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

REFLECTIONS FROM A ‘DUTCH’ PERSPECTIVE

[Theory and practice] are operating within two separate circuits (Eilertsen et
al. ch 4).

This remark is to some extent repeated by Hedegaard-Sørensen & Tetler (ch. 6)
where they conclude that university teacher educators experience the school-based
placement as an “interruption” to the theoretical education at university. Preservice
teachers are supposed to find connections between ‘worlds’ “that are not linked
together at a structural level.

Evidence of Consequences

Practitioners are often discontent with the relationship between research and
the field of practice (Brodin, ch 7).

There is a historically rooted disregard among universities for practice
knowledge and a historically rooted disregard among many school teachers
for research-based academic knowledge … Because generalisable knowledge
is applicable (Mattsson et al, ch 1).

and as theoretical knowledge is considered to be

…universal, formal and explicit in nature (Heikkinen et al. ch 5),

there seems to be some hierarchical relation between theory and practice, the first
leading the second.

This is also a perspective put forward by Hedegaard-Sørensen & Tetler (ch 6),
who describe how educational thinking in the case of special education is
dominated by “prescriptive theories, programs and models”. This is contrary to

[The Basgrupp which] acknowledges that, just as each classroom is different
and each pupil has different learning, emotional and social needs, so too the
learning context of each preservice teacher is different (Rorrison, ch 2).

Emsheimer & Ljunggren de Silva (ch. 8) refer to Gordon (2007), who states that
there seems to be a

…widespread misconception that educational theories are there to be taken in
their entirety and put into practice. [And] preservice teachers seem to
perceive theory as guideline for action [which leads to complaints] about the
gap between theoretical and practical, learning, between theories and praxis
(Emsheimer & Ljunggren de Silva, ch. 8).

Reflections

Reflecting on the epistemological considerations, I perceive two different
perspectives on knowledge: objectivity and generalisation of knowledge versus an
interpretative perspective on knowledge including phronƝsis, which includes
aspects of practical wisdom, care, and ethics. I refer also to the remark by
Mattsson, Eilertsen and Rorrison (ch 1) that “the gap is manifested in numerous

193

VAN DE VEN

and often subtle ways, including linguistically”. From an interpretative perspective
on knowledge, language use constructs our knowledge and our interpretation of
what we consider to be ‘reality’ (Slobin, 2003) as also suggested by Männikkö-
Barbutiu & Rorrison:

…language plays a key role in making sense of the teaching experiences… We
see language as a social practice that people use in order to reflect upon the world
and themselves… As a text is always socially and historically situated, to capture
its meaning is to reveal its contextual dependency while texts are also imbued
with relations of power and interest, as well as with human choices (Ch. 3).

The division of labour becomes more understandable from a socio-historical
perspective. Above all Thavenius (1981) explains that this division of labour has a long
tradition in Western societies. It started in Greek democracy 2500 years ago, where the
septem artes liberales – the roots of Western education and research – were developed
as ‘free’ activities for ‘free’ men in their ‘free’ time. In the context of a slave economy
‘free’ men could consider language, music, stars and arithmetic because they were
freed from the daily production processes. This pattern has been reproduced in varying
forms. Following Thavenius´ line of reasoning I refer to the mediaeval convent school
where the ‘learned’ fathers (generally of aristocratic birth) could study, thanks to the
farming endeavours of the ‘simple’ brothers. Similarly western aristocracy could study,
profiting from the money brought in by serfs and leaseholders. Meanwhile the 18th and
19th century sees the division between ‘higher’ and ‘lower’ education representing the
division between ‘higher’ and ‘lower’ classes. In the Netherlands a university
professor, with a chair, is still called a ‘hoogleraar’ (a ‘high’ teacher), exercising an
‘office’, whereas a teacher in primary or secondary education is just a teacher with a
job. Thavenius draws the conclusion that in western society the elite were far more
important than the labourer, that doctrine was supreme (especially in Christian religion)
and that theory has been far more valuable than practice. Writing this I use the past
tense – perhaps I should have used the present tense?

From this perspective some consequences become understandable, for example that
preservice teachers´ assumption that theory should guide practice, as presented in
chapter 8 (Emsheimer & Ljunggren de Silva). I could also refer to the discussion
between Herbart and Schleiermacher at the beginning of the 19th century in German
Educational Studies. That discussion was about the relationship between theory and
practice. Herbart, referring to Plato, emphasized the priority of theory. Schleiermacher,
following Socrates, put the emphasis on practice. Herbart´s point of view became
dominant (Miedema, 1986). Mattsson, Eilertsen and Rorrison (ch. 1) refers to Schön´s
(1983/2000) rejection of the ‘Technical Rationality’ in which theory gets priority above
practice. This is an important concept. I’ll elaborate this below.

RATIONALITIES AND META-DISCOURSES

In my treatise above I refer to epistemological and social aspects of the gap
between theory and practice. I also refer to a pattern of ‘dominance’. These aspects
are understandable from conceptual frameworks such as Matthijssen´s (1982)

194

REFLECTIONS FROM A ‘DUTCH’ PERSPECTIVE

theory on rationalities and Englund´s (1996) concept of competing meta-
discourses, which has a number of elements in common with Matthijssens theory24.

Matthijssen distinguishes with Hirst (1974) some seven or eight discrete
forms of knowledge each of which involves the making of a distinct form of
reasoned judgement and is, therefore, a unique expression of man´s
rationality. This is to say that all knowledge and understanding is logically
locatable within a number of domains, within, I suggest, mathematics, the
physical sciences, knowledge of persons, literature and the fine arts, morals,
religion and philosophy” (Hirst, 1974 quoted in Matthijssen, 1982, p. 19).

Matthijssen´s concept ‘form of knowledge’ refers to different domains of reality.
Each domain has its own way of knowing, with its own standards for what within the
domain counts as valid knowledge in terms of ‘truth’, but also in terms of ethics and
research methodology. These domains can be seen as different types of discourses.

Matthijssen analyses the ways in which powerful social groups try to impose
their world view, their way of knowing, as the only valid one, and how this pursuit
leads to the dominance of certain forms of knowledge, which become
‘rationalities’. A ‘rationality’ is, according to Matthijssen, a form of knowledge
that has reached such a level of development that its standards for valid knowledge
reach so far as to count for other forms of knowledge as well. Such a form of
knowledge, a dominant way of ‘seeing’ becomes a dominant way of ‘being’, a self-
evident perspective on world, truth and values. Such a form of knowledge becomes
‘materialised’. Matthijssen uses the example of the religious form of knowledge,
which is materialised in churches and the literary form of knowledge, which has
led to many ‘temples of beauty’. Such a rationality shows itself by self-evident
ways of being and seeing and of perceiving society.

Matthijssen analyses the battles for educational change in England, Germany,
France and the Netherlands in the last two centuries. His analysis elucidates what in a
certain period is accepted as valid knowledge, the role education plays in the
diffusion of that knowledge and how the struggle for the definition of valid
knowledge can be understood. To summarise the argument briefly: what passes for
valid knowledge, for legitimate educational objectives is the reflection of the world
view of an elite which manages to formulate vital social problems in such a way that
it pretends to solve these problems by means of its world view and the related
definition of valid knowledge. This problem-solving pretension is an important
aspect of a rationality. The dominant worldview, the dominant elite, demands from
education that pupils develop themselves according to that view. Matthijssen argues
that three successive rationalities have been dominant. A literary-religious rationality
(in which texts are the basis for knowledge) was dominant until the beginning of the
19th century. In the 19th century a technocratic rationality (the ways of knowing
from natural sciences) became dominant. This rationality has been challenged since
the 1960s by a communicative rationality (knowledge generated by interaction and

––––––––––––––
24 I have copied the next section, with some small changes, from Sawyer & van de Ven (2007).

195

VAN DE VEN

participation). In short: ways of seeing of some forms of knowledge became ways of
being and became self-evident ways of thinking and acting accordingly.

Englund (1996) analysed the ongoing ideological struggle in education, mainly
in Sweden. He perceives three different meta-discourses on education, related to
power and knowledge: a patriarchal conception of education, a scientific-rational
and a communicative. They in turn led to three different rationalities: a value
rationality, a technological or instrumental rationality and a communicative one.
Englund describes rationalities as “different meaning-creating contexts based in
different choices of content with which teaching can be arranged” (1966, p. 19).
Englund´s concept of rationality is much more restricted than Matthijssen´s, but his
concept of ‘meta-discourse’ comes close to Matthijssen´s concept of rationality.
According to Matthijssen a technocratic rationality, and according to Englund a
scientific-rational meta-discourse on education are currently dominant.

The gap between theory and practice

This rather short exploration into the conceptual framework by Matthijssen and
Englund illustrates some fundamental causes of the gap between theory and
practice. The main characteristics of a technocratic rationality are:

– A realistic ontological stance: ‘reality’ exists outside us. It is shaped by natural
laws.

– An epistemological stance that sees the truth about this reality and its laws as
‘objective’, not influenced by subjective elements. Research attains generalised
knowledge, which is, because of its generalisation, separated from concrete practice.

– A methodological tradition, which strives for quantification, experimentation
and verifying of hypotheses in strictly controlled research conditions.

– An implicit ethical stance: human beings are treated as objects (instead of as
subjects); knowledge is neutral, is value-free.

– A positivistic stance towards research: research is needed to attain generally
applicable knowledge in order to control and improve the world and our living
conditions.

– An educational stance: education should give all learners the possibility to
improve their own situation by their own merits. Instead of an aristocratic
perspective on education (in the literary-religious rationality), here a
meritocratic perspective on education is present. It includes a strong emphasis
on individuality25.

––––––––––––––
25 Editors comment. In ch 8 Emsheimer & Ljunggren de Silva discuss 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”.

196

REFLECTIONS FROM A ‘DUTCH’ PERSPECTIVE

Education should focus on useful knowledge and skills. In the 19th century, the
period of establishing this rationality, natural sciences as well as the ‘useful’
modern languages became important disciplines in new, ‘modern’ schools. Mother
tongue education (education in the national language) took over the role of the
classical languages. The idea that education should account for its results became
increasingly important. This form of knowledge of natural sciences dominates
other forms of knowledge, and continues to dominate education (and society as a
whole). I hasten to admit that natural scientists will be the first to relativise this
interpretation of core aspects of their science. The point is that this thinking is
currently the dominant thinking in society, by politicians, policy makers,
managers, as well as ‘the man in the street’.

I perceive this technocratic meta-discourse as having an economic or managerial
format, which Rorrison (ch. 2) labels as a “marketplace and accountability
discourse”. Important concepts in this discourse are for example input and output,
investment and (financial) results. In this discourse an important aim of education is
its efficiency and its productiveness. The official predominant aim of Dutch
education is to serve a knowledge-economy. The only educational qualities that
count are quantifiable elements. I see this in government pursuit of regulations in
order to control education and educational outcomes. I perceive this in the attention
paid to PISA-like studies, focusing on assignments and effectiveness of education
but neglecting differences in national-cultural educational traditions and in daily
classroom practice and neglecting what education means for teachers and students
(Parr, 2010). I also perceive this rationality in the new slogan for ‘evidence-based
practice’, which for me is just the traditional positivistic research in a new jacket,
‘old wine in new bottles’ (for example Eilertsen, Furu & Rørnes, this edition, ch. 4).

I also see this when my preservice teachers formulate their research plans for
their master theses in teacher education. In spite of their university studies, which
generally required them to carry out research in the tradition of the humanities or
social sciences, they tend to write educational research proposals in terms of
experiments and quantifiable surveys. They formulate research criteria like
reliability, objectivity and replicability thus taking the criteria for objectivistic
research as criteria for all research. Ball (1991) characterises this as ‘colonisation’
of interpretative research in the positivistic tradition.

Above I characterised reflection as looking back in order to understand, which
in turn is needed for improvement. Instead of a technical cognitive interest,
oriented toward controlling and managing the environment, I think in teacher
education we should start from a practical interest, focusing on understanding our
environment in which we have to interact. I think this type of more interpretative
knowledge, generated by historical-hermeneutic sciences is a prerequisite for
change for emancipation, and should be connected to critical-oriented sciences
(Habermas, 1972). Teacher education needs more than an instrumental perspective
on practice. Unfortunately, such an instrumental perspective is one of the main
elements of the dominant technocratic rationality. Instead I have often experienced
the need to understand the gap between theory and practice from a deeper,
theoretical perspective that involves partnerships between theorists and

197

VAN DE VEN

practitioners, that is, between teacher educators and teachers in school.
Understanding that other participants experience the same gap can be an important
condition for collaborating, a condition that appears to have motivated this edited
edition.

D/discourse

Mattsson, Eilertsen and Rorrison in the introductory chapter state that “the gap is
manifested in numerous and often subtle ways, including linguistically”. Englund
(1996) uses the concept of ‘meta-discourse’. Various authors in this volume, A
Practicum Turn in Teacher Education, perceive the gap between theory and
practice as a communication gap, and indicate theory and practice as ‘discourses’.
This communication gap might be understood theoretically as well as practically
using Gee´s (1999) concept of discourse.

Many concepts in educational discourse (concepts like ‘theory’, ‘practice’,
‘knowledge’, ‘competence’, ‘reflection’) are given different meanings by different
users. That is also the case with the concept of ‘discourse’; different definitions of
the concept are available. On the one hand, ‘discourse’ can be seen as a form of
concrete language use, a concrete text or a concrete interaction. On the other hand,
discourse can be seen as a specific, group-negotiated definition of reality (Ongstad,
1997). One can speak of ‘discourse’ with a lowercase ‘d’ or ‘Discourse’ with an
uppercase ‘D’ (Gee, 1999) and thereby view a discourse as the concrete realisation
of a Discourse. A Discourse then becomes a way of talking, thinking and reasoning
(in discourses) constructed by a particular group of people (a Discourse
community). A tacit agreement usually exists within the community about what
counts as valid knowledge, a valid argument, a valid perspective, a valid example
and so forth (Kress, 1985; Van de Ven, 2001). A discourse thus represents a
Discourse and thereby a Discourse community, which shares a particular
perspective on reality. Obviously, different Discourse communities can have
different viewpoints on reality and, in a similar vein, different research traditions
can be construed as different Discourses. Different rationalities, but also different
disciplines, hobbies, school subjects, professions are to be perceived as different
D/discourses. The distinction between ‘discourse’ and ‘Discourse’ is not very
sharp; it depends on the level of abstraction.

There are differences in discourses between teacher education institutions and
schools. The Netherlands developed a professional register for teacher educators
(see Snoek, 2011). One can be registered as a professional teacher educator
following a procedure in which teacher educators prove their quality by submitting
a portfolio that is compiled over the course of a school year. During that year
teacher educators are required to carry out, document and analyse several activities
connected to their daily practice, proving their teacher education competences.
Primary and secondary school teachers (‘mentors’) can also be registered as
teacher educators upon completion of a similar trajectory. A few years ago I
supervised ten teachers from five secondary schools who followed this registration
trajectory. Time and again the guidelines for the trajectory appeared unclear for

198

REFLECTIONS FROM A ‘DUTCH’ PERSPECTIVE

these teachers. We discovered that what appeared to be self-evident for me, being a
teacher educator in a teacher education institution, was not clear at all for the
teacher educators from within the secondary schools. We apparently did not speak
the same language; we were members of two different discourse communities. In
our cooperation we did, however, learn to understand our different languages (van
de Ven, 2009). This was also an experience alluded to in chapters 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 8
and 9 of this edition and also in the concluding chapter.

