability, the standards should preferably be formulated in terms
of observable features; something that does not necessarily affect the validity of
the rubrics in a negative way.
Are the rubrics used in a way that promotes reliable assessment?
Although the rubric was used as a basis for discussion by two of the teacher
educators at Malmö University aiding in articulating preservice teacher progression,
only one of the teacher educators interviewed used the rubric when assessing
preservice teacher performance during practicum. Furthermore, two teacher
educators claimed that the validity of the instrument was low; not recognising the
way preservice teacher competency was expressed in the rubric. There were also
indications of resistance towards the very format of the rubric, feelings that it was
difficult to position preservice teacher performance in the matrix shape. Even if these
teacher educators used an older instrument, which has some agreement with the
rubric and therefore might provide validity to the assessment, the non-use of the
rubric may pose a threat to reliability since the older instrument does not specify
levels of quality and consequently allows for a more holistic approach to assessment.
Needless to say, the use of different instruments offers no optimal situation for high
levels of inter-rater agreement. A pressing issue therefore, is how to overcome the
resistance towards using the rubric, or – if it is indeed considered a non-valid
instrument – how to create an instrument that can support both valid and reliable
assessment. The fact that most of the interviewees at Malmö University (at least
initially) had difficulties in seeing the connection between the rubric and the subject
objectives, indicating a problem in understanding the rubric, might provide one piece
of this puzzle. Given the complexity of the instrument, difficulties in understanding
the rubric may not seem all too surprising and this lack of understanding might very
well account for some of the resistance. This points to the need for a more thorough
implementation of the rubric, for instance by initiating discussions among the teacher
educators (which obviously helped a couple of them), or by exemplifying the
181
JÖNSSON AND MATTSSON
different standards thereby making them more concrete. As mentioned above, at
Stockholm University the situation was somewhat different as the teacher educators
expressed their appreciation of the rubric for assessing preservice teacher learning
during practicum.
Another aspect of reliability discussed above is task sampling. Again, since
most of the interviewees at Malmö University did not use the rubric as an
assessment instrument, it is not used to support task sampling by these teacher
educators either. This does not necessarily mean that they do not collect data on
preservice teacher performance in a systematic manner but, according to the
interviews, the observational data on preservice teacher performance might
sometimes be scarce and fragmented. In fact, the teacher educator who most
clearly used the rubrics for assessment purposes was also the one who most clearly
made reference to an ongoing and systematic assessment process, supported by
data on preservice teacher performance.
Even if some of the teacher educators at Malmö University felt that they did get
quite a clear picture of preservice teachers´ performances, there might still be
difficulties in making reliable judgments about this performance in relation to
multiple criteria, especially if the assessment is based on a few occasions only. This
problem is even more pronounced if the assessments are to be used for tracking
preservice teacher progress in any detail. With this low number of occasions (in
Malmö as well as in Stockholm) there is a genuine need to increase the amount of
data on preservice teacher performance. This could be done by increasing the number
of visits for each teacher educator although this option may seem unlikely to solve
the situation. Instead, what seems to be needed is a more inclusive approach to data
collected by the supervising teachers and/or the preservice teachers themselves. The
current situation at Malmö University (and similar procedures could be identified at
Stockholm University) means that the supervising teacher makes a summative
judgment based on her own data, which is conveyed to the teacher educator who
(possibly) takes this assessment into consideration when making her own judgment.
A more optimal situation for reliable assessment would be to let the preservice
teachers and supervising teachers provide the teacher educator with data on
preservice teacher performance, which the teacher educator could take into
consideration (together with other documentation, covering other aspects of teacher
competency). This would give a more thorough base for making well-grounded
judgments and would also reduce the risk of being influenced by the judgment of the
supervising teacher. The role of the supervising teacher would then be to collect valid
data on preservice teacher performance and to provide formative feedback to the
preservice teacher rather than making summative judgments. As discussed
previously, at Stockholm University the rubric was used mainly for formative
purposes and only occasionally for summative assessments. As a consequence it was
difficult to identify the relationship between data collected through assessment
dialogues on the one hand and the summative assessment of preservice teachers´
performances on the other.
