Different forms of knowledge are in play in teacher education and there is a debate which form that should set premises for education (Apple, 2016). Ball (2017) claims that there has been a change in the perspective of knowledge, where knowledge now is more related to the economy and to concepts as skills and learning outcome. At the same time, more focus has been placed on research-based knowledge to improve the quality and effectivity of teacher education (Hammersley, 2007). However, the relation between research-based and experience-based knowledge in education is complex (cf. Hammersley, 2007).

Basil Bernstein (2000) has described the different forms of knowledge through horizontal and vertical knowledge discourses. In the context of teacher education, this could be described as the research-based knowledge the students meet in campus-based activities and the experience-based knowledge the students face in practice (see Haugen & Hestbek, 2017). However, Bernstein (2000) makes a distinction in the vertical discourses, one with a hierarchical knowledge structure and an another with a horizontal knowledge structure. In this way, Bernstein makes a distinction in between how the research-based knowledge could be related to experience-based knowledge. Contextualized in teacher education, there is a question whether the university should play a role as provider of evidence-based knowledge ‘that works’ in practice or if the university should play a more autonomous role in relation to practice (see Hestbek, 2014).

Through the Bologna Declaration, Norway committed to a global network to improve the quality in higher education (European Higher Education Area [EHEA], 2021). As a result, in 2003, Norway implemented the Quality Reform in higher education where more focus was set on research-based knowledge to improve the quality (NOU 2003:25). On that account, Norwegian policy documents called for an integrated teacher education [ITE] program to create a more research-based teacher education close to practice in order to improve the quality (cf. Ministry of Education and Research [MER], 2017). Consequently, in 2013 the ITE program 8-13 was implemented in Norway and later in 2018, the ITE program 1-7 and the ITE program 5-10.

Therefore, this paper aims to explore the ITE programs in Norway; ITE 1-7, ITE 5-10 and ITE 8-13 and the different forms of knowledge described in the national guidelines for these programs (Universities Norway, 2017; Universities Norway, 2018a; Universities Norway 2018b). To do this, this paper explores different forms of knowledge that is formed in practice in the national guidelines for the ITE programs and who is setting the premises for the forms of knowledge identified. However, to capture the change in these programs, there has been looked at both the former and new national guidelines for these ITE programs.

As a methodological approach, Basil Bernstein’s (2000) theory of horizontal and vertical knowledge discourses have been utilized. At the same time, Bernstein (2000) has developed a language of description to explore the relation between and within categories through the analytical concepts; classification and framing (Bernstein, 2000). Classification is an analytical tool that could say something about the insulation between categories and could thus, express power structures between the different knowledge discourses. In a similar way, framing is an analytical tool that could say something about the relation within the different knowledge discourses and thus, express control relations within the different knowledge discourses. As a result, there is in this paper developed an analytical framework that could visualize the power structures between the different forms of knowledge and the relations of control within the different forms of knowledge. The analytical framework and how classification is related to the different knowledge discourses is described in table 1. Knowledge discourse Classification in relation to theory Horizontal knowledge discourse +C A strong classification Practice as action Vertical knowledge discourse with horizontal structure +C A strong classification Theory as perspectives for practice Vertical knowledge discourse with hierarchical structure -C A weak classification Theory as evidence for practice Table 1 Analytical framework In this way, classification could say something about how the different forms of knowledge is expressed in practice in the ITE programs and how they are related to theoretical knowledge. At the same time, framing is used to say something about who is controlling the relation within the different knowledge discourses. In this way, framing expresses who is setting the premises for a valid form of knowledge in the ITE-programs.

The preliminary findings show that there is a change in the classification between the different forms of knowledge in the former and the new national guidelines, where there now is more focus om research-based knowledge in practice. In the former guidelines, most focus was on horizontal knowledge discourses in practice, where in the new guidelines more focus is set on vertical knowledge discourses with a horizontal structure. At the same time, in the new guidelines, there is a new entry of vertical knowledge discourses with a hierarchical structure. Concurrently, there is a stronger framing value in the new guidelines, where the university is setting more premises for the knowledge in practice. As a conclusion, the preliminary findings show that research-based knowledge is gaining ground in practice in the ITE programs and where the experience-based knowledge is losing the game. This shows how the improved focus on research-based knowledge could set limitations for the use of experienced-based knowledge in practice.

Apple, M. J. (2016). Challenging the epistemological fog: The roles of the scholar/activist in education. European Educational Research Journal, 15(5), 505–515. https://doi.org/10.1177/1474904116647732 Ball, S. J. (2017). The Education Debate (3rd ed.). Policy Press. Bernstein, B. (2000). Pedagogy, Symbolic Control and Identity. Theory, Research, Critique. Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, Inc. European Higher Education Area (2021, 23rd of November). European Higher Education Area and Bologna Process. http://www.ehea.info/ Hammersley, M. (2007). Educational Research and Evidence-based Practice. Sage Publications Ltd. Haugen, C. R. & Hestbek, T. (2017). Tensions between knowledge discourses in teacher education: Does current Norwegian reform represent an attack on critical knowledge? Knowledge Cultures, 5(4), 91–109. http://dx.doi.org/10.22381/KC5420177 Haugen, C. R. (2013). Comparing the OECD's and Norway's Orientation to Equity in Their Teacher Education Policies - Teacher Autonomy under Attack? Journal for Critical Education Policy Studies, 11(2), 165-202. http://www.jceps.com/wp-content/uploads/PDFs/11-2-06.pdf Hestbek, T. (2014). Kunnskapsdiskurser i lærerutdanningen. Kritisk pedagogikk som demokratisk mulighet [Knowledge discourses in teacher education. Critical pedagogy as a democratic opportunity]. In C. R. Haugen & T. Hestbek (Eds.), Pedagogikk, politikk og etikk. Demokratiske utfordringer og muligheter i norsk skole (p. 116-129). Universitetsforlaget AS Ministry of Education and Research (2017). Teacher Education 2025. National Strategy for Quality and Cooperation in Teacher Education. https://www.regjeringen.no/contentassets/d0c1da83bce94e2da21d5f631bbae817/kd_teacher-education-2025_uu.pdf NOU 2003: 25. (2003). Ny lov om universiteter og høyskoler [New Universities and Colleges Act]. Norwegian Ministry of Education and Research. https://www.regjeringen.no/contentassets/ab6cb779c684449da38abed9e1974410/no/pdfs/nou200320030025000dddpdfs.pdf Universities Norway (2017). Nasjonale retningslinjer for lektorutdanning for trinn 8-13. [National guidelines for the integrated teacher education program 8-13]. UHR. https://www.uhr.no/_f/p1/i4d4335f1-1715-4f6e-ab44-0dca372d7488/lektorutdanning_8_13_vedtatt_13_11_2017.pdf Universities Norway (2018a). Nasjonale retningslinjer for grunnskolelærerutdanning trinn 1-7. [National guidelines for the integrated teacher education program 1-7]. UHR. https://www.uhr.no/_f/p1/ibda59a76-750c-43f2-b95a-a7690820ccf4/revidert-171018-nasjonale-retningslinjer-for-grunnskolelarerutdanning-trinn-1-7_fin.pdf Universities Norway (2018b). Nasjonale retningslinjer for grunnskolelærerutdanning trinn 5-10. [National guidelines for the integrated teacher education program 5-10]. UHR. https://www.uhr.no/_f/p1/iffeaf9b9-6786-45f5-8f31-e384b45195e4/revidert-171018-nasjonale-retningslinjer-for-grunnskoleutdanning-trinn-5-10_fin.pdf