Likewise, theory (rhetoric) and practice can be seen as two different discourses,
two different languages with different perspectives (values, standards, concepts…)
on teaching and learning, education and teacher education. In short, the logic of
practice is not that of the theorist (Bourdieu, 1990, p. 86). Furthermore, carrying
out action research with teachers (van de Ven, Martens & Imants, 2005) I
experienced theory and practice being organised along two different time
dimensions. Practitioners want to solve problems immediately; researchers take
time for analysis. Nevertheless, in order to bridge the gap between the two
discourses, they should communicate, try to create a joint discourse, a joint
perspective on education and teacher education. The same holds true for
educational innovation. In a review study from the 80s, Hultman (1987) points out
that the only innovation strategy that appears to be successful for continuing
innovation is the dialogue between the ‘arena of formulation’ and the ‘arena of
realisation’; a dialogue in which ideas become adapted to practice and practice
adapted to ideas. Such a dialogue should be a non-hierarchical dialogue in which
theory abandons its arrogance towards practice and practice abandons its
scepticism towards theory. Such a dialogue is a “conversation that links the
discourse of theory with practical discourse” (Eilertsen, Furu & Rørnes, Ch 4).
Unfortunately the context of such a dialogue is more monologic than dialogic,
where the expectations of the participants – or at least some of the participants-
aren’t in line with the aim of a non-hierarchical dialogue.

A dialogue between theory and practice

Theory and practice should develop a non-hierarchical dialogue, but not a non-
committal dialogue. For me theory needs practice, like practice needs theory.
Heikkinen, Tynjälä & Kiviniemi in chapter 5 state, “theories should be considered
in the light of practical experiences, and vice-versa”. I totally agree with Robert
Scholes´ statement about this relationship:

Theory is not the super-ego of practice but its self-consciousness. The role of
theory is not to lay down laws but to force us to be aware of what we are
doing and why we are doing it. Practice without theory is blind (Scholes,
1989, p. 88).

In Louise Phelps´ (1991, p. 883) words:

Practice is more than knowledge: practice humanises theory. (...) Theory
galvanises and disrupts the system, changing its very questions, undermining

199

VAN DE VEN

long-held beliefs, introducing ambiguities, revealing complexities, setting
new tasks, and forcing risks.

So theory has a lot to offer practice. Phelps points out that practice also has a
great deal to offer theory. Practice functions as a laboratory where theory is
subjected to experiments, in which objectives, forms of work, learning activities,
attitudes and evaluations are put under the microscope. Theory is interpreted in
the practical laboratory, then it is tested, refined, adapted and criticised. It is also
important that practice lives up to the moral promises of theory, as theory only
takes on meaning when it is put into practice. Phelps adds that practical wisdom
reminds us that theoretical systems are never exhaustive or adequate to
phenomena, and thus undercuts their totalising tendencies. This is the humbling
discipline that practice has to offer theory, in return for its freedom (Phelps,
1991, p. 884).

The secondary school teacher educators I supervised discovered in their
registration trajectory that they needed more theory in order to analyse their daily
practice. They could describe what they were doing but they were not always able
to scrutinise their own practice to describe core problems or essential aspects. They
discovered that teacher educators from the institutions had a broader and perhaps
‘deeper’ conceptual framework to understand what they were doing. They
discovered the need of theory in analysing their practice and thus proving their
teacher educator competences. Nevertheless, our collaborative dialogue facilitates
our mutual understanding and our learning. Instead of the traditional transmission
of knowledge from the university scholar to teachers, we were able to transform
our understanding. We learned in our dialogues. I observe such a dialogue in
projects documented in A Practicum Turn in Teacher Education. In these projects
preservice teachers could discuss their experiences with their peers, with teacher
educators and/or experienced teachers, local placement supervisors, school leaders,
researchers, just as I myself experienced the importance of secondary school
students´ voices. They appeared to be agents of change in one of my action
research projects. They also give very worthwhile feedback to preservice teachers
and their supervisors. From my Dutch background I would say that the dialogues
with several partners stimulated preservice teachers in developing different
competencies.

Competence

In the last line above I have introduced the concept of ‘competence’. From a Dutch
perspective this is an important concept. The Netherlands has seen strong debates
on the notion of ‘competence’ (van de Ven & Oolbekkink, 2007). In those debates
‘competence’ has been ascribed different interpretations by different participants.
A Practicum Turn in Teacher Education, at least in my reading, shows a similar
variety in defining this concept.

The official Dutch definition of ‘ teacher competence’ sees ‘competence’ as a
combination of knowledge, skills, attitudes, beliefs, and responsibility (Snoek,
2011). In the world of education and in some curricula - not only in teacher

200

REFLECTIONS FROM A ‘DUTCH’ PERSPECTIVE

education, but e.g. also in vocational education - ‘competence’ is more or less
similar to ‘skills’. This concept of skills is also present in managerial thinking,
connected to the more technocratic thinking, focusing on controlling education.
Skills, especially defined in terms of ‘observable behaviour’, seem to be good
objects for assessing teacher competences. The naivety of this thinking is clearly
put forward by Jönsson & Mattsson in chapter 9.

In Dutch public and political debate ‘competence-based learning’ is often
accused of causing bad results because it neglects the transmission of knowledge –
indicating that ‘competence’ is similar to ‘skill’. The official Dutch interpretation
of ‘competence’ is more or less similar to the wider view presented by Jönsson &
Mattsson (this edition, ch. 9) and is related to the interpretation offered by the
Council of Europe, which is formulated by Collès, Dufays & Maeder 2003, p. 7) as
“La capacité de mobiliser différent savoirs, savoir-faire et savoir-être en vue
d’effectuer une tâche complexe dans un contexte motivant”. The importance of
knowledge is formulated in the notion of ‘savoir’. An ethical dimension has
become explicit in the notion of ‘savoir-être’.

In A Practicum Turn in Teacher Education several authors use the concept of
‘competence’, but I wonder about their interpretation. Eilertsen, Furu & Rørnes deal
with the concept of pupils´ ‘social competence’. In reporting on the Navigare Project
they discuss, among other things, the values to be found in this project. This
indicates, I believe, an interpretation of ‘competence’ as more than just skills. They
also use the concept of ‘academic competence’, ‘subject content competencies’, and
‘digital and didactic competencies’. In short, these authors use a rather broad
interpretation of ‘competence’.

A similar broader interpretation is presented by Heikkinen, Tynjälá & Kiviniemi,
who discuss teachers´ ‘ethical competence’ (chapter 5). Meanwhile Hedegaard-
Sørensen & Tetler write about “the competence of ongoing improvisation’ (ch. 6),
the “competences for coping with cognitive, social and cultural diversity in (…)
classrooms”; and about “a competence or a preparedness to reflect on practice in and
after practice”. Their use of ‘competence’ might however be read as a validation of
‘competence’ as ‘skills’. But it may also have a broader meaning. Emsheimer &
Ljunggren de Silva write about “teachers´ practical competences based on and
supported by theoretical understanding” (ch. 8). Here perhaps a broader meaning of
the concept is presented. Jönsson & Mattsson write about competence as integration
of “knowledge, skills, attitudes and values” (ch. 9), coming close to the broad,
official Dutch interpretation. Brodin, too, seems to use a broader concept when she
writes about “personal qualities and competences such as conduct, maturity and
values” (ch. 7). Nevertheless, she explicitly distinguishes a competence-based and
reflective learning paradigm in teacher education. The competence-based paradigm
focuses primarily on “working methods based on procedures and routines”. This
seems to define ‘competence’ as an instrumental capacity. This interpretation is
supported by expressions such as “professional skills and competences”. Most
important perhaps is that she sees a competence-based paradigm as totally different

201

VAN DE VEN

from a reflective paradigm. Seen from my Dutch perspective this latter distinction is
quite challenging26.

As I wrote above, in the Netherlands, the concept of ‘competence’ is a rather
broad one. Snoek (2011, 59) presents the seven key competencies that all teachers
in the Netherlands are expected to possess:

– Interpersonal competence in creating a pleasant, safe and effective classroom
environment;

– Pedagogical competence to support children´s personal development by helping
them to become independent and responsible;

– Subject knowledge and methodological competence that demonstrates
substantial knowledge of their subject and appropriate teaching methods
(including pedagogical content knowledge);

– Organisational competence in organising curricula that support student learning;
– Competence to collaborate with colleagues and thus contribute to a well-

functioning school organisation;
– Competence to collaborate with those in the school environment who also play a

role in students´ well-being and development (i.e. students´ parents or
guardians, colleagues at educational and youth welfare institutions);
– Competence to reflect and to develop as professionals over the long term.

I want to stress the sixth competence. But I also want to broaden that competence.
Teachers´ professional practice is not only linked to the teaching and learning
processes in the classroom or their interaction with colleagues and school leaders.
They also participate, often nolens volens, in a societal, public debate on education,
where teachers are challenged by complaints, assumptions, common sense
knowledge on education and a great deal of scepticism. In my experience
preservice teachers are hardly prepared for this kind of ‘discussion’. I myself tried
to integrate it to some extent into my own teacher education practice (where I had
often noticed the challenge).

I also want to stress that each competence is described in indicators; which
according to my interpretation do not fully represent the above-mentioned broad
interpretation of ‘competence’. Indicators identifying the need for knowledge or
the domain of ethics are minor aspects. Nevertheless, one of the most important
issues in Dutch teacher education is the seventh competence, the so-called
reflective competence. I’ll deal with this in the next section.

EMPIRICAL ISSUE: REFLECTION

In A Practicum Turn in Teacher Education ‘reflection’ is a much-used concept,
present in almost every chapter.

––––––––––––––
26 Editors Note. The lack of the term competence in chapters 2 and 3 is quite deliberate. From an

Australian tradition the competency movement is no longer viewed as compatible with the
knowledges and understandings seen as the desired outcome of teacher educations. However this
new definition adds a new perspective. (Doreen Rorrison)

202

REFLECTIONS FROM A ‘DUTCH’ PERSPECTIVE

Mattsson, Eilertsen and Rorrison, in chapter 1 refer to Carr &Kemmis´ (1986)
notion of ‘critical self-reflection’, a notion connected to ‘emancipatory action
research’. Rorrison in Chapter 2 refers to Dewey´s (1933) concept of reflection:
“Reflection is an active, persistent, and careful consideration of any belief or
supposed form of knowledge in the light of the grounds supporting it and future
conclusions to which it tends”. Meanwhile Männikkö-Barbutiu & Rorrison connect
the “process of reflection” to “conceptual change” (ch. 3). For them language is a
social practice that people use in order to reflect on the world and themselves.
They state for example that preservice teachers have to “reflect upon issues that are
relevant to their professional development and future profession”. Heikkinen,
Tynjälä & Kiviniemi in chapter 5 see reflective (and metacognitive) skills as part
of self-regulation. Reflection is linked to the use of theoretical and practical
knowledge. They see their ‘own practices’ as objects for reflection. For me this
idea of ‘own practice’, ‘themselves’ and ‘world’ are included, because I see
practice as a discourse that reflects a certain Discourse.

Hedegaard-Sørensen & Tetler place ‘reflection’ in the context of “theorizing
and analysing practical situations” (ch. 6) and in chapter 7 Brodin sees a “reflective
learning paradigm” as “a way for the students to explore the professional practice
on the basis of theoretical knowledge and to interpret this experience in relation to
the self and the world around”. This indicates “theory and self-knowledge that
enable reflection, communication and meeting with others” and “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”.

In short, the quoted authors describe ‘reflection’ as an activity that aims at
developing professional knowledge and action for the future professional. The
object of reflection is one’s own practice, focusing on self-knowledge as well as on
‘world-knowledge’. In the reflection activity, language has an important role. From
my Dutch perspective the authors cover what I quoted above as the seventh teacher
competence: the ‘reflective competence’.

Unfortunately, there appears to be a great deal of rhetoric in the Netherlands
concerning this reflective competence. The dominant reflection model in the
Netherlands is Korthagen´s ALACT model: Action, Looking back, Awareness of
essential aspects, Creating alternative methods of action and Trial. This model,
starting from the principle that practice comes first and is a methodological
definition of Korthagen´s concept of ‘realistic teacher education’ in which theory
and practice are integrated (Korthagen 2001; Mattsson et al, ch 1, this edition). Not
only are theory and practice involved but Korthagen and Wubbels (1998) also
argue that reflective learning is impossible without an overarching, comprehensive
vision of education. However, in Dutch practice, theory as well as vision, appear to
be absent to a large extent in preservice teachers´ reflective pieces. In practice
Korthagen´s reflective model is used in many teacher education institutions and
includes a format with standard questions, such as:

‘What did I want?’
‘What did the pupils want?’

203

VAN DE VEN

‘What did I feel?’
‘What did the pupils feel?’
‘What did I think?’
‘What did the pupils think?’
‘What did I do?’
‘What did the pupils do?’(van der Leeuw, 2006).

Emsheimer & Ljunggren de Silva in Chapter 8 of this edition also discuss
ALACT and provide a diagrammatic representation of the model. They provide
an interesting discussion where they compare Korthagen and several other
theorists in relation to practice/theory, finding that neither Kvernbekk (2001) nor
Korthagen (2001) “show clearly how learners combine and contrast general
knowledge and particular knowledge, so do not explain practice learning
sufficiently” (chapter 8). Three PhD studies on reflective learning in teacher
education (Mansvelder-Longayroux, 2006; van der Leeuw, 2006; Pauw, 2007)
show that the results of this reflective learning pose certain problems. Van der
Leeuw (2006) discovered that the reflective texts written by preservice teachers
were not used for learning, but rather the teacher educators were using them for
controlling purposes. In my concern about this situation I refer to Heikkinen et
al. who state “teachers who become used to being controlled become controllers
of their pupils” (this edition, ch. 5).

Van der Leeuw (2006) and Pauw (2007) show that the format of standard
questions and the connected writing assignments do not function well. They lead to
incoherent answers and the temptation to copy and paste previously given answers.
Furthermore, some questions are rather problematic. It is doubtful whether it is
possible as a teacher to know what pupils were thinking and feeling, it is only
possible to observe what they said and did. Answering questions like these will
stimulate preservice teachers to interpretation, with all the risks of
misinterpretation, since the interpretation has not been grounded on thorough
description and thoughtful analysis. In explorative research (Pauw and van de Ven,
2010) these questions appear not to lead to reflective texts, but rather to the telling
and retelling of stories, without any further critical reflection on what happened, or
critical self-reflection. If there is some reflection, it might be qualified as
‘instrumental reflection’ (Van Veen & van de Ven, 2008; Zeichner & Tabachnich,
1991), reflection that refers to the organisation of the lesson, the effective
application of methods, skills and of technical knowledge. It refers to actions in the
classroom.

