This paper explores and discusses how process guides from OsloMet and teachers at partnerships schools can collaborate strengthening teachers’ competence to guide and develop collective models of guidance. Exploring collective models of guidance opens a space for teachers and guides from OsloMet to develop new knowledge and new forms of acknowledgements. Understanding how to develop guiding competence demands for teachers to reflect within different forms of knowledge, including knowledge not yet communicated (Grimen, 2008). Connecting theory and practice where subject-didactics, pedagogy, and theoretical understandings of didactics is seen in relation, is also a central goal for teacher training in Norway (Meld.st. 11 2008-2009). Learning more about the tacit knowledge of teachers (Argyris og Schôn, 1978) and by that making it possible to explore more about the competence to guide is thereby central.We seek understanding about how systematic participation in collective arenas of collaboration can contribute also for teachers to develop competence to guide student teachers. 

Studying how to work in partnerships exploring teachers’ competence to guide, action research is central (PAR) (Tiller, 1999). A pragmatic oriented approach (Starrin, 1993) with pedagogic action research is used based on the premise to change practice (Hiim, 2010; McNiff, 2014; Stenhouse, 1975). Recognizing the knowledge and experiences of teachers, as well as for teachers to experience ownership within the process of change are highly valued within this study (Carr & Kemmis, (1986). Wide range of empirical data are used with agendas and notes from meetings, content and reflections from workshops, reflection notes and logs from school leaders, teachers, and process guides from OsloMet.

Preliminary findings show three areas central for teachers and guides from OsloMet working in partnerships developing an arena for practice collaboration as well as competence to guide. One area is making time and room for collaboration. This includes school leader recognition of teachers’ time to work on areas of development. Another area is building relationships becoming a safe space (third space) for teachers and guides from OsloMet to explore what capacities are needed for guidance. This involves theoretical knowledge as well as competence to guide. Last is working on the emotional dimension overcoming boundaries within oneself in the process of development and change. The tacit knowledge of teachers and teacher’s reflection is overarching all three areas. Notes from the first meeting developing an arena for practice collaboration shows how the relational aspect becomes filtered within all areas of guidance. One teacher reflects specifically about the relationship when guiding student teachers as an endless process of development and change (Meeting 24.10.23).

Argyris, C. & Schôn, D. (1978). Organizational Learning: A theory of Action Perspective. Addison-Wesley. Carr, W & Kemmis, S. (1986). Becoming critical: Education, knowledge, and action research Grimen, H. (2004). Samfunnsvitenskapelige tenkemåter. Universitetsforlaget. Hiim, H. (2010) Pedagogisk aksjonsforskning. Gyldendal akademisk. Kunnskapsdepartementet (2008-2009) Meld.st. 11 (2008-2009) læreren: rollen og utdanningen. St.meld. nr. 11 (2008-2009) - regjeringen.no McNiff, J. (2014). Writing and doing action research. Sage Publications. Starrin, B. (1993), Participatory research – att skapa kunnskap tilsammans. I J. Holmer, & Starring, B. (red). Deltagarorienterad forskning. Studentlitteratur. Stenhouse, L. (1975). An introduction to curriculum research and development. Heinemann Tiller, T. (1999). Aksjonslæring, Forskende partnerskap i skolen. Høyskoleforlaget.