Introduction

Studies among student teachers have shown that learning is highly contextual and dependent on the language practices and the available tools in the actual situation (Edwards, Gilroy, & Hartley, 2002; Edwards & Protheroe, 2003; Fosse, 2011; Jahreie, 2010; Ottesen, 2006). Research has further revealed that dialogues between student teachers and their mentors in the practice periods are characterized by experience-based, everyday language and talk about ‘‘doings’’ in the classroom while interactions on campus more often is recognized by theoretical discourses and use of specialized terms. Studies of student teachers’ learning processes on campus have indicated that discussing pedagogical concepts can be of great importance; first, by providing the student teachers with new insight into the topic at hand, and second, by helping them to develop arguments and to apply the concepts in new situations (Brevik, Fosse & Rødnes 2014; Edwars & Daniels 2012, Fosse, 2011; Horn & Little 2010; Jahreie, 2010; Yayli, 2012).

Theoretical framework

Sociocultural and dialogical theory offers one way to conceptualize the social construction of knowledge and to analyzing situated learning processes. By focusing on the participants meaning-making it is possible to explore what is talked about and how tools and sociocultural context are made part of their talk and action (Linell 2009).  

We create meaning by interacting with others and the world.  How we make meaning is strongly contextual (Vygotsky 1978, 2001, Wertsch 1998, Linell 2009). Key concepts in dialogical theory are interactivity, contextuality, semiotic mediation and moral and evaluative communicative construction (Linell 2009). Dialogues take place in and through words. The dialogical perspective implies that thinking and problem solving takes place in the world rather than in the individual brains. Therefore, in meaning-making there is interdependency between the activity, the persons involved, the contexts and the resources available.

This study also focuses on concept development, drawing on Vygotskys theories on scientific - and everyday language and on ‘meaning’ and ‘sense’ (Vygotsy 1978, 2001)                                                                                                            

From this backdrop I raise the following research questions:

How do student teachers make meaning in different contexts in teacher education when talking about adapted teaching? In what ways does language serve as a tool for reasoning and understanding?  

Brevik, L.M., Fosse, B.O., & Rødnes, K.A. (2014). Language, learning, and teacher professionalism: An investigation of specialized language use among pupils, teachers, and student teachers. International Journal of Educational Research, 68, 46–56. Edwards, A., Gilroy,P.,&Hartley,D.(2002). Rethinking teachereducation.Collaborative responses to uncertainty. London/NewYork:RoutledgeFalmer. Edwards, A.,&Protheroe,L.(2003). Learning to see in classrooms: What are student teachers learning about teaching and learning while learning to teach in schools? British Educational ResearchJournal,29(2), 227–242. Edwards, A. & Daniels, H. (2012): The knowledge that matters in professional practices. Journal of Education and Work, 25:1, 39-58. Fosse, B.O.(2011). Lærerstudenters innramming og forståelse av tilpasset opplæring.Enstudie av kollektive læringsprosesser i ulike kontekster ved en praktisk-pedagogisk lærerutdanning[Student teachers’ framing and understanding of adapted education.A study of collective learningprocesses in different contexts in a one year teacher education program].(Doctoral dissertation).Oslo: University of Oslo. Grossman, P. (2005): Research on Pedagogical Approaches in Teacher Education. I M. Cochran-Smith & K. M. Zeichner (eds.): Studying Teacher Education. The Report of the AERA Panel on Research and Teacher Education. Lawrence Erlbaum Associate, Inc. USA. Horn, I. S. & Little, J. W. (2010): Attending to Problems of Practice: Routines and Resources for Professional Learning in Teachers’ Workplace Interactions. American Educational Research Journal. 47 (1): 181-217. Jahreie, C. F. & Ottesen, E. (2010). Learning to become a teacher. Participation across spheres for learning. I V. Ellis A. Edward & Smagorinsky, P.(eds.), Cultural-Historical Perspectives on Teacher Education and Eevelopment. Learning Teaching. Routledge. Taylor & Francis Group Jordan, B. & Henderson, A. (1995): Interaction Analysis: Foundations and Practice. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 4 (1): 39-103. Linell, P. (2009): Rethinking Language, Mind, and World Dialogically. Interactional and Contextual Theories of Human Sense-Making. Information Age Publishing, Inc. Charlotte, NC. Vygotsky, L. S. (1978): Mind in Society. The development of Higher Psychological Processes. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Vygotsky, L. S. (2001): Tenkning og tale. Gyldendal Akademisk. Wells, G. (1999): Dialogic Inquiry Toward a sociocultural Practice and Theory of Education. Cambridge University Press. Wertsch, J. V. (1998): Mind as Action. New York: Oxford University Press. Yayli,D.(2012). Professional languageuse by pre-service English as a foreign language teachers in a teaching certificate program. Teachers and Teaching,18(1), 59–73.