Proposal information

In recent decades, teacher education (TE) has internationally been subject for increasing criticism regarding the gap between theory and practice (Kyriacou & Stephens, 1999). This criticism is often based on the perception that TE overly emphasizes theory at the expense of actual teaching practice. Reaction to this criticism has resulted in the so called “practice turn” of TE (Reid, 2011), boosting the extent of time that teacher students spend within the school-based parts of TE.  A new organization of school-based education (SBE, i.e. practicum) in Teacher Education in Sweden has lead to changes on how practice should be structured, where students are offered to implement practice in pairs instead of, as earlier, individually. By having a high concentration of students and mentors, there are expectations that “possibilities should arise for an exchange of experiences between mentor and student but also mutually between students and between mentors” (Ministry of Education, 2014 p.7).

Aim of the study

The aim of this study is to explore mentors' perceptions of paired practicum. As in previous research, we want to try to understand how the model benefits students' learning, but unlike many previous studies, we draw equal attention to what mentors perceive as obstacles. The pros and cons of the model are analyzed in a perspective on learning the vocation of teaching as a two-sided endeavour, namely that teacher knowledge consists of two different forms that are different to their characters, require the development of different abilities, are learnt in different ways but are equally important in learning to teach.

Theoretical framework

Inspired by Saugstad (2010, 2013) we use the terms participant knowledge and spectator knowledge to conceptualize the two different forms of knowledge. Learning as a spectator is related to “school” while learning as a participant is linked to “practical life” in general and “working life” in particular. There is, however, reasons to suppose that the two perspectives on learning appears simultaneously in both arenas. For example, learning in school entails features of socialization and workplace learning involves distanced reflection (Brint, 1998; Cochran-Smith & Lytle, 2009; Ravitch, 2014). Most likely the two perspectives are also displayed in the different arenas of initial teacher education (Grossmann, McDonald & Hammerness, 2009). The theory-practice gap in teacher education is often described as problematic. More seldom the gap is perceived by scholars as something productive and fruitful for vocational learning. Saugstad (2010, 2013) is however an exception, claiming that theory and practice are incommensurable units and that actors in educational settings need to pay attention to the dissimilarities in order to handle them in a productive way (cf. Jordell, 2003; Shulman, 1986, Fenstermacher, 1994; Cochran-Smith & Lytle, 1999).

Earlier research

A large part of earlier research on paired practicum links the analysis to theoretical support from a Vygotskijan framework of learning as a social enterprise in which the learners´ zone of proximal development can be utilized by interactions with equal status peers (Gardiner & Robinson, 2009). Often results are presented based on students' experiences of the model and emphasize the positive effects on students' learning (Bullough et al, 2002; Sorensen, 2014; Lawson et. al, 2015). Overall, the results indicate that placement in couples enables the students to support each other in learning, to establish an increased dialogue and to take a more reflexive approach to professional learning. Some studies also describe what is perceived to hinder learning when students do their internship in pairs. Especially the  mentors express concerns over how “realistic” peer placement actually is (e.g. Bullough et. al 2002; Lang et.al., 2015). There seems to be two sides of the same coin.

This study seeks to contribute to the research on paired practicum by making use of qualitative methodology to present a nuanced understanding of how five mentors perceived and experienced their role when supervising student teachers. The central question we sought an answer to was, do mentors perceive their role differently when they supervise students in pairs in opposition to one student. We gathered qualitative data through interviews with five mentors who have experience of supervising single placed students as well as students in pairs. One of the interviews was conducted person to person, the others were conducted through internet-based meetings due to the Covid19 situation. Semi-structured individual interviews were held to understand: (1) regarding mentor´s perceptions of students´ learning, (2) necessary prerequisites for thriving learning situations; and (3) changes that arise from supervising several students at the same time in opposition to one student. Mentors who were working with paired practicum and who had prior experiences with single placements were solicited for partaking in the study. The five mentors who volunteered had been teaching in upper secondary schools between 16-22 years. They had been mentors for student teachers between 4 – 15 years. Three were female and two were male. Initially, two of the research members read the same sets of transcripts to be able to locate patterns in the data. Transcripts of interviews were examined, data was compared and gathered in categories. The purpose is to catch what is represented in the text by categorizing (Fejes & Thornberg, 2019). We have categorized the data by searching for general tendencies as well as specific/noticable findings, which we have found especially relevant in relation to our overall purpose. Comparisons between categories resulted in the generation of themes. The analysis process was guided by the aim, questions and theoretical framework of the study. This, as thought was given to how the interviews were to be analyzed before they were conducted, as this procedure according to Brinkmann & Kvale (2015) leads to an analysis that is not only more transparent but also rests on more secure ground.