In this instrumental reflection, focusing on classroom activities, preservice
teachers develop very little self-knowledge, they jump from experience to
interpretation, constructing ‘cause and effect’ relations that apparently may not
support their further activities; sometimes they even function contra-productively.
They try to find instantly usable solutions to their problems instead of analysing
them – which of course is understandable given their concern for survival. But this
short term orientation hinders them in the development of knowledge in other
important fields of teaching and learning, for example reflection on the substantial
level of pedagogical content knowledge or pedagogical concerns, or on a critical

204

REFLECTIONS FROM A ‘DUTCH’ PERSPECTIVE

level of ethical and moral values (Van Veen & van de Ven, 2008). Important
questions are missing in the list of standard questions, especially the important
‘why’ questions:

‘Why do I teach these topics?’
‘What perspective on the world, what world-view is inherent in these topics’?
‘Why are these topics relevant for students/pupils’?
‘Are they relevant for me? Why?’
‘Why can’t I accept certain behaviour? What are my (hidden) standards with
regard to interaction in the classroom?’
Et cetera.

The format questions do not provoke preservice teachers to clarify which thoughts,
feelings, and proceedings are important, why they are important, and for whom they
are important. They do not, or they seldom, ‘explore the self’ and they do not explore
the profession. As a teacher educator I miss the link with professional demands and
the theory beyond such demands (van de Ven, 2009). I wrote in my introduction that
‘thinking’ and ‘looking back’ demand a conceptual framework. I wrote that
‘reflection’ should aim at improving actions and ‘thinking’ and that ‘improvement’
needed a standard. Preservice teachers should reflect using, and learning to use, the
conceptual framework of the educational profession. Teacher education should teach
preservice teachers how to become members of the professional education
community. Reflective learning is reflecting on one´s own educational practice,
developing knowledge on ‘oneself’ as a member of the professional community,
developing knowledge about the community, its ways of thinking, its ways of
looking at education, its standards and its D/discourse. This can be done in dialogue
with peers, teacher educators, school-based placement supervisors (mentors), but also
by confrontation with theory (epistƝmƝ, as well as phronƝsis). Preservice teachers
have to learn how to use theory as a source for feedback so that theory becomes
meaningful for understanding and improving their thinking and actions.

CONCLUSION

What have I learnt from reading the edited edition A Practicum Turn in Teacher
Education? First of all I once again discovered that the gap between theory/rhetoric
and practice seems to be a universal gap. I think it is good to be aware of the
phenomenon. I am aware of how this gap is experienced by all authors, their
colleagues and students in their projects. I think it might be good to understand the
gap in all its complexity in order to avoid consequences such as practitioners´
scepticism to theory, and theorists´ arrogance toward practice. I perceive in the
contributions a joint intention in establishing this ‘practicum turn’ through
analysing professional practical knowledge and the developing of a professional
teachership, focusing on teachers´ autonomy, teachers´ and students´
empowerment and improvement of practice. I see different initiatives that all focus
on collaboration, on joint construction of practice and of epistƝmƝ and phronƝsis.
In short the authors and their projects try to transform practice into praxis.

205

VAN DE VEN

Some of them include approaches that combine teacher education with forms of
action research. This research has similar intentions, to empower teachers and to
use research and theory to understand and improve teachers´ practice. A joint
intention is to create situated professionalism based upon understanding the local
situation, the local traditions, beliefs, interests, and so on. Such an intention is
opposed to the dominant meta-discourse (see standard based reforms, PISA and
other kinds of testing, managerial control and technical rationality), similar to the
chapters in this edited edition, which are based, as are all the collaborative
enterprises, on more social constructivism or interpretative epistemologies.

But we should be careful. It is quite possible to create a ‘practicum turn’ from a
technical rationality stance with strong emphasis on instrumental knowledge and
skills whilst neglecting moral and ethical values. This is partly my perception of
what I see happening in the Netherlands, a ‘practicum turn’ realised as
‘instrumental practice’. I think A Practicum Turn in teacher Education stimulated
my awareness.

I became aware yet again that important concepts in the field of teacher education
are given different meanings by different users in different contexts – so this problem
is not just a Dutch one. Mattsson, Eilertsen and Rorrison (ch. 1) explore the difficulty
of defining ‘theory’ and ‘practice’. In my reflection I discussed various meanings of
‘competence’ and ‘reflection’. Such concepts - ‘competence’ or ‘reflective learning’
and perhaps even a ‘practicum turn’ - often function as ideographs. They get
different meanings from different users, but they share one characteristic; they sound
well, they suggest a paradigmatic shift, pretending to solve a long standing problem,
in this case the gap between theory and practice. So these concepts are attractive and
hardly anyone will deny the importance of the shift they indicate. But their problem
solving pretension makes a thorough analysis of the problem at hand redundant, so in
fact they cut off the road to a real solution. We have time and again to take care for
transparency of meanings.

The ‘practicum’ examples reported in A Practicum Turn in Teacher Education
vary hugely, thus emphasising the situatedness of professional practical
knowledge. At the same time they also emphasise that “theories and theorising are
a part of that situated professionalism” (Hedegaars-Sørensen & Tetler, ch. 6). This
surprises me, considering the devaluation of theory in the Netherlands. I have to
admit that in the Netherlands the role of knowledge is slowly increasing, but
unfortunately more often from a ‘back to basics’ perspective.

All practicum examples in this edition develop a dialogue between theorists and
practitioners. In their reports, the authors explain the way they realise such a
dialogue in forms of collaborative learning and research. I learned from reading
these projects. In all their variety they show that dialogues between theory and
practice are possible, that a ‘practicum turn’ re-evaluates practice, at the same time
not neglecting the role of theory. Therefore I can also conclude that a similar
principle can be realised in different ways.

Let me end by emphasising that A Practicum Turn in Teacher Education, with
all its variety, shows the importance of variety and of differences. Comparing

206

REFLECTIONS FROM A ‘DUTCH’ PERSPECTIVE

approaches, comparing projects, comparing different meanings of core concepts –
in short, perceiving differences, stimulates learning in terms of transformation of
understanding. Perhaps I can say that learning is learning to see differences. When
there are no differences, what then is left to learn?

REFERENCES

Ball, S. (1991). Case Study Methodology in Research on Mother Tongue Education: Theorising the
Object. In Haueis, E. & W. Herrlitz (Eds.) (1991), Comparative studies in European Standard
Language Teaching. Methodological problems of an interpretative approach. Studies in Mother
Tongue Education 5, Enschede: VALO-M.p. 59–72.

Bourdieu, P. (1990). The logic of practice. Cambridge: Polity Press.
Brodin, H. (2011). Exploring the Self as Part of Practice. Reflections on students´ practical learning

from the social work perspective.In M. Mattsson.T.V. Eilertsen & D. Rorrison, (Eds.), A Practicum
Turn in Teacher Education. This edition.
Calderhead, J. (2001), International Experiences of Teaching Reform. In V. Richardson (Ed) (2001),
Handbook of Research on Teaching (4th ed.). Washington DC: American Educational Research
Association, 777–802.
Carr, W. &Kemmis, S. (1986). Becoming critical: education, knowledge and action research. London:
Falmer Press.
Collès, L., Dufays, J.L., Maeder, C. (2003). Enseigner le français, l’espangol et l’italien. Les langues
romanes à l’heure des competences. Bruxxelles: De Boeck Duculot.
Eilertsen, T.V., Furu, E.M. & Rørnes, K (2011). Learning beyond the Traditional: Preservice Teachers
as Partners in School development. In M. Mattsson, T.V Eilertsen, & D. Rorrison,
(Eds.),A Practicum Turn in Teacher Education. This edition.
Emsheimer, P. & Ljunggren de Silva, N. (2011).Preservice Teachers´ Reflections on Practice in relation
to Theories. In M. Mattsson, T.V. Eilertsen & D. Rorrison, (Eds.), A Practicum Turn in Teacher
Education. This edition.
Englund, T. (1996). The public and the text. Journal of Curriculum Studies 28(1), 1–35.
Fried, R (1995). The Passionate Teacher: A Practical Guide. Boston: Beacon Press.
Gee, J. (1999). Discourse Analysis. London: Routledge.
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.
Habermas, J. (1972). Knowledge and Human Interests. London: Heinemann.
Hedegaard-Sørensen, L. & Tetler, S. (2011). Situated Professionalism in Special Education Practice. In
M. Mattsson, T.V. Eilertsen & D. Rorrison, (Eds.), A Practicum Turn in Teacher Education.This
edition.
Heikkinen, H., Tynjälä, P. & Kiviniemi, U. (2011). Integrative Pedagogy in Practicum. Meeting the
Second Order Paradox of Teacher education. In M. Mattsson, T.V. Eilertsen & D. Rorrison, (Eds.),
A Practicum Turn in Teacher Education. This edition.
Herrlitz, W. & Van de Ven, P.H. (2007). Comparative research on mother tongue education In: Herrlitz,
W., Ongstad, S. & Van de Ven, P.H. (Eds.), (2007). Research on mother tongue/L1-education in a
comparative perspective: Theoretical and Methodological Issues. Amsterdam, New York: Rodopi,
p. 13–42.
Hirst, P. (1974), Knowledge and the curriculum, a collection of philosophical papers.London:
Toutledge & Kegan Paul.
Hultman, G. (1987), Kan skolan styras med forskning och utvärdering? [Can the school be steered by
research and evaluation?] Forskning om Utbildning 14(2), 28–38.
Jönsson, A. & Mattsson, M. (2011). Assessing Teacher Competency during Practicum. In M. Mattsson,
T.V. Eilertsen & D. Rorrison, (Eds.), A Practicum Turn in Teacher Education. This edition.

207

VAN DE VEN

Korthagen, F. (2001). Linking practice and theory: the pedagogy of realistic teacher education.
Mahwah N.J.: L. Erlbaum Associates.

Korthagen, F. & Wubbels, T. (1998). Wat is een reflectieve leraar? Naar een betekenisvolle invulling
van het begrip reflectie. [What is a reflective teacher? Towards a meaningful conception of
reflection]. Velon Tijdschrift voor lerarenopleiders 19(4), 6–16.

Kress, G. (1985), Linguistic processes in sociocultural practice. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Kvernbekk, T. (2001). Erfaring, praksis og teori i Pedagogikk og laererprofesjonalitet. Kvernbekk, T.

ed. Gyldendal.
Männikkö-Barbutiu, S. & Rorrison, D. (2011). Memorable Encounters. In M. Mattsson, T.V. Eilertsen

& D. Rorrison, (Eds.), A Practicum Turn in Teacher Education. This edition.
Mansvelder-Longayroux, D. (2006). The learning portfolio as a tool for stimulating reflection by

teachers. Leiden: ICLON.
Matthijssen, M. (1982), De elite en de mythe. Een sociologische analyse van strijd om onder-

wijsverandering. [The elite and the myth. A sociological analysis of the battle on educational
change].Deventer: Van Loghum Slaterus.
Mattsson, M, Eilertsen, T. V. & Rorrison, D. (2011). What is Practice in Teacher Education?
In M. Mattsson, T.V. Eilertsen & D. Rorrison, (Eds.), A Practicum Turn in Teacher Education. This
edition.
Miedema, S. (1986). Kennen en handelen. Bijdragen aan het theorie-praktijk-debat in de
opvoedingswetenschap. [Knowing and acting. Contributions to the theory-practice debate in
pedagogical sciences]. Leuven/Amersfoort: ACCO.
Ongstad, S. (1997), Sjanger, posisjonering og oppgaveideologier. En teortisk-empirisk bidrag til et
tverrfaglig, semiotisk og didaktisk sjangerbegrepp. [Genres, positionings and tasks´ ideologies. A
theoretical and empirical contribution to a interdisciplinary, semiotic and didactic conception of
‘genre’]. Trondheim: NTNU (Diss. NTNU)
Parr, G. (2010). Inquiry-based Professional Learning: Speaking Back to Standard-based Reforms.
Teneriffe Qld:Post Pressed.
Pauw, I. (2007). De kunst van het navelstaren. De didactische implicaties van de retorisering van
refelctieverslagen op de pabo. [The art of navel gazing. The didactic implications of rhetorising
reflection accounts at teacher training institutes for primary education]. s Zwolle: KPZ in druk.
Phelps, L. (1991). Practical Wisdom and the Geography of Knowledge in Composition. College English
53(8), 863–886.
Remington Smith, E. (2007). Integrating theory and practice in an English methods course. Developing
a Teaching Stance, in Gordon & O’Brian (ed). Bridging Theory and Practice in teacher education.
Sense Publishers.
Rorrison, D. (2011). Border Crossing in Practicum Research. In M. Mattsson, T.V. Eilertsen &
D. Rorrison, (Eds.), A Practicum Turn in Teacher Education. This edition.
Rorty, R. (1982). Consequences of Pragmatism. Brighton: Harvester.
Sawyer, W. & van de Ven, P.H. (2007). Starting points: paradigms in mother tongue education.
In: L1-Educational Studies in Language and Literature 7(1), 5–20.
Scholes, R. (1989). The Rise and Fall of English: reconstructing English as a Discipline. New
Haven/Conn.: Yale University Press.
Schön, D.A. (1983/2000). The Reflective Practitioner; How professionals think in action. Aldershot;
Arena.
Slobin, D. (2003). Language and thought online: cognitive consequences of linguistic relativity. In: D.
Gentner & S. Goldin-Meadow (Eds.), Language in mind: Advances in the study of language and
thought. Cambridge MA: MIT press. 157–192.
Snoek, M. (2011). Teacher education in The Netherlands: Balancing between Autonomous Institutions
and a Steering Government. In M. Valenþiþ Zuljan & J. Viogrinc (Eds.). European Dimensions of
Teacher Education – Similarities and Differences. Ljubljana: faculty of Education; Kranj: The
National School of Leadership and Education. P. 53–84.

208

REFLECTIONS FROM A ‘DUTCH’ PERSPECTIVE

Thavenius, J. (1981), Modersmål och fadersarv.Svenskämnets traditioner i historien och nuet. [Mother
tongue and fatherly heritage. Traditions of the school subject Swedish in present and past].
Stockholm: Symposion Bokförlag

Van der Leeuw, B. (2006). Schrijftaken in de lerarenopleiding. Een etnografie van
onderwijsvernieuwing. [Writing assignments in teacher education. An ethnography of educational
innovation]. Heeswijk-Dinther: Esstede.

Van de Ven, P.H. (2001). Curriculum as D/discourse – an exploration from the perspective of teachers´
learning. In G. Khruslov & S. Kroon (Eds.).Languages of family and school.Institute for Problems
of Education, Moskou, 2001, 120–142

Van de Ven, P.H. (2009). Leren van registreren. Verslag van een in-companytraject voor opleiders in de
school. [Learning from registrering. Report on an in-company trajectory for mentors in school].
In Th. Bergen e.a. (Red.). Perspectieven op samen leraren opleiden. Antwerpen/Apeldoorn: Garant,
p. 71–91

Van de Ven, P.H., Martens, J. & Imants, J. (2005).Praktijkgericht onderzoek bij de ontwikkeling van
actief en zelfstandig leren binnen het schoolvak Nederlands. [Practice related research during the
development of active and autonomous learning in the school subject Dutch]Pedagogische Studiën
82(4), 293–309.

