Faced with a complex profession in a changing society it is impossible to fully prepare student teachers for the range of challenges they might encounter throughout their careers. Teacher education should therefore enable future teachers to develop their own work and build a basis for further professional development. Action research (AR) can be regarded as one way to professionalise teaching by using research methods to investigate the actual teaching (Ulvik & Smith, 2010). The objective of this paper is to deepen the understanding of this approach through exploring how student teachers describe an AR process which was part of their initial teacher education. The study was conducted within an integrated teacher education program for teachers in secondary school at a university in Norway. The main question was: How do student teachers describe the process and outcome of action research and how can their descriptions be interpreted in the light of professional development? 

The concept AR is here understood as interplay between research on own practice and actual practice, a process that might impact both the practice and the theoretical understanding of it. AR is a systematic investigation into own behavior (McNiff, 2002; Hopkins, 2008). Through AR the student teachers were supposed to purposely search for new answers and develop knowledge. This can be characterized as an advanced stage in professional development (Eraut, 1994). The aim of the approach was to improve teaching and learning.

Literature describes AR as a complex, challenging and time consuming process that needs guidance (Ponte et al., 2004).  Consequently it could be difficult to complete AR during initial teacher education with limited practicum experience. However, teacher education also opens possibilities for doing AR. 1) It could offer a unique opportunity for mentoring and cooperation. 2) When introduced to AR during their education, teachers are more likely to utilize the tool later in their careers (Ponte et al., 2004).  3) AR has furthermore the potential to bridge the gap between theory and practice and to nurture professional development (Clarke, P.A.J. & Fournillier, J.B., 2012; Smith & Sela, 2005). 4) In an AR project students have to address concrete and unique challenges, which are what teaching is about (Biesta, 2007).  5) Additionally student teachers got opportunities to express their reflection and understanding in discussions with school and university based mentors and fellow students, as well as in written reports. Summarised: Teacher educators have numerous valid reasons for promoting AR in teacher education. In the current study, however, we investigate the approach from the students’ point of view. The following sub questions were asked:

• How do the students describe the AR- process?
• What do they state to have learned and what do they see as consequences of their learning.
• How do they use theory to support and discuss their action(s)?
• How do they validate their results?

Hopefully the study will add to the research about AR in teacher education by focusing on the student teachers perspective, and AR in the practicum in initial teacher education.

Biesta, G. (2007). Why “what works” won’t work: Evidence-based practice and the democratic deficit in educational research. Educational Theory, 57(1), 1-22. Clarke, P.A.J. & Fournillier, J.B. (2012). Action research, pedagogy, and activity theory: Tools facilitating two instructors’ interpretations of the professional development of four preservice teachers. Teaching and Teacher Education, 28, 649-660. Creswell, J.W. 2012. Educational research. Planning, conducting, and evaluating quantitative and qualitative research. Boston: M.A. Pearson. Eraut, M. (1994). Informal Learning in the Workplace. Studies in Continuing Education, 26(2), 247-273. Hopkins, D. (2008). A teacher’s guide to classroom research. Open University press. McNiff, J. (2002) Action research for professional development, downloaded 23.01.13 http://www.jeanmcniff.com/booklet1.html Ponte, P., Beijard, D & Ax J. (2004). Don’t wait till the cows come home: action research and initial teacher education in three different countries. Teachers and Teaching: Theory and Practice, 10(6), 591 - 621. Smith, K. & Sela, O. (2005). Action Research as a bridge between pre-service teacher education and in-service professional development. The European Journal of Teacher Education, 28 (3), 293-311. Smith. K. & Ulvik, M. (2010). Ulike verktøy for profesjonell utvikling [Different tools in professional development]. I K. Smith og M. Ulvik (red.), Veiledning av nye lærere. Nasjonale og internasjonale perspektiver [Mentoring novice teachers- national and international perspectives]. Oslo: Universitetsforlaget: 81-101.