The importance of the approach outlined above, where the supervising teacher
collects data on preservice teacher performance rather than making summative
judgments is even more evident since there are standards focusing on both skills
182
ASSESSING TEACHER COMPETENCY
and knowledge in the rubrics. This makes it necessary to apply different modes of
assessment in order to evaluate the whole set of competency aspects included.
Even if the teacher educators interviewed not only used observational data but also
incorporate (for instance) preservice teachers´ lesson plans, it is (still) questionable
as to what extent the teacher educators can cover all aspects in the rubric.
Furthermore, there are standards in the rubric where subject knowledge is needed
in order to make a fair judgment (for example if the preservice teacher has
acquired relevant subject knowledge and whether it is used appropriately). Since
the teacher educators observe and assess preservice teachers with different subject
majors and often in subjects that they are not themselves proficient, the question
arises: Who is going to assess these standards? However, if there would be a
division of labour between the teacher educator and the supervising teacher, where
the latter is specifically responsible for some of the standards, this need not
necessarily be a problem. Another way to solve this specific situation might be to
change teacher educators at some point during the program, where the first teacher
educator is a generalist and the second an expert in subject didactics (pedagogy).
In the same way as some standards can only be assessed by assessors with
subject knowledge, some of the standards are personal – meaning that only the
preservice teacher herself can actually judge the fulfilment of these standards. This
design could question the usability of the rubric in terms of assessment although it
may still function well as a self-assessment or self-reflection instrument. Following
the reasoning above, however, there could be specific standards where the
preservice teachers are responsible for collecting data. Again, the main interest
here is not that the preservice teacher makes a summative judgment of her
competency, but to provide valid data to the teacher educator so that she can make
a well-grounded assessment based on a wider range of data. Another solution could
be to re-formulate the standards so that all parties (i.e. teacher educator,
supervising teacher and preservice teacher) can be involved in the common project
of collecting data on performance.
CONCLUSIONS
A preservice teacher cannot be expected to reach the same level of professional
competency as an experienced teacher. However, in teacher education it is still
important to assess various aspects of preservice teachers´ competency, where one
of these aspects involves the skills to teach. As has been argued in this chapter the
assessment of teachers´ competencies is a very complex undertaking and no single
assessment method can be used to ‘capture’ the full range of a person´s
competency. This means that there is a need for a broad repertoire of different
forms of assessment, more or less ‘tailor made’ for different aspects of
competency. A problem, however, is that much less is known about assessment of
preservice teacher performance in authentic situations, such as the practicum in
teacher education. For instance, there are problematic issues relating to reliability
when assessing authentic performance, such as low levels of inter-rater agreement
and large variability in preservice teacher performance across tasks. Specifically,
183
JÖNSSON AND MATTSSON
in Swedish teacher education such assessments have been shown to be subjective
and arbitrary. Since scoring rubrics have been shown to increase the reliability of
performance assessments, and several teacher education institutions in Sweden
have recently implemented such instruments, this chapter has discussed the pre-
requisites for reliable assessment at two institutions using a scoring rubric.
The conclusions from this discussion are that:
– The rubrics are not designed to support maximum reliability. Instead there are
features of the rubrics that can be seen as instrumental to the formative purpose
of assessment. Although this trade-off is quite reasonable, in this way putting
preservice teacher learning first, it makes actions to implement the rubrics even
more important since the more abstract the instruments are, and the more
criteria and levels the rubrics contain, the more training and discussion is
needed in order to arrive at a common understanding of the concepts used.
There are also changes that can be made in order to promote higher levels of
reliability without necessarily affecting the validity or the formative purpose in
a negative way. Such changes may involve formulating the standards
exclusively as observable features.