Van de Ven, P.H. & Oolbekkink, H. (2008). Pragmatic and politically neutral: The Image of the
Academic Secondary School Teacher in the Discourse of Teacher Education. In: Ax, J. & Ponte,
P. (Eds.). Critiquing Praxis: Conceptual and Empirical Trends in the Teaching Profession.
Rotterdam, Taipei: Sense, 21–46

Van Veen, K. & Van de Ven, P.H. (2008).Integrating Theory and Practice.Learning to teach L1
language and literature. L1 – Educational Studies in Language and Literature, 8(4), 39–62

Zeichner, K. & Tabachnich, B. (1991). Reflections on Reflective Teaching. In B. Tabachnich & K.
Zeichner (Eds.) (1991). Issues and Practices in Inquiry-Oriented Teacher Education. London: The
Falmer Press, 1–21.

Piet-Hein van de Ven
Graduate School of Education,
Radboud University,
Nijmegen,The Netherlands

209

ROS BRENNAN KEMMIS AND SHARON AHERN

11. REFLECTIONS FROM AN ‘AUSTRALIAN’
PERSPECTIVE

There is a long history of discussion and debate about the ‘practicum’. The word
practicum is derived from a Latin adjective- practicus- that means ‘active’. By
definition, the term needs a noun or an action to qualify. It does not stand-alone
grammatically. In current usage, the practicum is seen to be an experience that is
practical and it is sometimes cast as being necessarily distinct from theory. It is
usually a supervised activity where a novice is placed in the workplace and
mentored through a set of experiences that will hopefully equip them to enter the
profession. The practicum is generally assessed. The practicum is the overt and
tangible expression of practice. However as Mattsson, Eilertsen and Rorrison
(2011, Ch.1) maintain: ‘practice’ is a controversial phenomenon that is
characterised by different traditions, processes and agents, situated in different
contexts, forming practice in different ways. Given this diversity, the exploration
of the practicum contained in this volume exposes the similarities and differences
in the issues, debates and concerns across national boundaries.

The practicum has traditionally been, and continues to be, an integral part of any
teacher education program. As we can see from the chapters of this volume,
practicum has a variety of forms, and the term we use to describe the practicum
varies (Rorrison, 2011). The design, the model and the assessment practices vary
between countries, states, cities and in some cases university campuses.

At one end of the definitional spectrum, the focus of the practicum is on
translating theory into practice in a real world situation. It is seen as the
opportunity to interweave the threads of theory and practice in a symbiotic way.

At the other end of the spectrum, theory and practice are cast in a dualistic
relationship - either ‘theory’ or ‘practice’. This dualism thrives in a context where
different professional cultures characterise the site of theoretical learning (the
university) and the site of the practical learning (the school) and where there are few
opportunities for professional conversation between inhabitants of the two sites.

Conceptual issues

The contributors in this book have focused their attention on the school sector. In
Australia we confront similar issues, debates, worries and concerns as those expressed
by the authors. The questions that frame these discussions are complex, multi-
dimensional and intriguing. They include questions about how best to prepare teachers
for professional autonomy, how the practicum contributes to the formation of
professional practice identity, what sort of learning takes place during the practicum

M. Mattsson, T.V. Eilertsen and D. Rorrison (eds.), A Practicum Turn in Teacher Education, 211–222.
© 2011 Sense Publishers. All rights reserved.

BRENNAN KEMMIS AND AHERN

and what facilitates and constrains this learning, what the changing political and social
demands on both the novice and the experienced teacher are, and how these are
experienced, how participatory practices are embedded into the practicum and how the
growing passion for evidence based assessment is accommodated within the practicum
structure. There are also questions about the way in which the student personally
experiences practicum; the emotional and visceral responses that they have to being
located in a classroom with responsibility for the learning of others. There are also
significant questions about the value and quality of the practicum. Männikkö-Barbutiu
& Rorrison (2011) in Chapter 3 identify significant issues concerning practicum
placement and the serendipity of experiences that are a consequence of the huge variety
of teachers, contexts, mentoring, classes, and ethos of the situations into which the
students go. Assessment in the practicum is also a much-discussed topic particularly
under conditions of higher levels of both regulation and accountability in education and
teacher education.

The framework below provides a way of understanding the constant and
sophisticated interplay between the dimensions of reality that make up the
practicum and it allows us to make sense of all these questions, and to continue the
debate that explores possible answers. It is based on the theoretical framework of
practice architectures that figures strongly in this book.

The student engages in the practices of the practicum and, by definition, the
practices of teaching through sayings, doings and relatings that are shaped –
enabled and constrained – by the arrangements or practice architectures that
surround them. These practices are formed in a sophisticated interplay between the
activities of those involved, the arrangements that make these activities possible,
and the history of the interaction between them.

Table 1. Practice architectures

Practices In the semantic Practice architectures
(What practices are composed of) dimension; in the (The arrangements that enable
medium of and constrain practices)
Sayings: In the technical, language
colloquial, professional and The cultural discursive world:
shared language of teaching, in In the material the culture of teaching, the status
the choice of words, in dimension; in the of teaching, the way it is
conversations and their medium of physical regarded socially and the way it
protocols with teachers, space-time is talked about.
students, parents and university
staff, and in conversations with The material world: the layout of
peers and colleagues. the classroom and the geography
Doings: in the conduct of of the school and the community,
business in their classrooms, the the resources and equipment and
day to day professional their location in time and space.
activities that range from lesson
preparation to the complex
activities of teaching classes and
lessons

212

REFLECTIONS

Practices In the dimension of Practice architectures
(What practices are composed of) social space; in the (The arrangements that enable
medium of power and constrain practices)
Relatings: the person-to-person and solidarity
interplay that occurs on many The social-political world: on the
levels: with students, with one hand, the system regulations,
supervising teachers, with the policies, rules, roles, professional
university staff, with providers associations, and politics of the
of professional development, industry; on the other, the lifeworld
with systemic personnel and relationships encompassing
with state based regulatory friendships and solidarities, and
authorities power relationships in which
That hold together in the project people participate.
of the practice (its overarching That hold together against the
ends or purposes) historical background of a
practice tradition

All of these questions are located within the superordinate framework defined
by praxis. The bigger question is about what constitutes ethical and moral practice:
morally informed actions for the good of humankind (Kemmis & Smith, 2008).
Under hyper-rationalised policies and over-elaborated administrative systems, one
thing that gets limited is the capacity of teachers for educational praxis, described
by Kemmis and Smith (2008, p.4) in this way:

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

In short, this means that highly regulated teacher education is more likely to
prepare teachers for technical (or instrumental) action by developing their
technical expertise (or technique) rather than to educate teachers to be persons who
will always act in morally- and socially-responsible ways because this is what
it means to act as a member of a political community in which the good for
all depends on – cannot be attained without – the good action of each. By missing
this moral purpose, a technical approach to teacher education may limit pre-
service teachers´ self-understandings of their (moral and political) personhood
and their work as teachers (Edwards-Groves, Brennan Kemmis, Hardy & Ponte,
2010).

Another perspective from Australia: Vocational Education and Training (VET)

Many of the concerns described above also apply to the practicum and its role in
the acquisition of VET sector qualifications, and teacher preparation for the VET
sector in Australia. It is interesting to examine the workings of the practicum in this
sector.

213

BRENNAN KEMMIS AND AHERN

The practicum experiences for students in Vocational Education and Training in
Australia are varied. They take shape in three major forms. Firstly, a practicum
forms part of the TAE40110 Certificate IV in Training and Assessment. This is the
minimum qualification in teaching that any person must hold if they are to teach
students in the VET sector in Australia. This qualification is competency based,
and curriculum and assessment are both prescribed by a training package (Brennan
Kemmis, 2008, p. 201):

Training package qualifications are nationally recognised through the process
of mutual recognition under the powers of the Commonwealth established by
the Australian constitution, that is, recognition by all Australian states of
certain matters regulated in any other state. The levels of competency
specified by the training packages have created a new industry classification
system that has taken over the space previously occupied by Industrial
Awards (the system of minimum wages for particular kinds and levels of
employment in particular occupations). Currently training packages cover a
gamut of industries including Hospitality, Tourism, Building and
Construction, Information Technology, Fishing and Education.

The role of the practicum in the Certificate IV is a highly contested question in
Australia. Implementation of the Certificate IV is highly variable across the sector,
and the existence, or not, of a practicum is equivalently variable, depending on the
organisation undertaking the teaching. Some critics of the Certificate IV claim that
the practicum is the first casualty of market choice and competition as it is both
difficult and expensive to organise and supervise. The training package specifies,
“Evidence must be gathered in the workplace wherever possible. Where no
workplace is available, a simulated workplace must be provided”. There are no
stipulated hours of practicum and only the competency assessor needs to be able to
check off the skills acquisition.

Secondly, a practicum appears inside every training package as a mandatory
work experience placement and every student undertaking a VET sector
qualification must complete this component. These placements are on average 300
hours in length for each qualification level.

Thirdly, inside a number of university qualifications that accredit teachers to
work in the VET sector, there is a significant practicum component. The practicum
is usually supervised in the workplace, assessed by both university staff and
workplace supervisors and it is, on average, about 100 hours in length. However
university teacher preparation is not mandatory for VET teachers. It is a choice,
and in the space created by choice the minimum qualification (a Certificate IV)
becomes the legitimate qualification with no compulsory practicum component.

One of the questions most occupying Australian researchers in VET concerns
the construction of the debating ‘space’ that has been created around the practicum,
particularly as it relates to the Certificate IV. Many questions have been raised
about the efficacy of a minimum teaching qualification that has no mandatory
practicum component. The question of the practicum is made even more complex
because of the difficulty in apprehending any kind of definitional clarity about who

214

REFLECTIONS

this VET professional is. This is quite different from the candidates who are
preparing to be teachers in schools. Teachers in the VET sector are recruited
primarily on the basis of their industry qualifications and experience in their
designated trade. Teaching qualifications of whatever kind are regarded as a bonus
to the employer, but not a necessary or mandatory one. Most VET teachers study
their Certificate IV in Training and Assessment or their university qualification
while they are employed as teachers in their discipline area (that is, these
qualifications are not preservice qualifications).

Research also shows that the VET professional has multiple careers that are not
linear; they are mobile due to funding regimes and workforce policies committed
to casualisation. They work in large state funded institutions or industry and
enterprise and any context in between where training is carried out. They work in
urban centres and in rural and isolated Australia with students who can range in
age from 15 to 90 years of age. They generally have an industry background and
their minimum qualification to undertake these disparate roles is a Certificate IV in
Training and Assessment if they deliver nationally accredited training. The roles of
the VET professional are highly varied – far more varied than those that apply in
either the school or the higher education sectors. The inability to readily capture,
explain and celebrate the ‘nature’ of the VET professional has produced a silent
inertia and a lack of advocacy for the inclusion of VET professionals in significant
policy formation and implementation. This could perhaps be traced back to the
‘language purges’ instigated during the heyday of the former Australian National
Training Authority (the former national regulatory authority for VET) when
references to teachers, trainers and students were deleted from documents designed
to be used by these groups. It may be argued that training packages are not the
place for such inclusions. However their absence has meant that they no longer are
part of the policy lexicon.

In Australia we are confronted with anomalies and inconsistencies as a
consequence of the silence on these issues. The country needs more people to hold
higher level VET qualifications therefore we need more highly qualified teachers
and trainers capable of delivering these. We want more equitable divisions of
education and training through the involvement of previously disenfranchised
groups. This demands new pedagogies, new teaching skills and dispositions. We
want greater levels of VET and Higher Education intersection with seamless
pathways for students. These delicate negotiations and levels of student preparation
and scaffolding demand sophisticated teaching skills if they are to succeed.

The VET professional will need more than ever to be autonomous, independent,
critical, appreciative of the broader social and civic goals of education and training
and a teacher who is intellectually gymnastic and able to cope in new and different
arrangements and with new and different students. The very limited practicum
experiences, and sometimes the complete lack of them, that VET teachers are
exposed to, seriously threatens the credibility and effectiveness of this sector.

As the government evaluates the implementation of new policies it would be
timely to factor back into the deliberations the critical role of the VET
professional, the level and type of qualifications suited to the tasks they have, and

215

BRENNAN KEMMIS AND AHERN

the value of the practicum. The contributors to this volume have caused us, as VET
teacher educators, to reflect on these questions and have suggested many
possibilities for action in the renewal of VET teacher education courses.

New models of teacher preparation

The absence of a mandated practicum in programs that prepare VET sector
teachers in Australia raises in our minds the issue of the reorganisation of teacher
preparation in a number of other countries, including Australia. This reorganisation
has taken, and is taking, slightly different forms in different settings but it is
possible to identify common themes all of which throw the current thinking about
teacher preparation generally, and the practicum specifically, into a new arena for
debate, critique and thought.

The reorganisation of teacher preparation in the form of ‘fast tracking’ where
graduates in identified subject disciplines are provided with an initial intensive
program of university teaching generally lasting about six weeks. The provisional
accredited teachers then move into a school where they begin teaching and where
they are mentored by another teacher. These programs are variously named:
“Teach Next” (Australia), “Fast Track Teaching” (Britain), “Career Switchers
Programs” (US) amongst many others and “Fast Track Scheme” (Holland).

These new models for teacher preparation have been introduced to cope with
existing and predicted teacher shortages. They cater for people who want to change
careers or for people made redundant in conditions of economic downturn. The
new models therefore satisfy two government needs: a focus on education and an
employment strategy to cope with the economic realignment and the consequent
increase in unemployment rates.

The official rationalisations for these new programs frequently contain
laudatory descriptions of the positive characteristics of these mature graduates,
even more laudatory assessment of what their contributions to schools and student
outcomes will be and assertions that the employment of these ‘fast track teachers’
will, by definition, raise teacher quality.

Implicit in both the construction of the programs, and the government rhetoric
surrounding them, are a number of assumptions that need to be exposed. Firstly the
programs, by their very nature, imply that teaching is not a complex activity.
Candidates can be ‘prepared’ in six intensive weeks of university tuition, and the
remainder of the learning will occur on the job, through experience and on site
mentoring.

Secondly, the introduction of these programs, implies that the current four year
programs are overcrowded, irrelevant, overly complex and, in some ways, outside
government control. Fast tracking on the other hand is introduced, funded and
managed by government. Government control of the teacher preparation
curriculum is shared up by virtue of the fact that universities must tender for the
privilege of delivering the intensive component of the program and government
then decides on the program that best suits their needs. Students in these programs

216

REFLECTIONS

are often funded by government via scholarships and ‘tied’ to government for a
bonded period at the completion of their program.

Where then, are we to locate all the debates, research, critique and thought about
the practicum in teacher education preparation programs, given these accelerating
initiatives? Perhaps there are more fundamental arguments and discussions to be
had in the face of the possible dismantling of the traditions of teacher education.

Points of interest

There are many points of interest in this volume. For Australians, it is fascinating
to read about conceptions and current realities of the practicum that have very
different traditions and histories. It is also of great interest to learn about the
struggles that are in many ways similar to those experienced in Australia as we
grapple with questions about theory and practice, novice and expert, the creation of
autonomous teachers, increasingly regulated teacher education programs, and the
overarching importance of thinking about, and creating, the conditions that enable
and constrain the development of praxis.

