The purpose of this paper is to examine the role played by university-based teacher educators [UBTEs] in the students’ practical training in schools, when collaborating with students and school-based teacher educators [SBTEs]. This paper does so through following research question: How do inexperienced university-based teacher educators describe their own role when faced with the field of practice, by taking part in the student's development in practice?

A close connection between the theoretical knowledge taught at universities and the practical training that takes place in school classrooms is considered essential for high‑quality teacher education in international policy documents (European Union, 2014; Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development, 2019). Similarly, both international and Norwegian research on teacher education emphasizes the importance of a close and reciprocal relationship between universities and schools (Zeichner, 2010; Smith, 2016). However, Zeichner (2021) argues that such partnerships are often idealized because underlying power relations remain unidentified, and Manton and colleagues (2021) note that their long-term sustainability has not been sufficiently established in research. Therefore, Norwegian strategies argue that enhancing a close collaboration between UBTEs, SBTEs and students is important to improve such partnerships (Cochran-Smith et al., 2020).

In the Norwegian context, the university holds the final responsibility for students’ practical training in schools, which underscores the UBTE’s role in facilitating collaboration between UBTEs, SBTEs, and students. However, the UBTE role includes multiple responsibilities, and little training is typically provided to prepare for them (MacPhail et al., 2019). Consequently, new and inexperienced UBTEs express a need for stronger support systems and more systematic preparation for fulfilling the role (Kalgraf & Lindhardt, 2018; Langørgen & Smith, 2018). At the same time, research on the UBTE role is often based on descriptions provided by SBTEs and students, while the perspectives of UBTEs themselves are less frequently represented (Manton et al., 2021).

Even though research and policy emphasize the need for close collaboration between UBTEs, SBTEs, and students during practical training, studies have identified several challenges within the triad. Nguyen (2009) describes ongoing negotiations of power relations, Klemp and Nilssen (2017) point to unclear roles and communication difficulties, and Valencia et al. (2009) highlight tensions between the members of the triad. At the same time, the UBTE role involves taking on multiple responsibilities in relation to students’ practice, such as coach, gatekeeper, and broker (Dengerink et al., 2015). Together, these findings illustrate the complexity of enacting the UBTE role in school-based training and show that establishing a close triad collaboration is not easily recontextualised in practice.

Bernstein (2000) has developed a theoretical framework for understanding the relationships between agents and discourses in pedagogic practices, and how relations of power and control are in play within these relations. Central to his theory is the concept of the pedagogic device, which explains how the educational system is structured through rules and procedures that regulate educational practice and communication. A key aspect of this theory is the notion of a recontextualising field, which comprises recontextualising agents and functions. In this paper, the role of the UBTE is examined as a recontextualising agent within the triad collaboration. This perspective enables an analysis of how relations of power and control are in play within the triad, and thereby offers insight into what characterizes the role of the UBTE in practice.

As an analytical framework, Bernstein (2000) introduces the concept of classification to analyse power relations and framing to examine relations of control. In this paper, classification is used to describe the power relations within the triad collaboration. Applying classification as an analytical concept enables an investigation of how power relations shape the UBTE role and what produces the insulation between the UBTE and SBTEs and students in the collaboration. To further explain what constitutes the UBTE role, Bernstein’s concept of classification is combined with Lunenberg and colleagues’ (2014) three practice‑related roles: mentor, gatekeeper, and facilitator. Within the analytical framework, the characteristics of strong and weak classification are therefore described in relation to each of these three roles. This paper forms part of a larger study that examines training for inexperienced UBTEs in carrying out their work related to practice. Accordingly, the participants in this study are inexperienced UBTEs. In total, eight interviews with ten inexperienced UBTEs constitute the data material for this paper. The interviews lasted between 33 and 57 minutes and were conducted as semi-structured interviews (Kvale & Brinkmann, 2015). The study follows the research regulations of the Norwegian Agency for Shared Services in Education and Research, as well as the ethical guidelines of the National Research Ethics Committees. The analytical process was conducted in two steps. First, the interview descriptions were sorted according to the three roles—mentor, gatekeeper, and facilitator. During this step, each description was also coded as either a strong classification (+C) or a weak classification (−C). In the second step, a thematic analysis was carried out within each of the three roles (Braun & Clarke, 2006). The six phases of Braun and Clarke’s thematic analysis were followed. This analysis was used to identify the main themes within each role and their corresponding classification values. The themes characterizing the three roles—mentor, gatekeeper, and facilitator—and their classification values are presented in the results section.