Results When students come in pairs, issues of activity, participation, and responsibility becomes something more than a question of motivation. It also becomes a question of relational dynamics and different opportunities for role taking. Some mentors see the advantages in having a pair, where one student is more motivated, since this student is seen as an ”extra” mentor who can influence the lesser motivated student in a positive direction. However, there is another side of the coin. Mentors perceive that paired practicum facilitates a potential for learning in a spectator position by given more time for reflection with peer students and there is also a possibility of students staying there all too long. When mentoring just one student, the opportunities for learning lies close to the idea of entering into, and gradually changing your position in a community of praxis, where students move from a peripheral to a more central position, guided by their mentor, who gradually takes the identity of a future colleague. When the mentors have a student pair, this “organic” form of learning is less likely to appear. The role of the mentor is affected by the following factors: frames, attitudes, understanding of knowledge and learning. What constrains the possibilities for learning by participation is primarily time as well as quantitative and spatial factors. To some extent, the paired practicum blurs the distinction between learning by participation and learning by spectating and the mentors must see to it that both of their students get a fair amount of practical experience. This is predicated upon the timeframes of their own schedule, as they at the same time must find time to attend to their own teaching, in which they also can act as role models for their students.

References: Brinkman, S. & Kvale, S. (2014). Interviews. Los Angeles. Sage Publications inc. Brint, S. (2008). Schools and Societies. California. Sage Publications Ltd. Bullough, R., Young, J., Ericksson, L., Birrell, J.R,. Cecil Clark, D., Winston Egan, M., Berrie, C.F., Hales, V. & Smith, G. (2002). Rethinking Field Experience – Partnership Teaching Versus Single-Placement Teaching. Journal of Teacher Education, 53(1), 68-80. Cochran-Smith, M. & Lytle, S.L. 1999: Relationships of knowledge and practice: Teacher learning in communities. Review of Research in Education, 24, 249–305. Fejes, A. & Thornberg, R. (2015). Handbok i kvalitativ analys. Stockholm. Liber. Fenstermacher, G. D. (1994). The knower and the known. The nature of knowledge in research on teaching. Review of Research in Education, 20, 3-56. Gardiner, W & Robinson, K. (2010). Paired Field Placements: A Means for Collaboration. The New Educator, 5, 81-94.  Grossman, P.Hammerness, K. & McDonald, M. (2009). Redefining teaching, re-imagining teacher education. Teachers and Teaching: theory and practice. 15(2), 273–289. Jordell, K. Ö. (2003). Conceptualizing teacher knowledge. Report No 8. Institute for Educational Research, University of Oslo. Kyriacou. C. & Stephens, P. (1999) Student Teachers' Concerns During Teaching Practice, Evaluation & Research in Education, 13(1), 18-31, Lang, C., Neal, D., Karvouni, M., & Chandler, D. (2015). An embedded professional paired placement model: “I know I am not an expert, but I am at a point now where I could step into the classroom and be responsible for the learning”. Asia-Pacifi c Journal of Teacher Education, 43 (4), 338–354. doi: 10.1080/1359866X.2015.1060296 Ministry of Education (2014). En försöksverksamhet med övningsskolor och övningsförskolor [A pilot project concerning specific practice schools and specific practice preschools; in Swedish]. Stockholm. Retrieved from: http://www.regeringen.se/rapporter/2013/07/u20134305s/ Ravitch, D. (2014) Hoaxes in Educational Policy, The Teacher Educator, 49(3), 153-165 Reid, J-A. (2011). A practice turn for teacher education? Asia-Pacific Journal of Teacher Education, 39:4, 293-310. Saugstad, T. (2010) Educational Theory and Practice in an Aristotelian Perspective, Scandinavian Journal of Educational Research, 46(4), 373-390. Saugstad, T. (2013). The Importance of Being Experienced: An Aristotelian Perspective on Experience and Experience-Based Learning. Studies in Philosophy and Education, 32, 7–23 Shulman, L. S. (1986). Those who understand: Knowledge growth in teaching. Educational Researcher, 15(2), 4-14. Sorensen, P. (2014). Collaboration, dialogue and expansive learning: The use of paired and multiple placements in the school practicum. Teaching and Teacher Education, 44, 128-137.