Building a research-based agenda for teacher education demands that research and development (R&D) competence be part of teacher education in several learning arenas (Kyvik, Vågan, Prøitz, & Aamodt, 2015). Tightly integrated programmes with practicum interwoven with on-campus coursework can develop student teachers’ abilities to reflect on practice, both their own and the school’s collective practices. Student teacher’s use of research methods learnt on campus and applied in practicum, is a contribution to a continuum of teacher education, where initial teacher education is seen as only a foundation for continued student teacher learning (Dolan, 2017) and ‘becoming a teacher’ is an on-going, unfinished process during teachers’ professional lives (Sjølie, Francisco, & Langelotz, 2019).

Teachers’ R&D competence was central to the European Bologna Process on the quality of higher education qualifications (Bologna Process, 2018). In Norway, governmental objectives solidified in legal frameworks (Kunnskapsdepartementet, 2016) endeavour to ambitiously improve the quality of teacher education with the implementation of a national five-year master programme that is ‘research-based’ and professionally relevant (Teacher Education 2025, p. 11). Building research competence and capacity is central in the new master programme. Courses in research methods, obligatory R&D assignments and a master thesis attempt to blur the previous dichotomy of theoretical knowledge learnt on campus and practical knowledge learnt in practicum.  R&D competence is a tool in the toolbox for professional learning for praxis development, where student teachers have agency to act and their professional learning is worthwhile for them as teachers, their pupils, and society as a whole (Olin, Francisco, Salo, Pörn, & Karlberg-Granlund, 2020).

The case study presented in this paper examines the practice of student teachers’ development of R&D competence, recognising this practice as a social structure, kept into place by recurrent activities (Nicolini, 2013) and in this case, organizational matters initiated by the teacher education institution and learning arenas. Concentrating on practicum, the learning area with the greatest potential for theoretical and practical knowledge integration (Dolan, 2017), the paper compares the intensions of the five-year master programme with the realities of the site.

A recent systematic review of teachers’ transdisciplinary competences (Smestad & Gillespie, 2020)  revealed tensions in the literature on teachers’ R&D competence and uncovered a collective focus in the context of schools and an individual focus in the context of initial teacher education where R&D competence is often considered as individual skills used individually (et.al.p.129). The study considers these individual, collective contexts when examining the practice of student teachers’ development of R&D competence and the arrangements holding the practice in place.

The analysis asks how the practice of student teachers’ development of R&D competence is enabled and constrained by focusing on the extent to which student teachers apply theoretical knowledge of R&D methods learnt on campus – their individual skills -  to their collective experiences in practicum, and in what ways this might enhance their professional learning for praxis development.  The research question for the study is: What enables or constrains the practice of student teachers’ development of R&D competence?

Generating triangular qualitative data from a) observations of mentoring sessions during eight PST’s practicum period over 3 weeks (20 hours) in two schools; b) interviews of student teachers and mentor teachers (12 interviews) and c) analysis of policy documents and curriculum; the study examines the practice of student teachers’ development of R&D competence, identifying what this practice looks like, what enables the practice and what constrains the practice. Using the theory of practice architectures (Kemmis & Grootenboer, 2008; Mahon, Francisco, & Kemmis, 2017) and ecologies of practice (Kemmis, Edwards-Groves, Wilkinson, & Hardy, 2012; Kemmis et al., 2014) as a lens, this paper presents the researcher’s understandings of the arrangements holding the practice of student teachers’ development of R&D competence in place and gives an insight as to how adjusting arrangements might improve the sustainability of student teachers’ development of R&D competence. A four-step analysis initially ‘zooms out’ (Nicolini, 2013) to get an overview of the practices influencing student teachers’ practicum and then identifies the enabling and constraining factors within the on-site practicum and the surrounding practices that enable or constrain the practice of student teachers’ development of R&D competence. The analysis describes the cultural-discursive, social-political and material-economic arrangements that enable or constrain the development of R&D competence that supports professional learning for praxis development. Many enabling factors are uncovered in the analysis. For example, cultural-discursive arrangements enable professional conversations during mentoring; material-economic arrangements cover mentor teachers’ salaries for additional workloads; social-political arrangements enable student teachers’ practicum a necessity for teacher qualification. At this point in time, only part of the data has been analysed. Taking a critical stance, the paper zooms in on constraining factors, highlighting some contradictions to the teacher education programmes’ intensions.