– The resistance towards using the rubric, demonstrated at Malmö University,
needs to be overcome. To what extent this can be done is a hypothetical
question but it seems that discussions among the teacher educators, focusing on
the understanding and application of the criteria as well as the connection
between the rubric and the subject objectives, have helped in some instances.
Other actions could include the involvement of the teacher educators in
revisions of the instrument, so that there is a greater alignment between their
experiences and the instrument, to provide training and/or concrete examples of
assessment (for instance movies showing classroom situations accompanied by
assessments done in relation to the rubric), or creating a portfolio-assessment
system aligned with the rubric.
– It is not reasonable to expect the teacher educators to be able to make a well-
grounded assessment of preservice teacher performance on the basis of a few
observations and some campus-based meetings. This is especially true in
relation to such extensive rubrics (with 36 standards in total). As a consequence,
the number of standards needs to be reduced and/or the amount of data
increased. In the latter case it has been suggested that there could be a division
of labour between the teacher educator, the supervising teacher and the
preservice teacher in collecting information on performance so that the
assessment can be based on a more comprehensive set of data, covering more
aspects of the competency to be assessed.
– The appreciation of the rubric demonstrated by the teacher educators at
Stockholm University might be related to their way of using the instrument, i.e.
mainly for reflective and formative purposes. The assessment dialogue gave the
participants an opportunity to conceptualise professional experiences and to
reflect on critical pedagogical issues. This is an important contribution, which
might potentially aid in improving practicum learning and even teacher
education. Still, there is a need for the development of models and instruments
184
ASSESSING TEACHER COMPETENCY
for summative assessment. If practicum learning is not subject to proper and
systematic assessment, the practicum part of teacher education will be left to
chance.
REFERENCES
Aristotle. (2004). The Nicomachean ethics (Translated by A. K. Thomson & H. Tredennick). London:
Penguin Classics.
Baartman, L. K. J., Bastiaens, T. J., Kirschner, P. A., & Van der Vleuten, C. P. M. (2006). The wheel of
competency assessment: Presenting quality criteria for Competency Assessment Programs. Studies
in Educational Evaluation, 33, 153–177.
Baartman, L. K. J., Bastiaens, T. J., Kirschner, P. A., & van der Vleuten, C. P. M. (2007). Evaluating
assessment quality in competence-based education: A qualitative comparison of two frameworks.
Educational Research Review, 2, 114–129.
Brennan, R. L. (2000). Performance assessment from the perspective of generalizability theory. Applied
Psychological Measurement, 24, 339–353.
Darling-Hammond, L., & Snyder, J. (2000). Authentic assessment of teaching in context. Teaching and
Teacher Education, 16, 523–545.
Dunbar, S. B., Koretz, D. M., & Hoover, H. D. (1991). Quality control in the development and use of
performance assessments. Applied Measurement in Education, 4, 289–303.
Eraut, M. (1994). Developing professional knowledge and competence. London & Washington: The
Falmer Press.
Hegender, H. (2010). Between academy and profession. Doctoral dissertation. Linköping University.
Jonsson, A., Baartman, L.K.J., & Lennung, S.A. (2009). Estimating the quality of performance
assessments: The case of an “Interactive examination” for teacher competency. Learning
Environments Research, 12, 225–241.
Jonsson, A., & Svingby, G. (2007). The use of scoring rubrics: Reliability, validity and educational
consequences. Educational Research Review, 2, 130–144.
Jönsson, A. (2008). Educative assessment for/of teacher competency. Doctoral dissertation. Malmö
University.
Lave, J., & Wenger, E. (1991). Situated learning: legitimate peripheral participation. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
Liedman, S-E. (2011). Hets!: en bok om skolan. Stockholm: Bonnier.
Linn, R. L., Baker, E. L., & Dunbar, S. B. (1991). Complex, performance-based assessment:
Expectations and validation criteria. Educational Researcher, 20, 15–21.
Linn, R. L., & Burton, E. (1994). Performance assessment: Implications of task specificity. Educational
Measurement: Issues and Practice, 13, 5–15.