We come from a large multi-campus university that caters for rural, regional,
remote and isolated students, as well as a large number of students who are
studying in a distance education mode supported by technology. Being ‘rural’ has
its own particular consequences when we think about the practicum. Interestingly
many of these issues occupy the minds of the teacher educators from the countries
represented in this volume.

In our context, the practicum entails discussions of highly practical problems.
We need to encourage students to travel further afield to take up a practicum
placement and many of these students have both financial and family commitments
that make this difficult. Transport, travel arrangements and accommodation are
expensive and often difficult to organise when distance is such a factor in our lives
(Galloway, pers. comm.). Placing students in a practicum site becomes a big issue
in this context.

As well as these practical problems we are also confronted by a range of
professional issues that are exacerbated by distance. “Communicating with
mentors and associate teachers about expectations is sometimes difficult. As the
funding has been reduced for face-to-face liaison, particularly in remote locations,
the possibilities for meaningful exchange and communication shrink” (Galloway,
pers. comm.). Supervising teachers may be unclear about the expectations that the
university has of them in terms of mentoring, assessing and supporting the
students, and the university is unclear about what is happening inside the
classrooms and schools where the students are placed. There is a lot of room for
opening up these communicative spaces in ways that have been explored in this
volume.

Consistency in feedback and support from associate teachers and mentors is
an age old problem, but as we have shifted much of the responsibility to
associate teachers for assessing student work we can’t guarantee that, for
example all students in third year have seen a program and/or if they are

217

BRENNAN KEMMIS AND AHERN

developing a program, what are the teachers´ expectations? This shift has
occurred because there is no staffing for assessment in the professional
experience subjects, so when previously we would collect programs, lesson
plans, reflections and assessment and mark them at the end of placement, we
now simply check off a sheet signed by the associate teacher indicating that
the student has satisfactorily planned and evaluated their lessons (Galloway
pers. comm.).

The snapshot provided above highlights and echoes some of the themes in this
book: the need to rethink an integrated model of practicum that could lead to the
development of ‘situated professionalism’; the need to rethink the structure timing
and context for practicum; the need to explore new models that better integrate
theory and practice; the need to reinforce the collaborative model for learning and
research inside the practicum experience; and the need to move from a view that
the success of the practicum is based on good luck to a context where the
practicum is based on sound principles.

Empirical issues

In this volume, the authors present data collected in very different contexts and in
very different ways. This eclectic mixture of empirical data provides views on the
practicum from a rich variety of standpoints. One of the other characteristics of the
empirical work in this book is the collaborative way in which the research has been
conceptualised and carried out. This is more obvious and overt in some
contributions than in others but it nevertheless remains as a strong methodological
theme.

The empirical ‘set’ of data in this volume has been generated by a focus on the
narrative methods, field studies, observation, focus groups, interviews, action
research, case studies and document analysis. It would have been useful and
illuminating to have the voices of policy makers and other educational stakeholders
involved to allow for a greater juxtaposition and analysis of ‘official’ educational
aspirations and philosophies beside government attitudes and ideas.

From an Australian point of view, the empirical variety presented in this volume
can help to inform our own research. It also provides insights into the ways in
which we can better understand our own practice inside the university and our
relationships with our students, their practicum schools, their teachers and the
wider communities in which these schools are located.

Theory and practice

The discussion of the relationship between theory and practice is explicit,
vociferous and sometimes polarised in Australia when the topic of the practicum is
raised. The compartmentalisation of the practicum into discrete university subjects
often serves to exacerbate the apparent divide. The ‘distance’, both geographic and
cultural, between universities and host schools is not always bridged well, and the
government funding model that supports the practicum experience for students is

218

REFLECTIONS

very much based on urban assumptions about the amount of travel required for
preservice teachers to access schools.

The theory versus practice debate that is noted by many of the authors in this
text is also apparent in literature from Australia and the United States. There are
numerous suggestions on how to best link theory and practice and to make what
we do as teacher educators align more closely with what our students will be
required to do as teachers in actual classrooms. The contributors of the text have
attempted to provide the reader with insights into how they are connecting theory
to practice in their respective parts of the world. From Eilertsen, Furu and Rørnes´
(2011) PIL (Practicum as an Integrative Element in Teacher Education) project
which focuses strongly on school and university partnerships to the university
teacher training schools described in Chapter 5 (Heikkinen, Tynjälä & Kiviniemi,
2011) the quest for the perfect balance remains.

US researcher Ken Zeichner (2010) identifies the problems that cause university
courses to be disconnected from field experiences, thus causing student learning to
be fragmented. These include the transience of graduate students as field
instructors, little or no reward for academic faculty involved in field experiences,
inadequate participation of clinical faculty in teacher education program decisions,
unstable and convenience-based student field placements, and few incentives for
teachers to serve as mentors. Zeichner (2010) then proposes several strategies to
build a more dialectical relationship between university scholars and school
teachers in the United States. These strategies include:

– involve experienced teachers in every aspect of teacher education programs and
provide them with necessary training in teacher leadership;

– bring teachers´ work into the university curriculum;
– develop new methods courses that focus on issues of teaching practice in the

field placement schools;
– develop hybrid teacher educators who know both theory and practice;
– incorporate knowledge from communities into university curriculum and field

experiences.

Jo-Anne Reid (2011, p.2) claims that, in Australia,

A (re)turn to a focus on practice in initial teacher education programs might
allow us to start to relate and integrate the experience that our students have
of our courses. However, as a (re)turn to prioritising practice means picking
up on a number of discontinuous threads in what are already familiar
discourses of teacher education, we need to remember Foucault´s warning
about the ‘dangerousness’ of any ‘new’ forms and relationships of power that
are mobilised in the process of such a turn.

Reid (2011, p.10) agrees with Zeichner when she says that our students have had
“little opportunity to practice before they enter the field of practice, they have not
had the chance to study the practice of teaching.”

It is common for supervising teachers or teacher mentors to know very little
about the specifics of the methods and foundations subjects that preservice teachers

219

BRENNAN KEMMIS AND AHERN

have completed at university and lecturers at universities often know very little
about the specifics of the classroom (Zeichner, 2010; Barnett, Harwood, Keating &
Saam, 2002). Mattsson, Eilertsen and Rorrison (2011, Ch.1) emphasise that:

…many learning opportunities are wasted. Research about practicum is often
neglected. One reason for this state of affairs might be a historically rooted
disregard among universities for practice knowledge and a historically rooted
disregard among many school teachers for knowledge based on research.

Hedegaard-Sørensen and Tetler (2011) in Chapter 6 bridge the dichotomy between
theory and practice and put emphasis on situated and timely judgements of
professionals as well as on reflectivity and theorising in practice.

Eilertsen et al, (2011) in Chapter 4, describe how their PIL has ‘partnership’ as a
key concept and involves the University of Tromsø in the school development
projects of Norwegian municipalities. They conclude that “Universities and teacher
education institutions should engage in participatory research and development, not
only within the framework of university schools, but more generally”. They describe
the dialogue conferences in the following manner (2011):

These were important arenas for the integration of theory and practice, of
theories with small and capital letters, as they focused on a variety of
experiences and topics.

Hedegaard-Sørensen and Tetler (2011) found in their field studies described in
Chapter 6, that the “integrated approach is the most popular one” with responses
from three university colleges, regarding their reasons for integrating theory and
practicum, refer directly to that of legislation. Comments of respondents include
that “it is crucial to create positive connections between theory and practice” and
points to the opportunity to “plan for preservice teachers´ theorising practice” as
well as to increase “creativity in teaching methods at university colleges”.

Linking theory and practice effectively is a complex issue. Collaboration
between universities and schools in order to create a mutual responsibility for the
education of teachers is paramount.

CONCLUSIONS

One of the marks of a good book is that it stimulates more questions than answers.
This is the case with this volume.

Hedegaard-Sørensen and Tetler (2011) suggest that a great deal more research
needs to be done in Denmark. “We need more work which takes practice situations
as its outset”. They suggest that the relationship between theory and practice in the
practicum could well constitute a contributory project in this area. They also
suggest that the first and most needy context currently is in the area of “special
education”.

Reid (2011, p.1) encourages us to explore and examine the idea of practice in
preservice teacher education to ask if there are ways to reconceive professional
practice and professional experience outside of the now dominant ‘days in schools’

220

REFLECTIONS

model that has become the major way in which we provide preservice (student)
teachers with the opportunity to actually study the act of teaching and the actions
that are involved in the practice of their profession.

This volume explores new and different ways to think about the construction
and evaluation of the practicum that students encounter. Contributors ask the
reader to consider the assumptions that the practicum is based on, question these
assumptions and strive to find new and better ways to contribute to the autonomy,
professionalism, and moral development of emerging teachers. The focus is clearly
on creating conversational and learning spaces for students that encourage them to
think explicitly about theory and its application to practice and vice versa.

The book not only challenges our thinking but also provides rich examples of
research and evaluation in this area, which help us to hear the voices of those
involved in the practicum in fresh and insightful ways.

REFERENCES

Barnett, M., Harwood, W., Keating, T. & Saam, J. (2002). Using emerging technologies to help bridge
the gap between university theory and classroom practice: Challenges and successes. School Science
and Mathematics, 102(6), 299–313.

Brennan Kemmis, R. (2008). Freedom for praxis: An unburied and unforgotten tradition. In S. Kemmis
& T. J. Smith (Eds.), Pedagogy, education and practice: Vol. 1. Enabling praxis: Challenges for
education. Rotterdam: Sense.

Edwards-Groves, C., Brennan Kemmis, R., Hardy, I. & Ponte, P. (2010) Relational architectures:
Recovering agency and solidarity as living practices in education. Pedagogy, Culture and
Society,18(1), 43–54.

Eilertsen, T.V., Furu, E.M. & Rørnes (2011). Learning beyond the traditional: Preservice teachers as
partners in school development. In M. Mattsson, T.V. Eilertsen & D. Rorrison, (Eds.) A Practicum
Turn in Teacher Education.Rotterdam: Sense Publishers.

Galloway, L. Personal communication, July 21, 2011.
Hedegaard-Sørensen, L. & Tetler, S. (2011). Situated professionalism in special education practice. In

M. Mattsson, T.V. Eilertsen & D. Rorrison, (Eds.)A Practicum Turn in Teacher
Education.Rotterdam: Sense Publishers.
Heikkinen, H., Tynjälä, P. & Kiviniemi, U. (2011). Integrative Pedagogy in Practicum. Meeting the
Second Order Paradox of Teacher education. In M. Mattsson, T.V. Eilertsen & D. Rorrison, (Eds.)
A Practicum Turn in Teacher Education.Rotterdam: Sense Publishers.
Kemmis, S. & Smith, T. (2008). Praxis and praxis development. In S. Kemmis & T. J. Smith (Eds.),
Enabling praxis: Challenges for education. Rotterdam: Sense Publishers.
Männikkö-Barbutiu, S. & Rorrison, D. (2011). Memorable encounters. In M. Mattsson, T.V. Eilertsen
& D. Rorrison, (Eds.) A Practicum Turn in Teacher Education.Rotterdam: Sense Publishers.
Mattsson, M, Eilertsen, T. V. & Rorrison, D. (2011). What is practice in teacher education? In
M. Mattsson, T.V. Eilertsen & D. Rorrison, (Eds.) A Practicum Turn in Teacher Education: Sense
Publishers.
Reid, J., (2011) A practice turn for teacher education? Keynote Address ATEA Conference – Valuing
teacher education policy, perspectives and partnerships, Victoria University Melbourne – 3-6 July.
Rorrison, D. (2011). Border crossing in practicum research. In M. Mattsson, T.V. Eilertsen & D.
Rorrison, (Eds.) A Practicum Turn in Teacher Education.Rotterdam: Sense Publishers.
Zeichner, K. (2010). Rethinking the connections between campus courses and field experiences in
college- and university-based teacher education. Journal of Teacher Education, 61(1-2), 89–99.

221

BRENNAN KEMMIS AND AHERN

Ros Brennan Kemmis
School of Education
Charles Sturt University, Wagga Wagga, Australia
Sharon Ahern
School of Education
Charles Sturt University, Wagga Wagga, Australia

222

MATTS MATTSSON, TOR VIDAR EILERTSEN AND
DOREEN RORRISON

12. CONCLUSIONS AND CHALLENGES

INTRODUCTION

This book is a result of collaborative research carried out by participants in a
community of practice (Wenger, McDermott & Snyder, 2002). Individuals and
networks have contributed to research, education and local development through
different kinds of participation. The work was supported by universities, Research
and Development (R&D)-units and local school authorities. One outcome of the
cooperative efforts is this edited volume.

As stated in the introductory chapter, the book has three aims. The first is to
explore professional practice knowledge and the ways practicum is dealt with in
teacher education. Secondly, by referring to collaborative experiences in different
contexts we aim to identify approaches that may encourage others to initiate
participatory research in education. The third aim is to make theoretical
contributions to the study of practicum. Being part of the international Pedagogy,
Education and Praxis collaboration we try to explore traditions and epistemologies
of relevance to praxis.

Practicum is a crucial part of teacher education and we think of teacher
education and the profession of teachers as crucial for the future of humankind.
Preservice teachers´ experiences during practicum have an impact on their identity
as prospective professional teachers. Educators have a certain obligation to help
students and pupils to prepare themselves for a life in present and future society.
Teaching is an art and education is a moral endeavor. We understand praxis as a
dialectic process where people form history and history forms
people.Transforming praxis is a complex and challenging adventure that requires a
reflective capacity as well as practical wisdom.

Several questions need to be clarified in this concluding chapter. Key concepts
have to be further analysed. The title of our first chapter is: ‘What is Practice in
Teacher Education?’ As the reader will find, professional practice knowledge has
been interpreted differently by authors of different chapters. Different aspects are
emphasised. Below we will focus on the empirical findings, the theoretical
contributions and the research approaches presented in each chapter. But first we
would like to clarify a theoretical framework.

M. Mattsson, T V. Eilertsen and D. Rorrison (eds.), A Practicum Turn in Teacher Education, 223–244.
© 2011 Sense Publishers. All rights reserved.

MATTSSON, RORRISON & EILERTSEN

PROFESSIONAL PRACTICE KNOWLEDGE

What is professional practice knowledge when researched through ‘practicum’ in
teacher education? Figure 1 was designed to facilitate an analysis of practicum by
identifying actors, institutions and perspectives of relevance.27

Figure 1. The Field of Professional Practice

We have come to understand professional practice knowledge as a particular
kind of knowledge that is manifested as actions located within a social field,
formed by history, tradition and practice architectures. The field could be
regarded as an arena colonised by actors, institutions, artefacts and discourses
that enable or constrain certain practices. Practices are often understood in
relation to the actors´ intentions and visions. They maintain and express different
discourses by performing practices in particular ways. The field of practice is
characterised by complexity, dynamics and uncertainty (Schön, 1983/2003).
Kemmis (2005) describes professional practice knowledge using words like
dramaturgical, embodied, situated and practical (p. 404). He maintains that
professional practice knowledge is “discursively codified, socially organised and
institutionally supported” (p. 409).

