The professionalization of teacher students is in many countries a highly discussed phenomenon. In most cases, the micro-level and the effectiveness of specific instructional approaches in teacher study programmes are focussed, especially the introduction of practical elements in study programmes (i.e. Gibson 1976, Zeichner 2005, Chiptin et al. 2008). However, the question how scientific insights on one hand and requirements in school practice on the other hand can be combined is not answered yet. The challenge for all teacher education programmes is how to put theoretical findings in research into practice and practical trainings for students and future teachers. There is a lot of research in the psychological field to get through this problem (Stark & Mandl, 2000). Nevertheless, a lack can be identified in the organizational research to combine theory and practice in teacher education study programmes.

The focus on the organizational or rather meso-level is important, because the integration of practical elements in teacher study programmes also means to integrate a second place of learning: the school. In the idea of a ‘constructive alignment’ (Biggs & Tang 2007) systematic communication and cooperation between the actors who support the students in school and university is a very important aspect. From an organisational point of view, a university and a school follow similar aims (i.e. both are educational institutions, both educate people), but the actors in the different organisations follow their own rules and logics. For instance, the regulative structures in universities are characterized by freedom and collegial consensus, while in schools exist more bureaucratic structures and loosely coupled actors (teacher as lonely fighter; i.e. Hall & Hord 2001). Therefore, organisational routines and systematic ways of communication and cooperations are needed between universities and schools to enable coherent teacher education programmes for students.

In our contribution we will present results of a case study, which is anchored in a specific organisational concept in the federal state Bavaria, in Germany. The name of the concept is ‘university schools’ similar to the idea of university hospitals, where teaching and research are supposed to build a productive combination. In 2009 during an educational policy intervention, the federal state Bavaria in Germany introduced the concept of ‘university schools’ in the vocational teacher education system. One intention was, that specific schools, ‘university schools’, build a strategic alliance with a university for educating the future teachers in study programmes and to cooperate in research processes. Furthermore, teachers at the university schools benefit from the research in universities through specific practical cooperations and universities benefit from the “look inside” the practical field and the access to a valuable research field. This can only be reached, if there is a strong commitment to communication and cooperation between all stakeholders in sense of a discursive structure (Habermas 1981). Our case study puts a focus on the concept ‘university schools’ and has three research questions:

(1) How can the aims of the educational policy intervention be described and how are they implemented in teacher education practice? (macro to meso-level)

(2) What kind of organisational and cooperation structures are emerged between university and university schools during the university school concept? (meso-level)

(3) What kind of concepts in teaching and research are developed in reaction of the educational policy intervention? (meso to micro-level)

Biggs, J. B. and Tang, C. (2007). Teaching for quality learning at university. Open University Press/Mc Graw-Hill Education. Chitpin, S., Simon, M. & Galipeau, J. (2008). Pre-service teachers’ use of the objective knowledge growth framework for reflection during practicum. Teaching and Teacher Education, 12, 2049–2058. Cooper, J.O., Heron, T.E., Heward, W.L. (2007). Applied Behavior Analysis (2nd ed.). Prentice Hall. ISBN 0-13-142113-1. Gibson, R. (1976). The effect of school practice: The development of student perspectives. British Journal of Teacher Education, 2, 241–250. Habermas, J. (1985). The Theory of Communicative Action, Volume 1: Reason and the Rationalization of Society. Hall, G., Hord, S. (2001). Implementing Change: Patterns, Principles, and Potholes. Allyn and Bacon. Program and Leadership Knowledge: Books. Schreier, M. (2012). Qualitative content analysis in practice. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Stark, R., Mandl, H. (2000). Das Theorie-Praxis-Problem in der pädagogisch-psychologischen Forschung - ein unüberwindbares Transferproblem? (Forschungsbericht Nr. 118). LMU München: Lehrstuhl für Empirische Pädagogik und Pädagogische Psychologie, Internet. Zeichner, K. M. (2005). A research agenda for teacher education. In M. Cochran-Smith and K. M. Zeichner’s (Eds.), Studying teacher education: The report of the AERA plan on research and teacher education (pp. 761-766). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates: Mahwah.