Malmö University (2003). På väg mot läraryrket [Towards the teaching profession]. Malmö: Malmö
University.
Malmö University (2008). På väg mot läraryrket [Towards the teaching profession]. Malmö: Malmö
University.
Mclellan, E. (2004). How convincing is alternative assessment for use in higher education? Assessment
& Evaluation in Higher Education, 29, 311–321.
Messick, S. (1996). Validity of performance assessments. In G. W. Phillips (Ed.), Technical issues in
large-scale performance assessment (pp. 1–18). Washington, DC: National center for Education
Statistics.
OECD (2005). Definition and selection of key competencies: Executive summary. From:
http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/47/61/35070367.pdf (2011-04-03).
Rezaei, A. L., & Lovorn, M. (2010). Reliability and validity of rubrics for assessment through writing.
Assessing Writing, 15, 18–39
185
JÖNSSON AND MATTSSON
Stockholm University (2009). Från nybörjare till kompetent lärare [From novice to competent
teacher].Stockholm: Stockholm University.
Taconis, R., Van der Plas, P., & Van der Sanden, J. (2004). The development of professional
competencies by educational assistants in school-based teacher education. European Journal of
Teacher Education, 27, 215–240.
Thornberg, P. (2010). Ett acceptabelt koordinatsystem: om bedömning av nationella prov med hjälp av
matriser [An acceptable coordinate system; About the assessment of national tests with the aid of a
scoring rubric]. Unpublished Masters thesis. Kristianstad University college.
Wiggins, G. (1998). Educative assessment. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Anders Jönsson
Centre for Profession Studies (CPS)
Malmö University, Sweden
Matts Mattsson
Department of Education,
University of Tromsø, Norway
186
PART III
REFLECTIONS AND CONCLUSIONS
PIET-HEIN VAN DE VEN
10. REFLECTIONS FROM A ‘DUTCH’ PERSPECTIVE
INTRODUCTION: SOME INFORMATION ON THE DUTCH SITUATION
A ‘practicum turn’ is a well-known phenomenon in my Dutch context. In the
Netherlands this turn is formulated in the new concept of werkplekleren
(‘workplace learning’), indicating that preservice teachers learn at and from the
workplace. This concept replaces earlier concepts like stage (apprenticeship),
hospitium (apprenticeship, but with some connotation towards hospitality, the
trainee being a guest in the school) and simply praktijk (practice, indicating the
importance of action). At present werkplekleren is considered a means to bridge
the long-standing gap between theory and practice. This turn also focuses on
emphasising the value of school practice, because practice often has been
perceived as inferior to theory. Consequently several forms of cooperation between
‘theorists’ and ‘practitioners’ (that is between teacher education institutions and
schools) have been developed These vary from opleidings school (standard teacher
education schools) to Academische opleidings school (research teacher education
schools), the latter being a school where, as in the Research and Development
Model (Eilertsen, Furu & Rørnes,chapter 4, this edition) teachers, teacher
educators and preservice teacher are involved in small scale research activities,
connected to school development as well as to teacher education. But also the
Master Apprentice Model is still practised, especially in schools where preservice
teachers function as teachers, because they fill a vacancy that could not otherwise
be filled. In short, there is a great deal of variety in the relationship between
schools and teacher education institutions.
A similar level of variety exists in the organisation of the school-based
placement. The Netherlands knows three different traditions of teacher education.
We have the Primary teacher education (pupils aged 4-12). This is a four-year
bachelor program at ‘higher vocational education’ (Hoger Beroeps Onderwijs,
often referred to as ‘university colleges’, or ‘universities of applied sciences’).
Preservice teachers are introduced to all school curricula and to general teaching
skills. About 25 percent of the program takes place in schools. We also have
teacher education for the lower secondary and vocational education (pupils aged
12-15/16). This is a four year bachelor program at ‘higher vocational education’.