––––––––––––––
27 The figure was designed during R&D-seminars held twice a year in Stockholm during 2008-2010

organised by the Network for Practicum and Praxis Projects. Out of twenty participants on each
occasion, ten were researchers, teacher educators, Ph D-students and ten were practitioners (school
teachers, school leaders, practicum leaders, local supervisors).

224

CONCLUSIONS AND CHALLENGES

Different Perspectives on Practices

Figure 1 indicates that researchers of practicum can approach the field from an
historical perspective, a ‘here-and-now-perspective’ (focusing on activities in
present time) and a perspective emphasising the future and aspects of practicum
that could be improved in future. Several other perspectives are of relevance and
we will discuss just a few of them. An important distinction can be made between
perspectives emphasising actors´ freedom to choose how to act here and now and
perspectives emphasising that actors are prefigured by history, practice
architectures and dominant discourses. In the latter case, space for freedom may be
minimal. Activities, practices and processes can be regarded as constituting
structures. On the other hand, structures can be regarded as determinants of
activities, practices and processes. By applying a praxis approach we emphasise a
dialectic relationship between processes and structures.

There is a difference between discourse theorists on one hand and others who
argue from an empirical and pragmatic point of view. Discourse theorists
emphasise the importance of language and discuss our conception of reality as
primarily a discursive phenomenon. They maintain that we cannot claim general
knowledge about reality. From an empirical point of view there is a reality ‘out
there’ to be researched. From a pragmatic point of view we learn about reality from
the way we act and by the consequences of our actions: social reality is constructed
by activities performed by human beings.

Practice theorists, on the other hand, offer a challenging approach in this
context. They are suspicious of ‘theories’ that deliver general explanations of why
social life is as it is. They regard ‘the social’ as a field of practices. A practice
should, according to Schatzki (2001b), primarily be understood as “a set of actions
(p.48)”. Actions are bodily doings and sayings. Activities are embodied. So far, it
is easy to follow Schatzki. But it all turns quite complicated when he maintains
that:

The actions that compose a given practice, consequently, are linked by the
cross-referencing and interdependent know-hows that they express
concerning their performance, identification, instigation, and response (p. 51).

We understand through engaging with the various projects reported in this
edition that this ‘embodiment’ of practice is indeed dependent on pre-
understanding, tacit knowledge and positioning. To regard ‘the social’ as a field
of cross-referencing practices raises interesting questions about social order.
What is then the origin of social structures? If, as practice theorists suggest,
“practices are the source and carrier of meaning, language, and normativity”
(Schatzki, 2001a, p.12), practicum should be analysed as constituted by practices
(understood as a set of actions).

By challenging dominant approaches in education, where practices are analysed
as more or less ‘products’ of human intentions, practice theorists argue for the pre-
eminence of practices. Schatzki claims that “Practices, in sum, displace mind as the
central phenomenon in human life” (p.11). We understand this claim as a key
proposition. Furthermore, he argues:

225

MATTSSON, RORRISON & EILERTSEN

…the field of practices is the place to investigate such phenomena as agency,
knowledge, language, ethics, power and science (pp. 13-14)

In this book we have, to some extent, investigated agency, knowledge, language,
ethics, power and science within the field of practicum. Referring to Figure 1, we
suggest that practicum should be regarded as an arena, a social field and a location
for certain practices. These practices are performed in a certain context, at a
particular time, by particular actors who act in a particular way in relation to
particular persons having certain intentions that are formed by history and by the
actors´ appreciation of future. The figure indicates that the actors are supported or
suppressed by institutions, artefacts and other actors. Teacher educators, preservice
teachers, school teachers, examiners and pupils are involved. So are other actors
like researchers, supervisors, school leaders, special educators, psychologists,
parents of school children, ordinary citizens and politicians. The question is still
there. To what extent can the actors involved influence practicum if the practices
performed are regarded as ‘cross-referencing and interdependent know-hows’?

Institutions, models and projects

Figure 1 implies that institutions like universities, schools, local authorities and
government departments have a strong impact on practicum. From a praxis
perspective, these institutions are historically formed by human beings who are in
turn formed by institutions. Furthermore, referring to the introduction chapter,
practicum is often formed by agreed models for how the actors should collaborate
and how the institutions should work. They could for example follow a partnership
model, a case based model or a research and development model (Ch 1, this
edition). There are several interesting models for practicum that could be
combined. The problem, however, is that practicum is too often left to chance.
Other priorities are followed by actors in charge of practicum. Supported or
suppressed by certain models, we notice that actors try to change reality. They
initiate local projects with the intention of influencing certain aspects of practicum.
Generally, educational projects reflect the actors´ analysis of present problems and
their visions of what could and should be improved.

Figure 1 indicates that activities in the field are related to artefacts like text
books, literature, curricula, teaching equipment and classrooms. The social field is
occupied by actors, institutions, artefacts and discourses supporting or constraining
certain practices. Taking this state of ‘occupation’ into account, it is obvious that
individuals are not completely free to act in the here and now, in any way they
choose.

From a Bourdieu-perspective, a social field is structured before anyone enters
the field for the first time. Bourdieu (1993, 1999) refers to habitus or sedimented
intentions that are concealed in social fields and in people´ scultures and actions.
Such intentions are recurrent and may be activated in particular circumstances.
From a practice theory perspective, on the other hand, ‘practices’ should be
regarded as determinants structuring and shaping practicum as well as our

226

CONCLUSIONS AND CHALLENGES

understanding of social reality. As stated, with reference to Schatzki, “practices, in
sum, displace mind”.

Figure 1 acknowledges that a social field is formed by history, present practices
and the actors´ apprehension of the future. By including praxis as a key concept we
indicate that there are opportunities for the actors involved to act in a manner that
may contribute to a more human world. They can move from practice to praxis.
However, ‘practice’ in this respect is not an individual mission. The way a teacher
acts, communicates and relates is dependent on the way other people act,
communicate and relate in the same context. Individual sayings, doings and
relatings cannot deviate too much from the tradition of a particular profession. As
MacIntyre (1984) maintains, “a tradition is an argument extended through time”.
The possibility to change a certain educational practice is interwoven with the
traditions, discourses and practices that are predominant in that specific field.
Some sayings, doings and relatings are enabled by the practice architectures, others
are constrained. This poses a general problem for emancipatory action research.

Practices as manifestations

Bourdieu´s concept of habitus is relevant here. He talks about habitus as acquired
patterns of dispositions to act in particular ways in particular situations. Habitus
includes actions informed by reflection as well as actions which merely express
inveterate habits. Local cultures composed of sedimented intentions may
predetermine peoples´ actions and their understanding of these actions and to an
indeterminate extent influence whether and how a particular menu of actions
affects praxis in that setting.

Bourdieu regards social fields as constituted by conflicts and contests through
which the actors involved try to pursue and realise their intentions. They may gain
support or confront resistance from other groups. In that respect, Bourdieu offers
arguments for a praxis approach. A social field exists when groups of people and
institutions fight about something of common interest (Bourdieu 1993, 1999;
Broady, 1991). As is the case in other wars: if there is no battle, there is no
battlefield. Bourdieus´ approach is different from Schatzki´s. Bourdieu understands
social reality as constructed through conflicts and contests. Schatzki understands
social reality as constructed by practices. From our point of view, this distinction is
important for understanding practicum.

Figure 1 indicates that practicum is an historically constructed phenomenon. It
is located to a social field where certain practices are nurtured while other practices
are not. The field is ‘colonised’ by concepts rooted in history, tradition and culture.
A teacher is not completely free to choose how to perform his or her profession.
The doings and the sayings are related to what other actors believe would be
worthwhile and possible to accomplish. Practice architectures prefigure practices,
but as suggested, they do not predetermine practices. Practices are, in our view, to
some extent, formed by the ways practitioners understand and relate to the
prevailing discourses. Practices are also formed by participants´ visions of what is
the right thing to do in a particular situation.

227

MATTSSON, RORRISON & EILERTSEN

From a discourse perspective, practicum is primarily a discursive phenomenon.
Practicum can be regarded as a particular kind of educational arrangement that
serves the purpose of supporting a specific tradition of noticing, naming and
framing a phenomenon. As maintained by Freire (1970/1996), Schön (1983/2003)
and Smith (2008), a research process generally includes noticing, naming and
reframing phenomena of interest. Research is here understood as examining a
phenomenon from a new perspective, bringing new light into the field. We
acknowledge that practicum is an indistinct part of a larger ecology of practice that
is in itself not fully understood. The sayings, doing and relatings that represent the
living and dynamic entity of schooling change continually through micro-
adjustments and micro-engagements in the interpersonal relationships involved.

Our point is that history, as well as future, is manifested in context-related
practices.Praxis should be understood as a dialectical process in which humankind
changes the world and the world changes humankind (Aristotle, 2004; Bernstein,
1971/1999; Bourdieu, 1993, 1999; Freire, 1970/1996; Habermas, 1974; Marx,
1888). One figure cannot cover all aspects of importance to practicum. Even so, we
hope that the reflections generated by Figure 1 may be enlightening when we try to
conclude the research presented in each chapter. What conclusions can be drawn
and what are the challenges? Several authors refer to ‘a practicum turn in teacher
education’. What does this mean?

QUESTIONING DOMINANT DISCOURSES

Rorrison (Ch 2) approaches practicum by questioning dominant discourses in
teacher education. Practicum is regarded as a particular kind of educational
arrangement that serves the purpose of supporting a specific tradition of noticing,
naming and framing a phenomenon. Rorrison tries to reframe practicum by
discussing the field in relation to guiding principles that emerged from her
previous study in Australia (Rorrison, 2007). She has made further inquiries to
explore if the same principles are relevant in different national contexts and local
settings. Her empirical findings are based on action research carried out in
Australia (twelve schools), Canada (six schools) and Sweden (six schools). The
action research performed follows a narrative methodology based on field data
collected from over 500 hours of observation of preservice teachers in
classrooms. The narratives, and the responses from preservice teachers and
mentors, reveal that practicum is often left to chance. This is why Rorrison
argues for a ‘practicum turn’. Improving practicum requires that the actors
involved reframe their understanding and their way of talking about practicum
learning. There is need for

New ways to ensure that practicum learning for preservice teachers is
meaningful, rigorous, authentic, relevant and connected and not left to
chance… (Ch 2).

The principles outlined by Rorrison should be understood as conclusions of her
findings and as recommendations to the actors involved to improve practicum.

228

CONCLUSIONS AND CHALLENGES

They cover different aspects that need to be reframed: theories of learning,
collaborative relationships, recognition of different learning needs, transparency, a
learning community, reflective dialogues and international perspectives (see
appendix, chapter 2). These aspects, she argues, are not carefully attended to by
established practicum models. By listening to preservice teachers, mentors,
practicum leaders and others involved in teacher education practicum, Rorrison
concludes that a new model for practicum is needed, one based on a new relationship
between university and school community. A new model seems to be emerging:

With more and more teachers in schools maintaining the currency of their
professional knowledge through further study and research, it may be time to
put more value on their role as teacher educators and educational leaders
similar to the model of the VFU and basgrupp system in Sweden (Ch 2).

The basgrupp system in Sweden is part of the integrated practicum model which
gives school teachers important roles as teacher educators (Ch 1). The basgrupp as
such is a manifestation of a shift of power from university to local schools. Practice
architectures have changed.

Referring to Figure 1, Rorrison approaches practicum from a perspective
emphasising discourses, future options and visions. Her research includes
participant action and narrative research as ways to bring about a change. She
argues for a new way of talking about practicum. From this perspective,
professional practice knowledge is primarily a discursive phenomenon.So is
practice. Several of Rorrison´s practicum principles gain support by findings
presented in chapters by other authors approaching practicum from other
perspectives. Increased collaboration between universities at a national and
international level is necessary if we are to develop a conceptual framework to
articulate the important understandings of practicum learning.

LEARNING BY INTER-ACTION WITH STUDENTS

Preservice teachers generally seem to regard practicum as the most important part
of teacher education. What they experience during practicum is of great
importance for their prospective professional identity. Männikkö-Barbutiu &
Rorrison (Ch 3) have studied practicum from a pre-service teachers´ perspective.
As illustrated by Figure 1, there are several other legitimate perspectives.
However, Männikkö-Barbutiu and Rorrison argue that to understand practicum:

It is…important that their [preservice teachers] voices are being heard by the
teacher educators and that their learning in practice is acknowledged as part of
their scholarship. This is what we understand as the ‘practicum turn’ (Ch 3).

Future teacher education should, according to the authors, take as a point of
departure the experiences articulated by preservice teachers during practicum. Such a
bottom-up strategy is here presented as a ‘practicum turn’. Männikkö-Barbutiu and
Rorrison have tried to identify critical incidents by asking preservice teachers about
their experiences. ‘Practice’ is identified through analysis of 27 narratives

229

MATTSSON, RORRISON & EILERTSEN

constructed in Australia, China and Sweden, nine from each site. The empirical field
is a heterogeneous geographical area. It consists of 27 preservice teachers doing their
practicum in three very different national settings. Practicum is located to different
schools. Teacher education is organised in different ways. Different models for
practicum are applied. In Sweden the integrated model is prescribed. In parts of
China and Australia a community development model for practicum is relevant. The
question answered by preservice teachers from different settings deals with their
experiences during practicum: “What did you learn from this moment?”

Their responses reveal that ‘practice’ from their perspective is a certain kind of
learning. It is the kind of learning that may occur during practicum. Preservice
teachers in this study emphasise moments when they themselves act in relation to
‘their’ pupils. They describe the ‘memorable encounters’ as learning opportunities
that are ‘fruits’ of their interaction with pupils. Practicum learning is nurtured
when preservice teachers themselves are in charge of a certain social and
educational situation. Männikkö-Barbutiu and Rorrison maintain:

The preservice teacher narratives provide witness of personal growth and
deepening insights on the complexities of the teaching profession. They also
reveal the frustration and uncertainty that the preservice teachers feel when
facing situations where their careful planning is set aside by unexpected events
in the classroom or the school. But despite the hardships, preservice teachers
look back at their practicum with a certain pride and recognition of its
important role in their learning and developing teacher identity (Ch 3).

From this perspective, professional practice knowledge is a certain kind of
knowledge that can be developed through preservice teachers´ interaction with
pupils. Practice knowledge follows routes other than conventional learning
processes. A ‘practicum turn’ could be supported or supressed by the way teacher
education is organised. Even if different models are applied in different national
settings, teacher education should be organised to maximise preservice teachers´
interaction with pupils.

PARTICIPANTS IN LOCAL PROJECTS

Another approach to ‘practice’, ‘practicum’ and a ‘practicum turn’ is demonstrated
by Eilertsen, Furu & Rørnes (Ch 4). They take as a point of departure a national
project intended to improve practicum in teacher education.28 The project is based
on analysis made and initiatives taken by people in charge of teacher education
practicum at Tromsø University and the region of Tromsø. The actors, including
the authors themselves, try to establish practicum as an integrative element in
teacher education. Compared to the integrated model described earlier (Ch 1) they
look for a change. They identify professional practice knowledge by challenging
the dominant Norwegian model for practicum. In a collaborative action research
approach they support local educational projects. Collaborating with school

––––––––––––––
28 PIL Practicum as and Integrative Element in Teacher Education

230

CONCLUSIONS AND CHALLENGES

teachers and local authorities, they try to create opportunities for preservice
teachers to be participants in school development. Their approach resembles the
community development model for practicum described earlier. Two local projects
are in focus here: The Navigare Project and The High North Project.

