In this paper, the first starting point is the media education in schools. Media education may have various forms in school such as art education, social studies, child protection or learning technologies. In Finnish media education, the concept of media can be interpreted as content (media text), a tool (medium) and/or a societal actor (agent; “subject”) (cf. Williams, 1976). Hence the media education has three main goal areas which all include both the critical and creative aspects:

1) anatomy of media texts
2) learning about media tools as well as their use in education
3) mechanisms of media institutions

In Finnish school system, media education is one of the cross-curricular themes which are still finding their place in school. The key issue to understand the status quo of the media education in each class is the teacher actions and decision-making. Media education experts and policymakers in Finland seem to have very little understanding about nature of school work and about how teachers operate in the area which rarely has dedicated lessons or other things that would identify it as a school domain of its own. 

The study aims to increase understanding of how a teacher manages the complexity especially in the area of media education. Since human life is pervaded by problems and reasoning is a common response to problems we care about (Audi, 1991), it is of value to study teacher reasoning. Teacher reasons in school in response to his/her everyday problems about how to get on with things. Fenstermacher (1994, p. 4) emphasizes teacher knowledge because “the value is in having a better understanding of what is involved in researchers' claims to know something about teaching” and the claims “do become the basis for educational policy.”

Hence another starting point for this paper is in the teacher’s pedagogical thinking and practical reasoning. Practical knowledge and practical reasoning have gained some quite attention in research on teaching during the last few decades (see Clark & Peterson, 1986). Practical reasoning originates from Aristotle and it contrasts with theoretical reasoning. When theoretical reasons might be described as reasons for believing and in some sense pointing toward truth, practical reasons relate to acting and action. (Audi, 1991.) 

In practical reasoning, the structures of propositions can be called practical arguments. In our everyday actions a practical argument “lays out a series of reasons that can be viewed as premises, and connects them to a concluding action” (Fenstermacher & Richardson, 1993, p. 103).

The structure of practical arguments was here analysed through Aristotelian practical syllogism including following premises:

i The value premise - a statement of the human benefit or good to be derived. 

ii The stipulative premise - a statement that defines, interprets or establishes meaning.

iii The empirical premise - a statement subject to empirical scrutiny. 

iv The situational premise - a statement that describe the context in which the action takes place. (Fenstermacher & Richardson, 1993)

Audi, R. (1989). Practical reasoning. London: Routledge. Clark, C. M., & Peterson, P. L. (1986). Teachers' thought processes. In C. M. Wittrock (Ed.), Handbook of research on teaching (3rd ed., pp. 255–296). New York: Macmillan. Fenstermacher, G. D., & Richardson, V. (1993). The elicitation and reconstruction of practical arguments in teaching. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 25(2), pp. 101-114. Williams, R. (1976). Keywords. A vocabulary of culture and society. London: Fontana Paperbacks. Zimmerman, B. J. (2001). Theories of Self-Regulated Learning and Academic Achievement: An Overview and Analysis. In B. J. Zimmerman & D. H. Schunk (Eds.), Self-Regulated Learning and Academic Achievement. Theoretical Perspectives. (2nd ed., pp. 1–37), Mahwah, New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.