Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at
https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=tcus20
Journal of Curriculum Studies
ISSN: 0022-0272 (Print) 1366-5839 (Online) Journal homepage: https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/tcus20
A scientific approach in the assessment of the
school-based part of the teacher education
programme in Sweden
Marie Jedemark
To cite this article: Marie Jedemark (2019): A scientific approach in the assessment of the school-based part of the teacher education programme in Sweden, Journal of Curriculum Studies, DOI: 10.1080/00220272.2019.1567820
To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/00220272.2019.1567820
© 2019 The Author(s). Published by Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis Group.
Published online: 24 Jan 2019.
Submit your article to this journal
Article views: 116
A scienti
fic approach in the assessment of the school-based part
of the teacher education programme in Sweden
Marie Jedemark
Department of School Development and Leadership, Malmö University, Malmö, Sweden
ABSTRACT
This article aims to highlight how a scientific and critical approach is used in assessment dialogues during the last period of a practical, school-based teacher education programme. The result is based on 13 assessment dialogues conducted in a course at a Swedish university, where one of the course objectives is to, ‘in a scientific way, analyse teaching situations based on learning theories’. The assessment dialo-gues were analysed drawing from Bernstein’s concepts of ‘classification’, ‘framing’, ‘horizontal knowledge’ and ‘vertical knowledge’. The result shows that only in a minority of the assessment dialogues are students expected to use theory as an analytical tool and to critically examine their teaching practice. The theory is used in a more instrumental way to legitimize what is considered the‘right way’ to teach. One conclusion is that the critical tradition of academia is seldom observed despite being clearly stated in the learning goals. The link between general academic knowledge and more school-based contextual knowledge is often miss-ing or not made visible by the students or the teacher educators, and normative content is still clearly prominent.
KEYWORDS
Educational assessment; preservice teacher education; teacher education curriculum; teacher educator; teacher qualifications
Introduction
The development of an abstract theoretical knowledge base is regarded as a key characteristic of all professions and a necessary component in professional development (Abbott,1988; Evans & Donnelly, 2006; Freidson, 2001; Lawson, Askell-William, Murray-Harvey; 2009). It is argued that teaching is a complex activity and teachers need to theorize about their practice in order to enhance their professionalism (Cochran-Smith,2004). The question of how research-based knowl-edge and skills are expressed and used in the education is therefore important to study more closely. However, the role of research in teacher education differs between countries. For example, in Sweden, Finland and Portugal, the aim is to make teacher education a research-based field (Erixon Arreman, 2005). In Sweden and Finland, all teacher education programmes (preschool, primary school, upper-secondary school) are university-based, while in Denmark, no teacher education programme is fully university-based (Erixon, Frånberg, & Kallós,2001). In other countries, for example, Belgium and the Netherlands, the teacher training programmes are part of higher education and some being provided at institutions of higher professional education and some at universities. Teacher training programmes at institutions of higher professional education have been more loosely connected to research but an introduction to action research and research methods are generally part of the curriculum (Jansen, 2001). In the UK, the aim is to raise the professionalism of teachers based on evidence-based measurement led by the government CONTACTMarie Jedemark marie.jedemark@mau.se Department of School Development and Leadership, Institutionen för skolutveckling och ledarskap, Malmö University, Malmö SE-205 06, Sweden
https://doi.org/10.1080/00220272.2019.1567820
© 2019 The Author(s). Published by Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis Group.
This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives License (http://creative commons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/), which permits non-commercial re-use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited, and is not altered, transformed, or built upon in any way.
(Edwards, 2001), whereas other countries like Austria and Spain have mainly oriented towards research in teacher education to promote democratic values (Erixon Arreman,2005).
Swedish teacher education was formally incorporated into higher education in 1977. The academization of teacher education was intended to develop the professionalism of teachers and contribute to professional practice by ensuring a critical attitude towards both current knowl-edge and practice (Fransson, 2009) and also as a way to counteract normative attitudes (SOU
2008:109). In other words, teacher education aims at educating teachers with a capacity to analyse and develop conceptual approaches to the content and organization of schoolwork and the ability to assess and evaluate knowledge. According to the Higher Education Act (chapter 1, § 8), all academic programmes are designed to develop the students’ ability to make independent and critical assessments, to be prepared to meet changes in working life, and to independently identify, formulate and solve problems. In this perspective, the teacher education programme is expected to equip students with the tools to be able to see conditions and problems from different perspec-tives, discuss and formulate questions for their own practice, and gather experiences and draw conclusions in order to develop their practice (The Regulation for Teacher Education, Higher Education Ordinance, 1993:100). In the 1990s, the aim of teacher education was to make the teacher education both more academic and practical at the same time. Policy intentions after the 2000s took a step further and focused on a synthesis and fusion of the theoretical and the more experience-based components of the training (Fransson,2009; SOU2008:109, p. 187).