Tentative findings The analysis identifies two constraining factors to the practice of student teachers’ R&D competence development: 1) Campus instruction explicitly restricts student teachers using practicum to generate data; and 2) Mentor teachers’ double role of assessor and mentor hinders the practice and is magnified when mentoring is not evidence-based. 1) Student teachers in this programme have a compulsory R&D-based assignment in the third year and, despite specifications in the curriculum plan that the texts should be linked to experiences in practicum, the majority of the students in the study were told not to use practicum to generate data for their R&D assignment, thereby restricting the development of R&D competence to an individual skill, rather than using the R&D assignment as a means to develop collective R&D competence supporting professional learning. 2) The mentor teachers in this study are professional, experienced teachers engaged in promoting student teachers’ professional knowledge, but mentoring was seldom evidence-based, and their comments were rarely questioned or critiqued by the student teachers. Conclusion This paper presents an analysis of the practice of student teachers’ development of a R&D competence that supports professional learning for praxis. It describes what the practice of R&D competence development looks like, in what ways practices enable or constrain the practice of student teachers’ development of R&D competence, and highlights contradictions to the intensions of teacher education policy. Further, the relevance these findings have on professional learning for praxis development is discussed. The paper tells the story of a young teacher education programme struggling to do the right thing, but not quite making it. It exemplifies the tensions between the prescriptions given by educational policy and the realities of individual and collective professional learning.

References Dolan, R. (2017). Teacher Education Programmes: A Systems View. In SAGE Handbook of Research on Teacher Education, Part, I, (pp. 90-105). Kemmis, S., Edwards-Groves, C., Wilkinson, J., & Hardy, I. (2012). Ecologies of Practices. In P. Hager, A. Lee, & A. Reich (Eds.), Practice, Learning and Change: Practice-Theory Perspectives on Professional Learning (pp. 33-49). Dordrecht: Springer Netherlands. Kemmis, S., & Grootenboer, P. (2008). Situating praxis in practice: Practice architectures and the cultural, social and material conditions for practice. In S. Kemmis & T. Smith (Eds.), Enabling praxis. Challenges for education. (pp. 37-62). Rotterdam: Sense. Kemmis, S., Wilkinson, J., Edwards-Groves, C., Hardy, I., Grootenboer, P., & Bristol, L. (2014). Changing Practices, Changing Education (2014 ed.). Singapore: Singapore: Springer Singapore. Kunnskapsdepartementet. (2016). Forskrift om rammeplan for grunnskolelærerutdanning for trinn 5–10. (LOV-2005-04-01-15-§3-2). I 2016 hefte 10: Norwegian Government Retrieved from https://lovdata.no/dokument/SF/forskrift/2016-06-07-861 Kyvik, S., Vågan, A., Prøitz, T. S., & Aamodt, P. O. (2015). Research-based education in undergraduate professional programmes. In (1 ed., pp. 105-123): Routledge. Mahon, K., Francisco, S., & Kemmis, S. (2017). Exploring Education and Professional Practice: Through the Lens of Practice Architectures. Singapore: Singapore: Springer Singapore. Nicolini, D. (2013). Practice Theory, Work, and Organization. An Introduction. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Norwegian Ministry of Education and Research (2018). Teacher Education 2025. National Strategy for Quality and Cooperation in Teacher Education. Oslo: Goverment.no Retrieved from https://www.regjeringen.no/en/dokumenter/larerutdanningene-2025.-nasjonal-strategi-for-kvalitet-og-samarbeid-i-larerutdanningene/id2555622/ Olin, A., Francisco, S., Salo, P., Pörn, M., & Karlberg-Granlund, G. (2020). Collaborative Professional Learning for Changing Educational Practices. In K. Mahon, C. Edwards-Groves, S. Francisco, M. Kaukko, S. Kemmis, & K. Petrie (Eds.), Pedagogy, Education, and Praxis in Critical Times (pp. 141-162). Singapore: Springer Singapore. Sjølie, E., Francisco, S., & Langelotz, L. (2019). Communicative learning spaces and learning to become a teacher. Pedagogy, Culture & Society, 27(3), 365-382. doi:10.1080/14681366.2018.1500392 Smestad, B., & Gillespie, A. (2020). Dimensions of teachers’ transdisciplinary competence based on a systematic review of three transdisciplinary areas. Nordic Journal of Comparative and International Education, 4(3). doi:10.7577/njcie.3757