In the mentor role, the UBTEs describe a strong classification (+C) in the way the support and reassurance they provide differ from that offered by SBTEs. Similarly, a strong classification (+C) is expressed through their use of different types of questions and a stronger emphasis on academic subject knowledge. A weak classification (−C) is evident in descriptions of how collaboration in practice contributes to the UBTEs’ own professional development and how the triad collaboration often centers on contextual issues related to the school setting. In the gatekeeper role, a strong classification (+C) is expressed through the UBTEs’ responsibility for assessment. At the same time, a weakening of the classification principles (−C) appears because the assessment is carried out in collaboration with SBTEs and involves professional judgement. In the facilitator role, a strong classification (+C) is described in how the UBTEs view themselves as a hub responsible for organizing the collaboration between SBTEs and students. Similarly, a strong classification (+C) is reflected in descriptions of the collaboration as having a predefined and clearly structured form. A weakening of classification (−C) is evident when the collaboration is described as dialogue‑based and characterized by a shared responsibility. These findings highlight the different aspects that create the UBTE role when engaging with the field of practice. Perspectives on what it means to be a professional frame the discussion in this paper, thereby extending the findings to contexts beyond Norway. Accordingly, the paper contributes knowledge about what constitutes the UBTE role, while also providing valuable insight into how UBTEs can frame their professional role and be better prepared for their future work in practice‑related contexts.

Bernstein, B. (2000). Pedagogy, Symbolic Control and Identity. Theory, Research, Critique. Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, Inc. Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 3(2), 77-101. https://doi.org/10.1191/1478088706qp063oa Cochran-Smith, M., Alexandersson, M., Ellis, V., Grudnoff, L., Hammerness, K., Oancea, A. & Toom, A. (2020). Transforming Norwegian Teacher Education: The Final Report of the International Advisory Panel for Primary and Lower Secondary Teacher Education (NOKUTS utredninger og analyse, Report 3/2020). NOKUT. https://www.nokut.no/globalassets/nokut/rapporter/ua/2020/transforming-norwegian-teacher-education-2020.pdf Dengerink, J., Lunenberg, M., & Korthagen, F. (2015). The professional teacher educator: Six roles. Beitrage Zur Lehrerinnen - Und Lehrerbildung, 33(3), 1–11. https://www.researchgate. net/publication/295869073_The_Professional_Teacher_Educator_Six_Roles Kalgraf, S., & Lindhardt, E. (2018). Lærerutdannerens profesjonelle rolle i praksismøtet. Nordic Studies in Education, 38(1), 67–81. https://doi.org/10.18261/issn.1891-5949-2018-01-06 Klemp, T., & Nilssen, V. (2017). Positionings in an immature triad in teacher education. European Journal of Teacher Education, 40(2), 257–270. https://doi.org/10.1080/02619768. 2017.1282456 Kvale, S., & Brinkmann, S. (2015). Det kvalitative forskningsintervjuet [The qualitative research interview] (3rd ed.). Gyldendal Akademiske. Langørgen, K., & Smith, K. (2018). Støtte og utvikling i jobben som ny lærerutdanner i Norge. Uniped, 41(3), 361–377. https://doi.org/10.18261/issn.1893-8981-2018-03-14 Lunenberg, M., Dengerink, J., & Korthagen, F. (2014). The professional teacher educator: roles, behaviour, and professional development of teacher educators. Sense Publishers. https://link.springer.com/book/10.1007/978-94-6209-518-2 MacPhail, A., Ulvik, M., Guberman, A., Czerniawski, G., Oolbekkink-Marchand, H., & Bain, Y. (2019). The professional development of higher education-based teacher educators: Needs and realities. Professional Development in Education, 45(5), 848–861. https://doi.org/10. 1080/19415257.2018.1529610 Manton, C., Heffernan, T., Kostogriz, A. & Seddon, T. (2021). Australian school–university partnerships: the (dis)integrated work of teacher educators, Asia-Pacific Journal of Teacher Education, 49(3), 334-346. https://doi.org/10.1080/1359866X.2020.1780563 Nguyen, H. T. (2009). An inquiry-based practicum model: What knowledge, practices, and relationships typify empowering teaching and learning experiences for student teachers, cooperating teachers and college supervisors? Teaching & Teacher Education, 25(5), 655–662. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2008.10.001 Smith, K. (2016). Partnerships in Teacher Education – Going Beyond the Rhetoric, with Reference to the Norwegian Context. Center for Educational Policy Studies Journal, 6(3), 17-36. https://doi.org/10.26529/cepsj.63 Valencia, S. W., Martin, S. D., Place, N. A., & Grossman, P. (2009). Complex interactions in student teaching. Journal of Teacher Education, 60(3), 304–322. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022487109336543 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 Zeichner, K. (2021). Critical Unresolved and Understudied Issues in Clinical Teacher Education. Peabody Journal of Education, 96(1), 1-7. https://doi.org/10.1080/0161956X.2020.1864241