Research is a key dimension in enhancing the teaching profession and teacher education (Menter & Flores, 2021) and teachers’ research literacy has been described as ‘a central professional knowledge requirement of a teacher’ (Boyd et al., 2022, p. 17). Pre-service student teachers’ research studies have been shown to promote professional competences and support students' growth toward evidence-based practice and 21st century skills (Niemi & Nevgi, 2014).  However, initial teacher education, especially where programmes are characterized as highly research-based and scientific, has been criticised for being disconnected, of being conducted according to competing paradigms, with limited cohesion between what is taught at universities and what is experienced in practicum  (Orland-Barak, 2016; Zeichner, 2010).  Critics advocate the necessity of real-world experiences, the importance of relational interaction with living pupils and tighter connections between courses and practicum. Although many studies have indicated varying degrees of support of student teachers’ research in practicum  (Goldshaft et al., 2022; Jakhelln & Pörn, 2019) and other studies have indicated diffuse and varied understandings of what research entails among teachers  (see for example, Flores, 2017; 2018; 2020; Munthe & Rogne, 2015; Shagrir, 2022; Smestad & Gillespie, 2020), there are few empirical studies that examine ways to help student teachers make connections between the theory and research they read about in their teacher education curriculum, and how to apply that to what they experience in practicum. This paper examines one way that connection-making might be operationalized, and how teacher education might support the development of a research literacy integrated in teachers’ professional lives (Boyd et al., 2022; Munthe & Rogne, 2015; Winch et al., 2015).

Goldshaft et al. (2022) use the term observational tools to describe materials that scaffold mentoring sessions around observations of pupils’ reactions to what is being taught. Recognising the difficulty of observing learning, observational tools aim to increase collaborative reflection on teaching and its purpose of pupils’ learning, using systematic observation to document possible evidence of learning, or misunderstandings, not for pupil assessment, but rather for critical analysis of the lesson (Dudley et al., 2019; Windsor et al., 2020). The observations are systematic in that foci are agreed upon beforehand in collaboration with colleagues, and observation data is collected and reflected over in light of findings from previous research and pedagogical-didactic principles and theories.

According to Rooney & Boud (2019), bringing non-judgemental observations of classroom interactions into mentoring conversations gives pre-service student teachers a chance for them to develop a capacity for noticingwhat matters in a teaching context, when they reflect, discuss and interpret the meanings of the observations together with their school-based mentor teachers and university-based teacher educators. Practicum has the potential to integrate contextual practitioner knowledge with abstract theoretical knowledge (Lillejord & Børte, 2016) helping student teachers to make connections between theoretical principles of pedagogy and didactics based on educational research findings and the happenings in the practice. The intersection of epistemologies might be pivotal for their developing professional identities (Jenset et al., 2018) in which research literacy is integrated (Boyd et al., 2022).

The qualitative study on which this paper is based, is an intervention study conducted in Norway where nationally-regulated, teacher education programmes have recently taken a ‘research turn’. Student teachers, mentor teachers and university-based teacher educators have been asked to collaborate on the use of an observation-grounded mentoring framework (the OMF) during a four-week period of practicum in February 2022. Completed observation forms and lesson plans, reflection logs and interviews form the data for the study. The research question asks in what ways observational tools might support development of research literacy. This paper aims to contribute to a better understanding of the role of research in teacher education.

In a previous study, Goldshaft et al. (2022) indicated that two different observational tools introduced to the mentoring conversations by the mentor teachers, enabled student teachers’ R&D practices in their period of practicum. One observational tool was the didactic relations model (Hiim et al., 1989), familiar to Norwegian student teachers from pedagogy curriculum. The other was the use of observation grids with a set of focus points agreed on prior to the lesson. An Observation-grounded Mentoring Framework (the OMF) was designed that put these two observational tools together in an editable Word document, with instructions on how to work together in a practicum group to complete the form. The intervention study was built around the OMF to investigate in which ways observational tools might support student teachers’ development of research literacy. Student teachers, school-based mentor teachers and university-based teacher educators from a teacher education master programme in Norway were invited to use the OMF during their practicum and partake in the intervention study. Six mentor teachers, four teacher educators, and 30 student teachers from eight practicum groups at different schools accepted the invitation to participate (N=40). In addition, 48 student teachers anonymously responded to reflective questions about the use of observation as a tool for understanding the practice of teaching and learning, after a week-long, observation-only practicum in their first semester The empirical data was analysed abductively. According to Timmermans and Tavory (2012), abductive analysis is about seeking out surprises in the empirical data, then constructing reasons to explain these surprises. Further, the authors argue that abductive analysis depends on the researcher’s cultivated position, their biography, their scope and sophistication of the theoretical background a researcher brings to research. The researcher’s work background as both teacher educator and school-based mentor teacher, together with her affinity towards and familiarity with practice theory, coloured the lens with which she interpreted the meanings in the data. As observation skills are integral to professional noticing, the concept was used in the analysis to help understand the ways that systematic observation might support development of teachers’ research literacy. Codes and sub-codes were then organised in NVivo under Van Es and Sherins’ understanding of teachers’ noticing (2002). Intriguing findings in the data were then checked against the appropriateness of using professional noticing as an analytical lens in a creative process (Timmermans & Tavory, 2012).

