This description of a poster would like to present the thesis of hybrid spaces within teacher training as the subject of discussion as well as their empirical investigation. First, the conceptual background will be clarified followed by the methodological setting. Finally, the results will be presented and classified.

In Germany, teacher training is divided into two phases: First, the theoretical, technical, didactic and educational foundations are laid in the university part. In the second phase at school, the focus is on practical training. In the course of this, the so-called theory-practice dilemma (Dewey, 1904; Cramer, 2014) arise, which means neglecting theory in favour of practice or vice versa. An attempt to meet this challenge and to bring together the best of two worlds (a.k.a. the two phases mentioned above) in teacher education is the practical phase resp. the internship, which consists of obligatory (orientational) internships or entire internship semesters during the first phase. These school internships are neither pure practice nor part of university and university teaching. By combining research-based learning with orientational internships, both are interlinked. For this we use the picture of hybrid spaces (Christoforatou, 2011). The questions this poster aims to answer are: How is the internship integrated into the curriculum? How is it didactically modelled, what contribution does research orientation make? How is the relationship between university and school structured?

For the study of the hybrid spaces, ordering documents (module manuals, study regulations) as well as the self-descriptions of projects and initiatives like “Qualitätsoffensive Lehrerbildung” were analysed and evaluated with the structuring content analysis (Kuchartz, 2016). Two universities, RWTH Aachen University and the project Freiburg Advanced Center of Education (FACE) of the universities of Freiburg, were compared in contrast to each other based on the design of the embedded multiple case study (Yin, 2013). The sampling criterion was the design of practical phases through research-oriented teaching and learning in the case of institutional differences. The result of the study was that both institutions integrated internships curricularly in the introductory phase by combining research-based learning with orientational internships. Thus, students are confronted with both professional practice and research activities right from the start of their studies. From a didactic point of view, there are differences: FACE on the one hand focuses more on students' self-reflection: "First, it is a matter of reflecting on one's own competence development as well as (theory-based) reflection of key situations from a research-distanced attitude" (FACE, 2016, p. 9; own translation). On the other hand RWTH Aachen University aims on an object of observation as an initiation of a researching attitude: "Under the objective of a critical-analytical examination of the school and teaching reality and the associated initiation of researching learning, the students have the task of determining from the processed texts theoretically guided points of view for an observation task to be carried out during the school internship.” (Boelhauve & Bremke, 2016, p. 3; own translation). The research-oriented internship phase thus opens up a relational space at both institutions (Löw, 2001) in which science and vocational orientation are strongly linked to each other. This can be seen in the integration of other stakeholders. In Freiburg, they have the function of introducing students into schools; this procedure is negotiated together with the teachers: "Planning and arranging the schedule of the internship with regard to the various tasks (e.g. observing, instructing, interviewing)” (FACE, 2016, p. 10; own translation).

In summary, it can be seen that although the design of the third space is different, it nevertheless creates a space between university and school that can be located more in the discussion about hybrid spaces (Christoforatou, 2011). It is important to acknowledge and make clear this specific meaning of space as well as that of the actors involved in shaping it, because the "participants could create a common identity that is constantly generated anew through continuous dialogue" (ibid., p. 52) in order to mitigate the theory-practice dilemma and to bring together the best of both worlds. What is important, however, is discussion on an equal footing, which requires greater joint responsibility between university and school.

Boelhauve, U. & Bremke, C. (2016). Merkblatt für Studierende. Das Orientierende Schulpraktikum im Bildungswissenschaftlichen Studium des Bachelorstudiengangs Lehramt an Gymnasien und Gesamtschulen sowie Lehramt an Berufskollegs der RWTH Aachen (Orientierungspraktikum).http://www.lbz.rwth-aachen.de/global/show_document.asp?id=aaaaaaaaaabxfbi Christoforatou, E. (2011). Third Space. Journal für LehrerInnenbildung, 3, 51-54. Cramer, C. (2014). Theorie und Praxis in der Lehrerbildung. Die Deutsche Schule, 106(4), 344-357. Dewey, J. (1904). Die Beziehung zwischen Theorie und Praxis in der Lehrerbildung, 1904. Beiträge zur Lehrerbildung, 10, 293-310. Freiburg Advanced Center of Education (FACE) (2016). Begleitheft zum Orientierungspraktikum (OSP) für Studierende, betreuende Lehrkräfte sowie Dozentinnen und Dozenten der vor- und nachbereitenden Begleitveranstaltungen. https://www.ph-freiburg.de/fileadmin/dateien/zentral/zfs/OSP/OSP_Begleitheft_PH_01-2016.pdf Kuckartz, U. (2016). Typenbildung und typenbildende Inhaltsanalyse in der empirischen Sozialforschung. In W.M. Schnell, C. Schulz, U. Kuckartz & C. Dunger (Hrsg.), Junge Menschen sprechen mit sterbenden Menschen: Eine Typologie (31-53). Wiesbaden: Springer Fachmedien Wiesbaden. Löw, M. (2001). Raumsoziologie. Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp. Yin, R.K. (2014). Case study research design and methods (5th ed.). Los Angeles, CA: Sage Publications.