However, research-based education requires that the scientific foundation for education is made visible so that students can integrate a scientific and critical approach into their professional skills. Tofind out to what extent the Swedish teacher education programme is considered to be research-based, the Swedish Research Council conducted a survey of course literature on the national level. The results show that research genres are represented in teacher training differently, and teacher educators and students perceive the education to be largely research based because the course literature is based on research (Wahlström & Alvunger,2015). However, it is not enough to simply study literature lists to determine the issue how students meet and use the research included in the programme. Attention must also be given to how the teacher educator presents different theories and design assignments in which students are expected to apply a scientific approach.
This article highlights how the scientific ground is made visible during the school-based period of teacher education. More specifically, the article aims to illuminate how scientific and critical approaches are used in assessment dialogues during the school-based period of teacher education. How does the university teacher, in the role of examiner, determine how students use theoretical models and perspectives to review and analyse their own teaching?
Assessment is a highly significant factor in education. Brew, Riley and Walta (2009) state that assessment drives the curriculum, and in international research, it is well known that assessment has a major impact on student learning. The assessment thus determines what constitutes the course’s actual syllabus (Marton, 1997; Ramsden,2003; Sambell & McDowell,1998). Research on assessment and grading in teacher education has mainly highlighted the university-based part of teacher education (Darling-Hammond & Snyder, 2000), and studies of assessment within the school-based part of the teacher education are rare (Goodwin & Oyler, 2008; Hegender, 2010). The assessment has multiple functions, including giving feedback to the students and the staff who run the courses in addition to granting qualifications to the stakeholders and future employers. Therefore, there are several reasons to draw attention to issues relating to assessment and examination in the field of teacher education, with a focus on the school-based part of the education in particular (Goodwin & Oyler,2008; Kennedy,2010; Raths & Lymna,2003).
The assessment of teacher knowledge
Studies emphasize the importance of a teacher education programme that is conducted as both campus-based training as well as practical, school-based training (Smeby & Heggen, 2014). Most
students perceive their school-based periods as the more important part of the teacher education programme for the development of vocational skills and professional qualifications (Korthagen & Kessels,1999; Kosnik & Beck,2003). Teacher work can be performed in qualitatively different ways (Hattie,2009), and during the education, this quality needs to be visualized and evaluated. There have been many attempts to describe teachers’ professional qualifications (Alexander,2010; Good, Wiley, & Florez,2009). The concepts of‘reflection’ or ‘reflective practice’ are regarded as a quality aspect in teachers’ professional knowledge base (see for example Good et al.,2009; Ottesen,2007; Roberts, 2016). But it is not always evident how the reflection and analytical ability should be related and how the teacher knowledge generated from research is used in practice.
What we know from research is that teacher students have troublefinding the relevance of theoretical knowledge which was learnt on campus in relation to their practical, school-based training and subse-quent professional practice (Gruber, Law, Mandl, & Renkl,1996; Ramsden,2003; Sjölie,2014). Instead, students experience education on campus and education at the practical, school-based training as two distinctly different learning arenas (Hatlevik & Smeby,2015). Research shows that the skills acquired in these different educational settings are not linked and integrated in line with expectations. A previous study where all teaching activities in three courses in a teacher education programme were observed during a semester shows that, in half of all teaching, there was no, or else sporadic, reference or access to literature, research studies or theories (Jedemark,2007). Studies of curricula and learning objects show that the curricula are often vague or formulated in general terms regarding what the student is expected to develop during the practical, school-based training. Supervisors, as well as examiners, often have difficulties making connections between everyday examples and formally formulated criteria (Hegender,
2010; Jedemark,2015). Gustavsson (2008) and Nilsson (2008) show that the results of seminar discussions about students’ experiences from the practical, school-based training often lack references to research or theory and that students have great difficulties transforming theoretical knowledge into pedagogical strategies. The conclusion is that the link between general academic knowledge and more school-based contextual knowledge is missing or not made visible for the students in teacher education.
Studies show that it is rare when a student’s reasoning and motivation for their chosen teaching strategy is based on theoretical concepts, models, and perspectives and then problematized in order to develop the student’s understanding of their own practice (Ottesen,2007). The assess-ments focus mainly on the relational, emotional and caring aspects of teachers’ skills, although the formal learning objects also include other areas (Fernandez & Erbilgin, 2009; Goodwin & Oyler,
2008). Tutorials and examinations during the school-based teacher education are characterized by teaching skills which have been given different priorities. The university teacher’s approach is to find out how the student thinks about his teaching using open questions, whereas the supervisor is primarily focused on evaluating the completed lesson, and to a lesser degree, on the student’s reflection. The supervisors focus on relational and disciplinary issues, while university teachers focus more on didactic-related issues in a subject (Fernandez & Erbilgin, 2009). Edwards and Protheroe (2004) and Ottessen (2007) show that assessment, to a small extent, is characterized by critique, question and challenge perspectives on teachers’ professional skills.
