Addressing the gap between theory and practice has been the foundation of many research projects regarding teacher education over the years (e.g. Korthagen, 2007; McGarr, O’Grady & Guilfoyle, 2017), and subsumed under the concept of work-integrated learning (WIL) is an international repositioning focusing on an integration between theory and practice and thereby bridging the gap (e.g. McRae & Johnston, 2016; Zegwaard et al., 2019). During later decades, student teachers are spending more time on practice within Teacher Education (TE) in general and an increased numbers of TE programmes are promoting WIL (Reid, 2011). In this ‘practice turn’ of higher education (Raelin, 2007), the value of experience as a basis for knowledge, increasing work-readiness for the students, has been elevated (McManus & Rook, 2021). This recognition of workplace experiences has drawn attention to the relation between off-campus and on-campus learning and how these can be integrated, Caspersen & Smeby, 2021). Basically, students have difficulties in transforming subject-academic knowledge into subject-didactic knowledge (Nilsson, 2008). Thus an ongoing discussion in higher education concerns how students can be assisted in constructing successful transitions between university and work. This discussion has its foundation in the awareness of differences between the two contexts, especially in view of the gap between university studies and work requirements (Biemans et al., 2004; Finch et al., 2007).

In previous studies, it is indicated from two players within teacher education - students and mentors - that a reorganization of teacher education entails implications for student teachers´ opportunities for learning (Jederud, 2021; Jederud, 2022; Jederud, Rytzler & Lindqvist, 2022). Thus, it was of interest to target this study towards another manifestation of the ‘practice turn’, a WIL-teacher programme, and shed light on how a third player within teacher education - teacher educators - perceive students´ opportunities for learning when they move between the two contexts of work and university. Student teachers within this specific WIL-teacher programme are employed and work three days a week and conduct campus studies two days a week.

Inspired by Akkerman and Bakker (2011), I make use of the theoretical perspective of boundary crossing and the four identified learning potentials identification, coordination, reflection and transformation to conceptualize what WIL students´ boundary crossing entails regarding their learning at university. A boundary crossing perspective opens up for a precise understanding of what new contextual relationships are required, as it is targeted at evaluating opportunities for learning where it is essential that different institutions cooperate (Akkerman & Bruining, 2016). This is especially essential within professional education where apprenticeships are acknowledged as valued paths for inaugurating successful transitions between university and workplaces. This as it is perceived that it is the differences between the two educational contexts that is seen as a source for development (Tuomi-Gröhn & Engeström, 2003). Therefore, instead of dismissing boundaries between contexts, they can be made use of in exercises to assist students to contextualise their knowledge in relation to the requirements of collaborative work (Andersson, 2016). Wenger (1998) makes use of the concept of ‘broker’ when describing how individuals (brokers) are capable of making new correlations between communities of practices to enable coordination. From this point of view, brokers hold an important position, as they can bring together contemporary elements from one community of practice to another. Students are in a distinctive position to undertake the role of broker, taking along new tools and understandings from their work experiences into their universities and from their universities into their workplaces. However, students face challenges here: boundaries are significant in working and learning processes (Engeström, Engeström, & Kärkkäinen, 1995), and students may have to deal with contradictory perspectives (Christiansen & Rump, 2008).

Qualitative data was gathered through semi-structured individual interviews with six university teachers. The reason why these university teachers were chosen for the study was firstly, that focus was on the illumination of boundary processes on the campus site. Secondly, that these boundary processes were better illustrated by comparisons with students in ordinary TE programmes, and thirdly, that what could be said regarding boundary processes was better nuanced if informants would host a deep experience of the phenomena. Therefore, the informants needed to have experience in teaching within work-integrated education as well as in ordinary TE programmes. The six university teachers who volunteered were women and between the ages of 41 and 74. They had been teaching at the university for 5 - 25 years, in subject courses or courses in educational science and they had experience working as teachers in schools for 5 -28 years. The respondents were asked questions regarding their perception of WI-students’ opportunities for learning within courses at the university. The questions concerned issues on an intrapersonal level, such as perceived differences between WI-students and ordinary programme students´ opportunities for learning, or perceptions of how WI-students approach their studies at university. On an interpersonal level the questions concerned issues such as what possibilities or barriers that are perceived to occur when teaching WI student teachers. The interviews were recorded on an iPhone and were transferred to a computer and listened to several times. They were then transcribed word for word. The researcher read the transcripts several times in order to ascertain patterns in the data. These patterns were compared and coded in themes according to the overall purpose (Fejes & Thornberg, 2019). The procedure made of use to code and arrange the data was abductive, by way of explanation a to and fro procedure between research data and consideration of theory (Rinehart, 2021). Data was sorted by looking for common inclinations as well as particular findings with reference to the overall objective. This process, in accordance to Brinkmann and Kvale (2015), brings about an analysis that is further transparent and that is based on more secure foundation. The themes are not in a sorted order of importance. Quotes from respondents are representative quotes due to recurrence in the data. The analysis process was conducted with the aim, questions, theoretical framework and analytical tools of the study in mind (Brinkmann & Kvale, 2015).