The ongoing analysis points to four ways that observational tools might support development of teachers’ research literacy. The findings will be explained in detail during the paper presentation: 1. By Identifying what is noteworthy – seeing through the fog, practical organisation of focus areas Both school-based mentor teachers and university-based teacher educators in this study underlined the importance of developing solid observation skills that can be used to analyse, evaluate and act on classroom situations. 2. By helping student teachers Make connections between theory and practice Use of the observation-grounded mentoring framework (the OMF) supported student teachers’ learning to notice important classroom interactions and helped them make connections between what they read about in their teacher education curriculum, and examples of good teaching practice as experienced in practicum. 3. By enforcing Reasoning about choices made, focusing on the purpose of teaching (i.e., pupils’ learning) and changing practice to reach that purpose (next practice, not necessarily best practice) Interpreting observations as evidence of learning in collaborative reflection in the practicum groups nurtured an awareness of the purpose of teaching. 4. Systematic observation combined with collaborative lesson planning and collaborative evaluation of the lesson provided a holistic, heuristic examination of teaching practices. Use of the observation-grounded mentoring framework (the OMF) shifted the focus from teaching the lesson to what the pupils were learning in the lesson. It was the combination of planning the lesson, planning the observations, and making meaning out of the observations, not just observation, that supported student teachers’ development of research literacy.

Boyd, P., Szplit, A., & Zbróg, Z. (2022). Developing Teachers' Research Literacy: International Perspectives. Libron. Flores, A. M. (2020). Developing Knowledge, competences and a research stance in initial teacher education in the Post-Bologna context. Nordic Journal of Comparative and International Education (NJCIE), 4(3). https://doi.org/10.7577/njcie.3777 Goldshaft, B., Sjølie, E., & Johannesen, M. (2022). Student teachers’ research and development (R&D) practice - constraining and supporting practice architectures. Pedagogy, Culture & Society, 1-21. https://doi.org/10.1080/14681366.2022.2140698 Jakhelln, R., & Pörn, M. (2019). Challenges in supporting and assessing bachelor’s theses based on action research in initial teacher education. Educational Action Research, 27(5), 726-741. https://doi.org/10.1080/09650792.2018.1491411 Jenset, I. S., Klette, K., & Hammerness, K. (2018). Grounding Teacher Education in Practice Around the World: An Examination of Teacher Education Coursework in Teacher Education Programs in Finland, Norway, and the United States. Journal of Teacher Education, 69(2), 184-197. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022487117728248 Lillejord, S., & Børte, K. (2016). Partnership in teacher education – a research mapping. European Journal of Teacher Education, 39(5), 550-563. https://doi.org/10.1080/02619768.2016.1252911 Menter, I., & Flores, M. A. (2021). Connecting research and professionalism in teacher education. European Journal of Teacher Education, 44(1), 115-127. https://doi.org/10.1080/02619768.2020.1856811 Niemi, H., & Nevgi, A. (2014). Research studies and active learning promoting professional competences in Finnish teacher education. Teaching and Teacher Education, 43, 131-142. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2014.07.006 Orland-Barak, L. (2016). Mentoring. In J. Loughran & M. L. Hamilton (Eds.), International Handbook of Teacher Education: Volume 2 (pp. 105-141). Springer Singapore. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-10-0369-1_4 Rooney, D., & Boud, D. (2019). Toward a Pedagogy for Professional Noticing: Learning through Observation. Vocations and Learning, 12(3), 441-457. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12186-019-09222-3 Shagrir, L. (2022). Teachers and Research Literacy: A Literature Review. In P. Boyd, Z. Zbróg, & A. Szplit (Eds.), Developing Teachers' Research Literacy: International Perspectives. ResearchGate. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/358646185 Timmermans, S., & Tavory, I. (2012). Theory Construction in Qualitative Research:From Grounded Theory to Abductive Analysis. Sociological Theory, 30(3), 167-186. https://doi.org/10.1177/0735275112457914 Van Es, E. A., & Sherin, M. G. (2002). Learning to Notice: Scaffolding New Teachers’ Interpretations of Classroom Interactions [Article]. Journal of Technology & Teacher Education, 10(4), 571-596. https://login.ezproxy.oslomet.no/login?url=https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=eue&AN=507740222&site=ehost-live&scope=site Windsor, S., Kriewaldt, J., Nash, M., Lilja, A., & Thornton, J. (2020). Developing teachers: adopting observation tools that suspend judgement to stimulate evidence-informed dialogue during the teaching practicum to enrich teacher professional development. Professional Development in Education, 1-15. https://doi.org/10.1080/19415257.2020.1712452 Zeichner, K. (2010). Rethinking the Connections Between Campus Courses and Field Experiences in College- and University-Based Teacher Education. Journal of Teacher Education, 61(1-2), 89-99. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022487109347671