Preservice teachers are introduced to one school curriculum area and to general
teaching skills. Again about 25 percent of the program takes place in schools.
Alternatively teacher education for upper secondary education (pupils aged 15/16-
17/18) involves a four years Masters degree in one discipline in a university
followed by a Masters program of one year at a university teacher education
M. Mattsson, T.V. Eilertsen and D. Rorrison (eds.), A Practicum Turn in Teacher Education, 189–209.
© 2011 Sense Publishers. All rights reserved.
VAN DE VEN
institution. These preservice teachers become teachers in one curriculum area.
Fifty percent of the last year of the program concentrates on subject specific
teaching and general teaching skills while 50 percent takes place in schools
(Snoek, 2011). The actual school-based placement is organised differently within
each of these educational institutions. Some programs organise their school-based
placement on the basis of one day a week, some a period of several weeks in a
school, followed by periods at the teacher education institution, as well as many
other possibilities. For example in university postgraduate teacher education,
preservice teachers have their university classes one day a week, the other days
may be spent in schools or used for study. In the second part of the course the
preservice teachers are generally paid for their final school-based placement. Over
the years there has been some variation in the general organisation of school-based
placement. The fact that there continues to be variations indicates to me that the
problems have not yet been solved with regard to the perceived gap between theory
and practice. Another problem is the integration of subject knowledge, pedagogical
content knowledge and ‘general teaching skills’.
Teacher education institutions also differ in the way they organise skills
integration; this is especially the case for university colleges when trying to
integrate subject knowledge and pedagogical content knowledge. University
postgraduate teacher education programs focus more on the integration of general
teaching skills and pedagogical content knowledge. Their preservice teachers have
already mastered the subject at university level.
One of the consequences of the school-based placement in the Netherlands is that
the role of theory has decreased sharply. ‘Practice’ is just taken for granted but not
discussed (Van de Ven & Oolbekkink, 2007). I have come across some managers of
teacher education institutions referring to schools as ‘clients’ that have to be served
according to their wishes. They argue that they need schools in order to have
sufficient places for their students´ placements - and of course you do not criticise
your clients. Sometimes I think that such developments are at least partly causing the
devaluation of the teaching profession and cause the decreasing number of would-be
trainees. Another factor may be the increased control of teachers by the Dutch
government and more so by school management (Snoek, 2011).
REFLECTION- THINKING AND IMPROVING
From this background I reflect on the chapters in this ‘Practicum Turn’. Reflection
for me is thinking, looking back on experiences and events and trying to
understand them in order to improve my own actions and thoughts. ‘Thinking’
presupposes a conceptual framework; ‘improving’ presupposes some standard. I’ll
deal with the concept on ‘reflection’ later on.
Rhetoric
From my ‘Dutch’ background I note several interesting points in the edition A
Practicum Turn in Teacher Education. There is the notion of ‘international
comparison’, and above all the gap between theory and practice. For me an
190
REFLECTIONS FROM A ‘DUTCH’ PERSPECTIVE
international comparative perspective is challenging in the way Rorrison (this
edition, ch. 2) describes:
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 (…) to acknowledge the complex interplay between
the development of education ideologies and polities within each nation-state
and the sensitivity of cross-border research.
International comparison in this sense is not focused on evaluation, on judging
countries, as is the result of PISA-like endeavours. For me the global aim of such
an enterprise is to learn from others about myself, and my context, as in the well
known view ‘Making the strange familiar in order to make the familiar strange’. I
have experience of the fact that international comparison stimulates awareness of
one´s own traditions, assumptions, history and frames of reference because, as
Rorty (1982, p. 166) tells us, social phenomena are products of human actions and
decisions:
Our identification with our community – our society, our political tradition,
our intellectual heritage – is heightened when we see this community as ours,
rather than nature´s, shaped rather than found; one among many which men
have made. (Italics in original).