The aim of The Navigare Project is to promote children’s social competence.
Five Tromsø schools are included and ten preservice teachers volunteered to
participate. Instead of having the normal six weeks of concentrated and supervised
practice, the preservice teachers were offered seven to eight weeks practice,
distributed over a year, in one of the Navigare schools. ‘Practice’ is exemplified
here as a dialogue conference which is, according to the authors, “a place to learn
and re-learn”. Practice is defined as an authentic dialogue between preservice
teachers and professional teachers when they meet in conferences. A dialogue
conference is a research method that favours a democratic way of noticing, naming
and reframing professional practice knowledge.

The other project, The High North Project, is initiated by the Tromsø
municipality. The aim is to strengthen the regional focus in primary and lower
secondary school, update teachers and pupils on regional development and
ultimately promote a regional identity that might encourage young people to stay
or return to the region. Seven preservice teachers volunteered to participate in the
The High North Project. Practicum was located in schools involved in the project.
One of the schools offered an opportunity to two preservice teachers to explore
energy and environmental issues. The preservice teachers (at master level) were
asked to investigate the challenges local authorities face in relation to expansion of
oil production in Northern Norway. Fisheries are still very important regionally
and in the particular local community where practicum was located. Here, the
conflict between new and traditional industries and the environmental issues is of
vital interest. The preservice teachers completed their assignment by reporting new
views on the issue based on relevant and updated knowledge. Being well educated
they served as experts in a public plenary discussion where they presented the
perspectives of oil companies, fishers, politicians and environmental organisations.
Reflecting on preservice teachers’ involvement in local projects, the authors
conclude:

An important finding of this project is that we see preservice teachers´
achievements partly as a result of their access to expanded arenas of
professional discourse and exchange, compared to more traditional
practicum arrangements. In addition to the everyday discussions with
mentors and others, their participation included school based seminars,
regional conferences and in some cases also presentations at national and
even international conferences. In addition to the learning potential of these
events we also highlighted the element of authenticity in their contributions
that was very different from that of traditional examinations (Ch 4).

Their conclusions are related to the platform model for practicum as well as to the
case based model (Ch 1). In the Tromsø case, professional practice knowledge is
nurtured by preservice teachers´ participation in learning communities. Teacher

231

MATTSSON, RORRISON & EILERTSEN

educators have constructed an alternative model for practicum based on local
projects giving ‘practice’ a new meaning. A ‘realistic’ teacher education serves as
an alternative to the dominant model. They face several obstacles related to
logistics and traditions. However, preservice teachers are offered expanded areas
of professional discourse. This is an important aspect of a ‘practicum turn’.

PROMOTING PROFESSIONAL AUTONOMY

A similar action research approach to ‘practice’ and ‘practicum’ is reported by
Heikkinen, Kiviniemi &Tynjälä (Ch 5). However, they have a different focus. Their
starting point is a R&D-project aimed at improving practicum learning as part of a
certain curriculum. They challenge the dominant practicum model in Finland
which is the laboratory model (Ch 1).

The major actors in this case are the researchers, teacher educators, school
teachers and preservice teachers. The institutions involved in practicum are the
Department of Teacher Education of the University of Jyväskylä in collaboration
with Jyskä Primary School in the city of Jyväskylä in Central Finland. The project,
carried out during the period of 2006-2011, tried to introduce a new model for
practicum: The Integrative Pedagogy Model. This model resembles what has
earlier been described as an integrated model (Ch 1). Compared to the examples
from Sweden and Norway the Finnish case is different in regard to what should be
integrated. Here they try to integrate different parts of the educational system. The
object of the study in Finland was practicum learning as part of a university course
of Ethics and Philosophy in Education. Empirical data, collected during a period of
five years, included 89 preservice teachers´ learning assignments, an on-line-
feedback questionnaire, focus group discussions, reflective notes and e-mail
correspondence. Preservice teachers and local supervisors participated. The
researchers explored how professional autonomy could be promoted through
practice. More specifically, this was the research question:

How do preservice teachers and their supervising teachers experience the
integration of practicum and studies on philosophy and ethics of
education, especially with regard to the development of teacher autonomy
(Ch 5)?

The authors maintain that autonomy is a key element for professional teachers.
Educators must know how to act in relation to context, situation and participants.
However, professional autonomy is not considered as an individualistic endeavour.
It refers to the code and culture of the profession. A crucial part of practicum in
this case is ‘School-hijacking’. Preservice teachers ‘hijack’ the school and take the
role as a professional teacher. During a couple of days they work in the classroom
without the physical presence of a supervising teacher. The purpose is to provide
preservice teachers with the authentic experience of acting as teachers. Some of the
preservice teachers responded (Ch 5):

232

CONCLUSIONS AND CHALLENGES

For the first time I had the feeling after a practice that I really loved the
practice and I got the feeling that, hey, I can be a teacher (Preservice teacher
12/2009; focus group).

This all clearly confirmed my idea that I am in just the right field and I want
to be a teacher (Preservice teacher 9/2009; focus group).

Another difference in this project was that the Jyväskylä teacher educators
introduced ‘faded scaffolding’ as a way to support professional autonomy. The
idea was that autonomy is best supported by teacher educators gradually
decreasing the support and supervision of preservice teachers.

Teacher educators should be able to judge when a preservice teacher has passed
the threshold and become a professional and autonomous teacher. To pass this
‘magic point’, preservice teachers have to make the experience of being in charge
of a class as if they were already professionals. By teaching they learn how to
teach. A conclusion from this study is that practicum should offer preservice
teachers proper scaffolding for authentic experiences in schools and classrooms.
Autonomy, as an aspect of professional practice knowledge, can be developed
when practised. A ‘practicum turn’ is here promoted by an integrative model based
on collaboration between researchers, teacher educators and school teachers.

SITUATED PROFESSIONALISM

Hedegaard-Sørensen & Tetler (Ch 6)have studied special education and arrived at
a similar conclusion regarding professional practice knowledge. The kind of
knowledge required could be developed by practitioners in collaboration with
researchers who support a reflective mood.

The field of special education has become central to the political agenda in
Denmark as well as in other countries. An increasing number of pupils are being
taught in separate settings, that is, in special classes and special schools. A national
survey indicates that five point six percent of the pupil population in Denmark is
excluded from mainstream educational contexts. One conclusion made is that to
avoid the segregation Danish teachers need to improve their skills in coping with
the increased academic, social and cultural diversity in their classrooms. The
problem seems to be a lack of professional practice knowledge. That is why
‘special education’, as a specific subject in Danish teacher education, has recently
been reintroduced.

Hedegaard-Sørensen and Tetler discuss what kind of knowledge should be
developed and how it could be nurtured. They challenge the dominant discourses
in Danish special education characterised by psycho-medical approaches,
neuroscience, biomedicine and sociological perspectives. The authors introduce
‘situated professionalism’ as an alternative and a challenge. This concept is based
on findings from three different field studies in Denmark focussing on pupils’
learning experiences and teachers´ work in classrooms. One study included 27
pupils. Another study was carried out in 10 different settings. Research narratives,
interviews, observations and action research indicate that teachers do not follow

233

MATTSSON, RORRISON & EILERTSEN

prescriptive programmes nor ideological and normative ‘theories’ when
‘implementing’ inclusive strategies:

Teachers seem to understand the task of educating pupils, diagnosed for
example with autism, from a broader knowledgebase. It is neither the
psycho-medical nor the sociological approach they see as necessary to draw
upon, but 1) specific knowledge about the ‘diagnosis’ and ‘special needs’, 2)
knowledge about inclusion (about creating differentiated learning
environments, creating communities and classroom climate) as well as 3)
knowledge about pedagogy and didactic (about teaching in general and
coping with situations in everyday life in schools) (Ch 6).

Hedegaard-Sørensen and Tetler regard practicum as an educational arrangement
that has to be changed in order to support the kind of practice knowledge needed.
They criticise the ‘theory and practice dichotomy’. ‘Situated professionalism’
implies the kind of knowledge and skills needed in everyday life in classrooms.
The authors emphasise that teachers make judgements and adjustments in such
situations:

Being a teacher in special educational settings (and presumably in every kind
of setting) requires the competence of ongoing improvisation and
adjustments to the plan, according to the way pupils react and respond. This
is included in the concept of ‘situated professionalism’. The challenge for
teacher education, then, is to prepare their pre-service teachers to become
‘situated professionals’, in the sense of enabling them to act, to make
judgements and adjustments and to reflect and theorise in learning situation
(Ch 6).

This approach resembles the case based model for practicum (Ch 1). Professional
practice knowledge should be developed by practitioners, teacher educators and
researchers taking ‘practice’ as a point of departure for reflections. ‘Situated
professionalism’ requires a change of epistemology, practice architectures and the
relationships between researchers and practitioners. Collaborative studies inspired
by action research are needed, that is, studies where teachers, preservice teachers
and researchers work together to describe practice (complex learning situations)
and analyse practical situations.

A PROCESS OF SELF-FORMATION

In a small study, Brodin (Ch 7) has examined how teachers and students of social
work conceptualise professional practice knowledge asking how do they learn,
what do they learn and what kind of knowledge is there to be learnt? Her study
includes three focus groups established with teachers and students of the Study
Programme in Social Work for the Care of Elderly and Differently Abled Persons
at Stockholm University. One focus group consisted of lecturers, the two others of
students: one of students groups was before their practicum (term four) and the
other at the end of their studies when they have experienced practicum (term five).

234

CONCLUSIONS AND CHALLENGES

The focus groups were asked to discuss: What does professional practice
knowledge mean to you?

Brodin analyses their discussions in relation to two different ‘paradigms’: ‘a
competence-based’ and ‘a reflective learning paradigm’. In a competence-based
learning paradigm there is an emphasis on technical and practical aspects of social
work. In a reflective paradigm there is a focus on students´ learning through the
dialectical process of knowledge, action and reflection. While the competence-
based learning paradigm tends to encourage the prescriptive, regulating and
controlling aspects of the profession, the reflective paradigm promotes the socially
situated knowledge that the professional social worker is expected to develop.
Practicum within the competence-based learning paradigm is regarded as a way for
students to acquire the necessary technical skills. Within the reflective paradigm,
practicum is considered as a way for students to explore professional practice on
the basis of theoretical knowledge and to interpret this experience in relation to the
self and the world around. Both kinds of knowledge are needed in social work and
education.

It is interesting to note that the students talk about practicum as the most
valuable part of their social work education. They would like to have more time
allocated for practicum: more practica would give them more opportunities to
recognise different aspects of social work. In this study professional practice
knowledge is a kind of theory and self-knowledge that supports a reflective
approach in relation to others. One of the teachers in the course said:

… a large part of the degree is about self-knowledge and it becomes obvious
at practicum, because there they shall look on themselves, their own learning
process, what happens and how they handle different situations in their own
learning (Ch 7).

Here practicum is an arena where students learn a certain way to think. One of the
students responded:

It's hard to get a receipt for my knowledge, I think, because I feel that I learn
very much a way to think when I study this programme. And it's very hard to
put it in words like that, but I know a way to think (Ch 7).

Practicum is a field where students learn how to ‘think as professionals’. They
learn how to reflect and their reflections often focus on their own feelings,
emotions and values in relation to the clients they meet. They learn how to explore
the self as part of practicum. Brodin concludes:

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 (Ch 7).

235

MATTSSON, RORRISON & EILERTSEN

From this perspective, professional practice knowledge is a way to think and a
process of self-knowledge and self-formation. Practicum should include the process
of forming a personal and professional identity. This is an important aspect of a
‘practicum turn’.

PRESERVICE TEACHERS´ REFLECTIONS

Emsheimer & Ljunggren de Silva (Ch 8)approach professional practice knowledge
from a different angle. They do not ask preservice teachers about their conception
of ‘practice’. Instead, they explore how preservice teachers understand educational
theories. The authors are interested in the relationship between theory and practice.
They want to know if preservice teachers are able to theorise their practicum
experiences and whether teacher education supports a ‘teaching stance’. The
conclusions made are similar to those reported in other chapters. It is a small study
based on discussions and interviews among 15 preservice teachers at Stockholm
University. The initial question for focus groups was:

If you encountered something strange in your practicum – how did you
handle it, and how did you relate it to theories learned? (Ch 8).

The authors found that just a few of the preservice teachers could explain theories
in a reasonable way. They referred to Vygotsky, Piaget, Skinner and sometimes
Bourdieu, indicating that they understood ‘theories’ as ‘grand theories’. They
demonstrated a general idea of these theories, but they could not relate them to
their own practicum experiences. One of the preservice teachers said:

We think it is a disaster having to learn so many theories especially when
reality is very far away from theory… (Ch 8).

Emsheimer and Ljunggren de Silva conclude that preservice teachers seem to
expect that ‘theories’ should serve as guidelines for action. When this does not
work they become disappointed with educational theories. However, some
preservice teachers responded that a ‘theory’ could serve as a stimulus for
reflection. The problem, they said, was that teacher education seldom offers proper
opportunities for discussion about theories.

The authors conclude that teacher education seems to introduce ‘theory’ in a
way that alienates preservice teachers from their practicum experiences:

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
(Ch 8).

The authors also criticise the dominant ‘theory-first-approach’. It appears that the
prescribed integrated model is not very effective. As an alternative, they offer

236

CONCLUSIONS AND CHALLENGES

arguments for a case based model. Alternative approaches are described in chapter 8
as ‘practice-first’ and as ‘a teaching stance’. A conclusion from this study is that
preservice teachers´ experiences during practicum should serve as a point of
departure for reflections about teaching. Teacher educators should, to a greater
extent, support preservice teachers´ reflective capacity. Teacher education should be
organised as a dialectic process in which preservice teachers learn how to theorise
practice in situ. This change of teacher education requires a ‘practicum turn’.

HOW TO ASSESS TEACHER COMPETENCY

Jönsson & Mattsson (Ch 9)approach the issue of ‘professional practice knowledge’
by exploring how teacher competency is assessed. ‘Competency’ is discussed as
being

…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 (Ch 9).

From this perspective, assessment is a complicated task. A preservice teacher may
write an excellent academic text about teaching but the text will not prove that the
author knows how to teach. Jönsson and Mattsson maintain, that although practice
knowledge is difficult to assess, teacher educators should be able to certify that
preservice teachers have reached a certain standard. Furthermore, preservice
teachers should be informed about the criteria agreed upon and how they are
applied. However, research indicates that teaching performance is often based on
the assessors´ subjective experiences of teaching, their tacit understandings and on
their own preferences.

