Learning to teach at the boundaries between university courses and internships [VISIONS 2011: Teacher Education]

Abstract

The theory-practice gap is a recurring problem in teacher education. This article is concerned with how student teachers learn to teach at the boundaries between university courses and internships. I investigate how participants create meaning around scientific concepts, and how they respond to the institutional context they act in, thereby making it relevant. These questions are addressed by employing the Cultural-Historical Activity theory. The study took place at the Department for Teacher Education and School Research at the University of Oslo. The data are based on extensive observations in various settings at the university and schools offering internships. Interaction analysis is used to analyze participation in different settings. The analysis shows that the students encounter divergent structures and discourses in the course of their learning trajectories. What counts as knowledge differs between universities and schools, and within the university. In teacher-led situations, student teachers are positioned in relation to the teachers and mentors, with few opportunities for knowledge construction. The study also shows instances where the student teachers explore and elaborate upon knowledge in new ways, such as in group collaborations. From the perspective of the student, it seems reasonable to argue that the contradictions within and between the activity systems serve as constraints on learning. However, to create coherent programs, concepts and ideas about teaching and learning have to be shared by Departments of Teacher Education DTEs and partner schools.

Endre lærerutdanning i engelsk – motsetninger i aktivitetssystemet som hindrer et tredje rom partnerskap

“…The plan explicitly states that assignments given in the subjects presuppose a strong connection to practice but does not state how this connection could be achieved. By failing to do so, it leaves it up to the educators to decide how the connection to practice is to be realised and to what extent coherence between campus courses and practice is provided (Canrinus et al, 2019;Jahreie, 2012;Grossman et al, 2008). The programme plan states that practice teachers and university educators are obliged to collaborate on student teachers' development and learning, yet, again, does not clearly communicate in which ways the collaboration is to be practised.…”

“…A third space is considered a structural feature for encouraging, or maintaining, collaboration between theory and practice. The third space is a qualitative, structural change in the tools factor of the current activity system which can provide coherence through the alignment of assignments, activities and experiences across campus coursework and practice placement (Grossman et al, 2008;Jahreie, 2012). Thus, for the process of learning to teach, the present study argues that structural features, such as a close connection between theory and practice, are significant in establishing the desired consistency and coherence in TEd programmes for English (Naess et al, 2015;Jahreie, 2012;Norwegian Ministry of Education and Research, 2018).…”

“…Recognising that academic knowledge and practice placement are of equal importance in Ted, and leveraging previous discussions on how a practice-based TEd for English can improve the quality of education (Zeichner, 2010;Jahreie, 2012;Holmbukt & Son, 2020), the present study seeks to investigate to what extent it is currently possible to formally implement collaborative partnerships between theory and practice in order to strengthen student teachers' skills in teaching English. By using activity theory as an analysis tool (Engeström, 1987(Engeström, /2015Postholm, 2015), the study seeks to analyse our current activity system of TEd for English and identify tensions that may challenge the practice of a dynamic partnership (which we call a 'third space' from now on).…”

The theory-practice gap: epistemology, identity, and education

“…What is common to the theories is that they accept the introductory quotation to understand practice as the locus where competencies and ideas are created -it is the locus of knowledge-in-practice (Cochran-Smith and Lytle, 1999). In contrast to other approaches, cultural-historical activity theory affords understanding the theory-practice gap in the context of a more comprehensive theory of society, understood as a network of productive activities ( Jahreie, 2012;Roth and Lee, 2007). The minimum analytic unit that includes all the characteristics of society is (productive) activity, represented in its structural dimensions in Figure 1.…”