Purpose
The purpose of this article is to highlight how a scientific and critical approach is used in assessment dialogues during the practical, school-based period of teacher education. To distin-guish what is addressed in the assessment dialogues and how research-based knowledge and abilities are expressed, the data have been analysed from three questions:
(1) How are different assessment dialogues implemented—who is speaking and about what and in what ways?
(2) Which theories are used to analyses teaching situations in the assessments’ dialogues? (3) How are a critical and an analytical approach expressed in the assessment dialogues?
Data collection and analysis
The study is based on an analysis of 13 assessment dialogues conducted at the third and final period of the practical, school-based training course in the teacher education programme.1 The school-based training is 5 weeks long (7.5 credit points) and the teacher students receive graded marks. The course module has three learning objectives:
The independent and goal-oriented planning of teaching situations and taking responsibility for all teachers’ duties.
In a scientific way, analyse teaching situations based on learning theories and thereby critically relate to the teacher’s assignment as well as their professional role.
To have developed a professional approach in their profession by applying professional language and professional ethics in the practical, school-based training.
Four examiners were asked if they would like to participate in the study, with one candidate choosing not to participate. The examiners were asked to recordfive assessment dialogues each. One of the examiners recorded only three assessment dialogues. The examiners in turn asked the students if they wanted to participate. The examiner was then equipped with a tape recorder and conducted the recording of the assessment dialogue.
The examiner visited the students once per course and observed a lesson where the student was teaching. Before the practical, school-based training course, the student will have written 2–4 individual goals to achieve during the practical, school-based period as well as a lesson plan. These documents were sent to the examiner in advance. After the lesson, the assessment dialogue followed, where, in addition to the student and examiner, the student’s supervisor was also involved.
After the assessment was conducted, the audiofile was handed over to me for transcription. The recorded assessment dialogues lasted between 23 and 58 min and have been transcribed verbatim. The students’ vocational orientation varied between being teachers of preschool (Maria, Matilda and Emma), primary school (Sara, Jeanette, Victoria) and secondary school (Christian, Hanna, Jakob, Oskar, Pontus, Rebecka and Stefan).
The assessment dialogues were read through several times with the aim of revealing variation in the ways in which the various contents were delimited and noted without a predetermined sorting into categories. As a result of this reading, various types of content could be discerned and thereafter formalized into a set of categories. The different categories were then analysed with respect to the content of the assessment, how this content was treated, and who was active in the dialogue. In the analysis, Bernstein’s concepts of ‘classification’ and ‘framing’ and his distinction between ‘horizontal knowledge’ and ‘vertical knowledge’ are used as analytical tools (Bernstein,2000).
Framing
To distinguish what is addressed in the assessment dialogues and how research-based knowledge and abilities are expressed, the data have been analysed from three questions. Thefirst research question about the implementation of the assessment dialogues—who is speaking, about what, and in what ways?—has been answered with help of Bernstein’s concept framing. ‘Framing’ is a key concept which provides information about who—teacher, supervisor or student—has control of what is discussed and what is seen as valid and relevant to consider. In this study, framings are factors related to who controls the evaluation criteria. A strong framing means a solid and explicit examination on the basis of clear and well-articulated criteria, whereas a weak framing denotes a less hierarchical relationship, where students can influence the content and how the examination is carried out. The ways in which the university teacher as the examiner, the supervisor, and the student carry out an assessment dialogue has significance for what constitutes the character of the assessment dialogues.
Classification and horizontal and vertical knowledge
Bernstein’s concept of ‘classification’ and his distinction between ‘horizontal knowledge’ and ‘vertical knowledge’ (Bernstein,2000) have been used in the analysis to answer the second and third research questions about which theories are used to analyses teaching situations and how a critical and an analytical approach are expressed in the assessment dialogues. Bernstein’s concept of ‘vertical knowledge’ can be described as abstract, conceptual and theoretical. Through its general character, skills can be used in different contexts and to answer questions about how and why something is. Vertical knowledge is a prerequisite for critical thinking and can prepare one for a life with the ability to identify, formulate and solve problems. The concept of‘horizontal knowledge’ is designated as local, segmented and contextua-lized everyday knowledge that gets its meaning in relation to specific uses and practices that answer questions about what it is (Bernstein,2000). These two forms of knowledge can be considered as ideal types, which we can visualize as how different knowledge is distributed. How knowledge is distributed is related to the question about which skills are given legitimacy and seen as valuable and‘right’ for student teachers’ training and how these are distributed and communicated in the education. Vertical knowledge and horizontal knowledge should not be perceived as standing in contrast to each other but rather as complementary to each other. The concepts show the dynamics between the two types of knowledge. Regarding higher education in general and more specifically teacher education, the content and learning activities that support vertical knowledge become important. From this perspective, scientific and critical thinking as part of an academic training is important for student teachers’ professionalism and future ability to critically review, identify and solve problems and thereby contribute to the development of school activities.