Recently, similar models, instruments and criteria for assessing preservice
teachers´ teaching performance have been introduced at Malmö and Stockholm
University. According to the instruments introduced, a preservice teacher is expected
to make progress in three different areas, moving from a ‘novice’ to a ‘professional
teacher’. The areas are ‘Professional Identity’, ‘Didactical Awareness’ and
‘Communicative, Democratic Leadership’. Furthermore, according to the new
model, teacher educators should conduct assessment dialogues in collaboration with
local supervisors and preservice teachers. They are expected to use the same frame of
reference. The assessment dialogue could be regarded as an example of the case
based practicum model described in chapter 1 of this edition.

In a small empirical study, Jönsson and Mattsson have investigated the intended
use, as well as the actual use, of the models, instruments and criteria introduced.
They have analysed documents (such as guiding principles for organising and
assessing practicum), interviewed teacher educators, participated in assessment
dialogues/conferences and observed actual classroom performance.

One finding is that the new assessment tools are used in different ways by different
teacher educators. Some refused to use it, some used it just to facilitate group

237

MATTSSON, RORRISON & EILERTSEN

discussions and some thought it was a good tool for preservice teachers´ self-
assessment. However, most of the teacher educators interviewed expressed their
appreciation of the new model. They maintained that the descriptive criteria facilitated
their conceptualisation of preservice teachers´ progression. Several teacher educators
maintained that the new model better recognises the importance of practice knowledge.

On a whole, however, it seems as if the instrument was primarily used for
formative assessment. In this study it was seldom used for summative purposes.
The authors conclude:

It is not reasonable to expect the 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… The assessment dialogue
gave the participants an opportunity to conceptualize 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 (Ch 9).

A more important and general conclusion is that models, instruments and criteria
for assessing practice knowledge need to be developed. Preservice teachers and
their school based mentors should be included in the process. The practicum part
of teacher education will be left to chance unless practicum learning is subject to
appropriate, systematic and transparent assessment. In a ‘practicum turn’, all of
those affected by the assessment have to be actively engaged in the process.

A PRACTICUM TURN AT RISK

Van de Ven (Ch 10) discusses a ‘practicum turn’ referring to experiences in the
Netherlands. There is a risk that the new focus on practicum is accompanied by an
old disregard for theories:

… the role of theory has decreased sharply. ‘Practice’ is just taken for
granted but not discussed (Ch 10).

Furthermore, he questions the idea advocated by Korthagen (2001) of ‘a realistic
teacher education’. Van de Ven analyses the relation between theory/rhetoric and
practice using three interrelated categories: epistemological considerations,
division of labour and consequences. Considering epistemology, he argues for an
interpretative perspective on knowledge including practical wisdom, care and
ethics (phronƝsis). Considering division of labour he maintains that there should be
a dialogic relation between universities and local school communities. As for
consequences, he understands preservice teachers´ discontent with ‘theory’ as a
consequence of prevailing discourses about the relation between theory/rhetoric
and practice. Van de Ven concludes:

…what passes for valid knowledge, for legitimate educational objectives is the
reflection of the world view of an elite which manages to formulate vital social
problems in such a way that it pretends to solve these problems by means of its

238

CONCLUSIONS AND CHALLENGES

world view and the related definition of valid knowledge. This problem-
solving pretension is an important aspect of a rationality (Ch 10).

From this perspective ‘practice’, ‘theory’, ‘education’ and ‘competence’ are
discursive phenomena. Discourses are maintained by powerful groups in society at
large and in the field of education. Internationally, a technocratic and positivistic
rationality is dominating. The form of knowledge of the natural sciences dominates
other forms of knowledge. It dominates education and society as a whole. Ways of
seeing certain forms of knowledge become ways of being. Ways of being become
self-evident ways of thinking and acting accordingly. It seems as if actors involved
in practicum are trapped in a cage of discourses. However, van de Ven maintains:

…I have often experienced the need to understand the gap between theory
and practice from a deeper, theoretical perspective that involves partnerships
between theorists and practitioners, that is, between teacher educators and
teachers in school. Understanding that other participants experience the same
gap can be an important condition for collaborating, a condition that appears
to have motivated this edited edition (Ch 10).

He concludes that a ‘practicum turn’ taking place in an environment dominated by
a technocratic rationality risks being assimilated. There is a risk that a ‘practicum
turn’ is interpreted and applied from a technical rationality stance with strong
emphasis on instrumental knowledge and skills whilst neglecting moral and ethical
values. Taking this reflection into consideration, a ‘practicum turn’ might very well
become a U-turn.

SPACE FOR DIALOGUE?

Brennan Kemmis & Ahern (Ch 11) outline a general framework for understanding
the relationship between ‘practices’ and ‘practice architectures’. Students of teaching
engage in the practices of the practicum through sayings, doings and relatings that
are shaped by the arrangements or practice architectures that surround them. This is a
complex interplay formed by history, traditions, governmental regulations, market
economy and agents with conflicting interests. Referring to Vocational Education
and Training (VET) in Australia, the authors maintain that this state of affairs is quite
different compared to developments in other parts of teacher education. There are
new requirements for ‘fast tracking’ (intensive program of university teaching
generally lasting about six weeks). Teachers in VET are recruited primarily on the
basis of their industry qualifications and experience in their designated trade.
Generally, they know the trade but not how to serve as an educator. To provide them
with necessary training in teacher leadership is, for many reasons, a challenge. One
reason is that practicum is difficult and expensive to organise and supervise:

In our context, the practicum entails discussions of highly practical problems.
We need to encourage students to travel further afield to take up a practicum
placement and many of these students have both financial and family
commitments that make this difficult. Transport, travel arrangements and

239

MATTSSON, RORRISON & EILERTSEN

accommodation are expensive and often difficult to organise when distance is
such a factor in our lives (Ch 11).

Furthermore, practicum for prospective VET teachers is no longer a compulsory
component of their teacher preparation in university. The authors describe a shift
that has occurred because there is no staffing for assessment in the professional
experience subjects. Where previously teacher educators would collect programs,
lesson plans, reflections and assessment and mark them at the end of placement,
they now simply check off a sheet signed by an associate teacher/local mentor
indicating that the student has satisfactorily planned and evaluated their lessons. As
a consequence, the role of university has diminished and practicum is often left to
chance. Brennan Kemmis and Ahern maintain that these problems could be solved
by negotiations between universities and local schools, but it is hard to find a
proper ‘space’ for such dialogues:

In Australia we are confronted with anomalies and inconsistencies as a
consequence of the silence on these issues. The country needs more people to
hold higher level VET qualifications therefore we need more highly qualified
teachers and trainers capable of delivering these.…We want greater levels of
VET and Higher Education intersection with seamless pathways for students.
These delicate negotiations and levels of student preparation and scaffolding
demand sophisticated teaching skills if they are to succeed (Ch 11).

The authors conclude that there is need for improved strategies to build a more
dialectical relationship between university scholars and school teachers in the
VET area. This requirement is relevant also for other parts of teacher education.
Referring to Zeichner (2010), they suggest:

– involving experienced teachers in every aspect of teacher education programs
and provide them with necessary training in teacher leadership;

– bringing teachers´ work into the university curriculum;
– developing new methods courses that focus on issues of teaching practice in the

field placement schools;
– developing hybrid teacher educators who know both theory and practice;
– incorporating knowledge from communities into university curriculum and field

experiences.

We find these conclusions and proposals very supportive to the idea of ‘a
practicum turn in teacher education’.

THE CHALLENGES

Studies have been completed in Australia, Canada, China, Denmark, Finland, the
Netherlands, Norway and Sweden providing significant research evidence to
deepen understanding and ultimately generate new theories that inform the
complex practicum landscape.The chapters in this edition offer different empirical
findings and theoretical contributions based on different research approaches.

240

CONCLUSIONS AND CHALLENGES

Below are the conclusions and propositions. Some are overlapping and some are
distinctive.

• Whatever practicum model is applied, teacher education institutions should
allocate proper time, economy, personal and material resources for practicum.
Research about professional practice should be encouraged (Ch 1).

• Professional practice knowledge is primarily a discursive phenomenon. So is
practice. Practicum is an educational arrangement that supports or suppresses
certain ways of noticing, naming and framing practicum learning (Ch 2).

• Professional practice knowledge is a certain kind of knowledge that can be
developed through preservice teachers´ encounters with pupils. Practice
knowledge follows routes other than conventional learning processes (Ch 3).

• Professional practice knowledge is nurtured by preservice teachers´ parti-
cipation in learning communities. Through involvement in local projects, they
gain access to expanded arenas of professional discourse and exchange (Ch 4).

• Practicum should offer preservice teachers scaffolding for authentic experiences
in schools and classrooms. Professional autonomy is an important quality that
can be developed when practised (Ch 5).

• Situated professionalism can be developed by practitioners, teacher educators
and researchers taking ‘practice’ as a point of departure for reflections. Practice
should be understood as a complex learning situation (Ch 6).

• Professional practice knowledge is a way to think and a process of self-
knowledge and self-formation. Practicum could include the process of forming a
personal and professional identity (Ch 7).

• Preservice teachers´ experiences during practicum could serve as a point of
departure for reflections about teaching. Preservice teachers should learn how to
theorise practice in situ (Ch 8).

• Models, instruments and criteria for assessment of practicum learning should be
developed. Preservice teachers and school mentors should be participants. If
there is no transparent assessment - practicum will be left to chance (Ch 9).

• There is a risk that a ‘practicum turn’ is interpreted and applied from a technical
rationality stance with strong emphasis on instrumental knowledge and skills
whilst neglecting moral and ethical values (Ch 10).

• There is need for a more dialectical relationship between university scholars and
school teachers. Experienced teachers should be involved in every aspect of teacher
education programs and provided with training in teacher leadership (Ch 11).

A ‘practicum turn’ in teacher education requires a change of epistemology,
practice architectures and the relationships between the actors involved. It calls for
a new relationship between university and local school communities. In the
chapters referred to, ‘practice’ is generally interpreted as reflective practice. An
educational practice should not be regarded as just any activity. A practice
understood as a menu of routinised activities and inveterate habits has to be
conceptualised in order to serve as a starting point for communication and
reflections. A ‘practicum turn’ does not mean that theories and concepts are of
minor importance. Freire´s (1970/1996) view of praxis is most relevant here. He

241

MATTSSON, RORRISON & EILERTSEN

talks about “an authentic praxis” as a synthesis of action and reflection (p. 48). He
maintains that action without reflection is “pure activism” and reflection without
action is scholasticism. The dialogue between researcher and co-researcher should
be based on mutual experiences. Freire maintains that

To exist, humanly, is to name the world, to change it. Once named, the world
in its turn reappears to the namers as a problem and requires of them a new
naming. Human beings are not built in silence, but in word, in work, in
action–reflection (p.69).

To ‘name’ the world is part of a revolutionary and critical process. To act and to
reflect is not a neutral practice. As several co-authors in this edition maintain,
preservice teachers should be given the opportunity to develop their competence of
noticing, naming and reframing experiences manifested during practicum. They
should develop their reflective capacity and their capacity to make a change.
Education is an art and praxis is a practical-critical activity where participants need
to reflect in action. Discussing professional knowledge, Schön (1983/2003) calls
for an epistemology of practice, emphasising “reflection-in-action”. He maintains:

It is this entire process of reflection-in-action which is central to the ‘art’ by
which practitioners sometimes deal well with situations of uncertainty,
instability, uniqueness, and value conflict (p. 50).

A PRACTICUM TURN

Several authors have demonstrated that a ‘practicum turn’ can be achieved through
collaborative efforts by teachers, school leaders, preservice teachers, teacher
educators and researchers taking ‘practice’ as a point of departure for reflection on
educational issues. In several chapters we find arguments for a case based model.
Discussing teacher education, Lindström (2008) maintains that:

Cases add context to theory. They allow the exploration of precepts,
principles, theories, and perennial issues as they actually occur in the real
world (p. 182).

The idea is that preservice teachers, in an educational practice should encounter a
large number of authentic cases in order to learn how to identify resemblances and
distinctive traits. They should learn how to analyse and interpret cases in the light
of research, theory and experience. Otherwise there is a risk, as van de Ven points
out (Ch 10), that ‘practice’ is just taken for granted but not discussed. We think
that this risk can be avoided. As our research demonstrates, practice can serve as a
point of departure for ‘a realistic teacher education’. However, it is vital that this
approach is scaffolded by well informed teacher educators.

As demonstrated by action research projects in Australia, Norway and Finland,
preservice teachers´ participation in local projects gives them access to an
‘expanded arena of practices’. The Norwegian example refers to the platform
model, which is flexible and open to preservice teachers´ individual needs and
interests. The platform model is built upon an analysis where essential knowledge

242

CONCLUSIONS AND CHALLENGES

for teachers´ work is to a greater extent to be found outside the university system
rather than within it. Preservice teachers can learn from practices in schools,
organisations, companies and other institutions and they can find new areas for
producing and disseminating knowledge. As a consequence, a reconceptualisation
of ‘practice’ includes new and creative ways of documenting and presenting the
results of preservice teachers’ projects. Their projects should not be regarded as
internal academic assignments. Eilertsen and Strøm, (2008) maintain that:

An actual and relevant teacher education demands a dismantling of the
academic dominated tradition to the advantage of a more flexible, net-based
platform which can both safeguard more adaptable qualifications and give a
basis for research and development to the good of all partners (p.153).

Innovative strategies call for a change of practice architectures and practicum
models. That is why teacher educators engage in R&D-projects providing long-
term access to schools and local communities. In Norway (Tromsø) and Finland
(Jyväskylä), the work is supported by a partnership model involving other actors
trying to improve teacher education. A similar approach is applied in Denmark in
order to nurture ‘situated professionalism’ in the field of special education.
Practicum in Australia, China and Norway offer preservice teachers opportunities
to participate in projects for school development. Their projects could be
understood as carriers of analysis and aspirations to improve reality. They serve as
a start for ‘a realistic teacher education’. Preservice teachers make contributions to
school development and their practice gives them experiences of what is at stake.
These examples are based on long term access to schools and communities. Their
work follows a community development model.

As stated, ‘practice’ has been interpreted differently by different authors.
Generally, relevant experiences for preservice teachers are to a greater extent to be
found outside the university system rather than within it. As a consequence, local
school communities and their teachers should, to a greater extent, be acknowledged
as partners in teacher education. Their development as leaders and teacher educators
is a general challenge for teacher education. A valuable contribution from the authors
of this book is the idea that exploring practice from a theoretical perspective is best
enacted in practice. That is how we understand the practicum turn. This notion points
to a need for transparency and cooperation within and between the organisations and
professionals involved.

REFERENCES

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

Bernstein, R.J. (1971/1999). Praxis and action: contemporary philosophies of human activity.
Philadelphia, Pa.: Univ. of Pennsylvania Press. New edition 1999.

Bourdieu, P. (1993). Kultursociologiska texter. (4. uppl.) Stockholm: B. Östlings bokförl. Symposion.
Bourdieu, P. (1999). Praktiskt förnuft: bidrag till en handlingsteori. Göteborg: Daidalos. [Bourdieu, P.

(1998). Practical reason: on the theory of action. Oxford: Polity].
Broady, D. (1991). Sociologi och epistemologi: om Pierre Bourdieus författarskap och den historiska

epistemologin. (2., korr. uppl.) Stockholm: HLS (Högsk. för lärarutbildning).

243