One can compare educational traditions on different levels. One can look into the
daily practice of the classroom one can try to understand what teachers and
students are doing and what they experience. One can also compare educational
theories and the ‘rhetoric’ of education, the ‘oughts’ and ‘shoulds’ expressed in
formal and ideological documents. In my experience the more abstract the level of
description and analysis, the more similarities that can be perceived. The more that
description and analysis focus on daily practice, the more the differences become
clear, at least in my research field on L1 or Mother Tongue Education (Herrlitz &
Van de Ven 2007; Sawyer & Van de Ven, 2007). I will elaborate this below, using
Gee´s (1999) concept of ‘discourse’.
One of the points of departure of this edition is the controversial relation
between theory and practice (Mattsson, Eilertsen & Rorrison, ch 1). I prefer to add
to this dichotomy the notion of ‘rhetoric’, a concept also used in this edition by
Eilertsen, Furu & Rørnes (ch 4). As indicated above not only should theories be
applied to practice but teachers are also confronted with a great deal of rhetoric, of
‘oughts’ and ‘shoulds’ and of regulation and law (for example Brodin, ch 7) that
should be put into practice – and we know from a great deal of research, especially
research from the realm of educational innovation, how little these prescriptions
are realised in practice (e.g. Hultman, 1987; Calderhead, 2001). Quoting
Hedegaard-Sørensen & Tetler (ch 6, this edition), there is a “huge gap between
ideology and reality”. New ideas on teacher education – the partnership model, the
integrated and R&D model or for example Korthagen´s realistic teacher education
(see chapter 1) –hardly ever become reality in daily practice. They appear to
remain just rhetoric.
191
VAN DE VEN
The authors of A Practicum Turn in Teacher Education mention several causes
and consequences of the rhetoric/theory-practice gap. I’ll reflect on that gap in the
next paragraph introducing the concepts of ‘rationality’ and ‘meta-discourse’.
There are more points of interest. I’ll also pay some attention to the concept of
‘competence’ and of ‘discourse’. In a paragraph on empirical issues I’ll deal with
the concept of ‘reflection’, presenting some research results on student teachers´
reflective learning.
THE GAP BETWEEN THEORY AND PRACTICE
The most important conceptual issue is the traditional gap between theory (including
rhetoric) and practice. Chapter 1 of this volume, A Practicum Turn in Teacher
Education explores the concepts of ‘theory’ and ‘practice’. I want to elaborate the
phenomenon of the ‘gap’, revealing the differences between theory and practice. This
gap has been characterised differently by the various authors of this edition. I will
arrange some of these characteristics roughly into three interrelated categories:
epistemological considerations, division of labour, and consequences and provide
evidence, mainly using direct quotes from the various chapters.
Evidence of Epistemological considerations
Theory and knowledge based on research are given a high priority in a
university based education (Mattsson et al, ch 1).
Propositional knowledge is favoured. Generalised knowledge is regarded
as more important than contextual and situational knowledge (Mattsson et al,
ch 1).
EpistƝmƝ -the disposition to attain knowledge and contemplation of truth - is
given high priority in the academic tradition instead of phronƝsis - the
disposition to act wisely and prudently (Mattsson et al, ch 1).
Research about practice is often neglected (Mattsson et al, ch 1).
Practice and theory call on two different kinds of knowledge and ways of
knowing (Hedegaard-Sørensen & Tetler, ch 6).
Evidence of Division of labour
The gap exists because of a division of labour (Heikkinen, Tynjälä &
Kiviniemi, ch 5).
There seems to be a communication gap, because there is little contact between
university teacher educators and school-based teachers (Rorrison, ch 2).
Hedegaard-Sørensen & Tetler (ch 6) perceive that the debate in the academic field
seems irrelevant for teachers; whereas for teachers it is practice, rather than theory,
which is in the foreground.
192
The words you are searching are inside this book. To get more targeted content, please make full-text search by clicking here.
A Practicum Turn in Teacher Education (Matts Mattsson, Tor Vidar Eilertsen etc.)
Discover the best professional documents and content resources in AnyFlip Document Base.
Search