Work integrated education seems to encompass a double-edged sword when it comes to the possibilities for developing professional knowledge. University teachers perceive that students’ boundary crossing does seem to provide potentials for developing constructive arenas for studying and reflecting. However, teacher educators also perceive that WIL-students have a different approach to their learning at university than ordinary teacher education programme students. Teacher educators perceive that some WIL-students are able to coordinate and participate in both contexts which enhances their understanding of how theories can be put into practice. However, WIL-student teachers that are employed at schools three days a week the same time as they are expected to be ordinary students, also generates a problematic situation. When these students become central participants in one community - their workplaces, it involves implications in the other community- the university. Some WIL students tend to remain in their roles as teachers even when at university and thereby they take on a different hierarchical position from that of ordinary TE programme students. According to the teacher educators, they tend to identify themselves as teachers and de-identify themselves as students. When WI-students shift positions, not only from students to teachers, but also to actually identifying themselves as teachers, teacher educators perceive that some of them demand something else from university studies. In this context, they are moving as ‘brokers’ across two contexts on a regular basis and are trying to coordinate in order to benefit from both. This leads to teacher educators also shifting positions, as they, in a transformation process, where they identify the mutual problem and outline new ideas, are redoing and reevaluating how far they can move towards meeting WI-student teachers’ acute needs.

Akkerman, S. F. & Bakker, A. (2011). Boundary crossing and boundary objects. Review of Educational Research, 81(2), 132–169. Akkerman, S., & Bruining, T. (2016) Multilevel Boundary Crossing in a Professional Development School Partnership. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 25(2), 240-284. Andersson, A. (2016). Boundaries as mechanisms for learning in emergency exercises with students from emergency service organizations. Journal of Vocational Education & Training, 68(2), 245-262. Brinkmann, S. & Kvale, S. (2015) Interviews: Learning the Craft of Qualitative Research Interviewing. 3rd Edition, Sage Publications. Engeström, Y., Engeström, R., & Kärkkäinen, M. (1995). Polycontextuality and boundary crossing in expert cognition: Learning and problem solving in complex work activities. Learning and Instruction, 5, 319–336. Fejes, A., & Thornberg, R. (2019). Handbok i kvalitativ analys [Handbook of qualitative analysis]. Liber. Finch, C., Mulder, M., Attwell, G., Rauner, F., & Streumer, J. (2007). International comparisons of school-to-work transitions. European Education Research Association Journal, 3(2), 3–15. Jederud, S. (2021) Learning as Peers in Practice – an Obstacle or Support for Student Teachers Vocational Learning? Educational Practice and Theory, 43(1) Jederud, S.; Rytzler, J. & Lindqvist, P. (2021) Learning to teach as a two-sided endeavor: mentors´ perceptions of paired practicum in initial teacher education. Teaching Education. Published online 210928. Korthagen, F. A. J. (2007). The Gap between Research and Practice Revisited. Educational Research and Evaluation 13(3), 303–310. McGarr, O., O’Grady, E., & Guilfoyle, L. (2017). Exploring the theory-practice gap in initial teacher education: moving beyond questions of relevance to issues of power and authority. Journal of Education for Teaching, 43(1), p. 48–60. McManus, L. & Rook, L. (2021). Mixed views in the academy: academic and student perspectives about the utility of developing work-ready skills through WIL. Studies in Higher Education, 46(2), 270–284. Nilsson, P. (2008). Learning to teach and teaching to learn. Primary science student teachers’ complex journey from learners to teachers. [Doctoral dissertation, Link.pings university]. Raelin, J. A. (2007). Toward an epistemology of practice. Academy of Management Learning & Education, 6(4), 495–519. Reid, J-A. (2011). A practice turn for teacher education? Asia-Pacific Journal of Teacher Education, 39(4), 293–310. Tuomi-Gröhn, T. & Engestr.m, Y. (2003). Conceptualizing transfer: From Standard Notions to Developmental Perspectives. I T. Tuomi-Gr.hn & Y.Engeström. Between School and Work: New Perspectives on Transfer and Boundary Crossing. (p. 19-39). Wenger, E. (1998). Communities of practice: Learning, meaning and identity. Cambridge University Press. Zegwaard, K. E., Johansson, K., Kay, J., McRae, N., Ferns, S., & Hoskyn, K. (2019). Professional development needs of the international work-integrated learning community. International Journal of Work-Integrated Learning, 20(2), 201–217.