Another central concept in Bernstein’s theoretical framework is the concept of ‘classification’. The term is used to study the ways in which different content emerges and are made visible. In this study, the term ‘classification’ is used to visualize how the horizontal knowledge and vertical knowledge is expressed in the assessment dialogue and how boundaries between the two types of knowledge are established and exceeded in the different assessment dialogues. It can be about how the assessment dialogues are organized and completed. Strong classification comes about when, for example, there is a clear distinction between a school subject and pedagogical theory. In contrast, in a weakly classified practice, the school subject and pedagogical theories are held together and related to an integrated idea of the pupils’, as well as the student’s, knowledge development. But in a context, it is not the categories themselves that are interesting but rather the relations between the categories, in particular, the strengths and characteristics of the line that exists between them (Bernstein,2000).
Bernstein’s concepts of horizontal knowledge and vertical knowledge make it possible to analyses how the different knowledge courses of the education are handled in an examination. With the help of Bernstein’s concept of classification, it is possible to show how the boundaries between these different knowledges occur. It can be about how the relationship looks between different content in the assessment dialogues, and it can also be about how the relationship looks between what is required in the syllabus and what is visible in the assessment dialogues. Bernstein’s concept of framing is used in the analysis to show how the university teacher carries out an assessment dialogue, and this is significant for what constitutes the character of the assessment dialogues. How the assessment dialogues are conducted is influenced partly by not only what the examiner is trying to achieve but also what the supervisor and student are trying to achieve. They are also influenced by the participants understanding of what it means to have acquired what is described in the different learning objectives: to plan, to analyse and to critically relate to the teacher’s mission and professional role.
Findings
The assessment dialogues take place after the student has completed a lesson or activity. What is noted in the dialogues provides information about what the examiner regards as relevant for the
assessment of the student’s knowledge and professional approach. In the analysis of the dialogues, attention is paid to the variation in content. From the data, six categories have been identified:
The distribution of content varies between the different assessment dialogues. In the data material, no correlation is found between the students’ professional orientation and content, but there is a relation between examiner and content. In two of the assessment dialogues, only two types of content occur: evaluation and reflection, while in four of the assessment dialogues, no content can be categorized as analysis. The ideological valuation takes place only in the dialogues conducted by Examiner 3, and two of these assessment dialogues only have content that can be categorized as ideological evaluation, but no content that can be termed analysis. Analysis occurs to the greatest extent in the assessment dialogues
Category Content Example Information about the
assessment
The examiner explains the call, what will be discussed, how the dialogue relates to the course plans, and how the assessment will be done.
Examiner: At the university, you have gained your theoretical knowledge and all of this has sparked an idea of what knowledge is— what we call‘claiming knowledge’. You will take this knowledge with you in the school practice. During the school practice, you will have a range of experiences as well as ‘procedural knowledge’, and these two paths will meet. In these assessment dialogues, we look at both knowledge paths.
Reporting The student reports what has been done earlier in the school practice and the how the lesson will be followed up.
Student: I am going to start by talking about the theme I have had in the class these past weeks.
Student: I followed up the lesson by asking some follow-up questions about what they said about genetically modified organisms. Evaluation Assessment of the relation between the
student’s intention and action and how well the completed lesson corresponds to the intention.
Examiner: The big mistake of the discussion was that you were in a hurry. You had many thoughts and as soon as someone said something, you just continued on from what they said instead of going back to yourfirst line of thought. You just ran through. Reflection Reflections, but no requirement to motivate
their position based on theories or scientific studies.
Examiner: How do you influence a student as a person?
Examiner: One of the learning goals is that you should critically consider your own role as a teacher. How do you think of yourself? What do you see as your strengths and
weaknesses? Ideological valuation Problematize actions and traditions and
illustrate by examples how the teaching should be designed. No requirement to motivate criticism or what characterizes good teaching based on theories or scientific studies.
Supervisor: I think that the classroom dialogue was socio-cultural.
Examiner: No. This is called ‘traditional education’.
Supervisor: I thought ‘socio-cultural’ meant interaction.
Examiner: Oh, no, it’s much more than interaction. The teacher must plan based on the pupils’ interest.
Supervisor: Did you accept the goals of ‘traditional education’? Examiner: This is nothing I grade as fail.
Supervisor: No, but would you have accepted goals like‘traditional education’? Analysis Use of theories, models or concepts to compare
or identify the relation between teaching and learning.
Examiner: You write in your planning that you have a socio-cultural perspective with behavioural elements. Tell me how you argue regarding the sociocultural and why you chose to have two starting points.
conducted by Examiner 2. In all these three assessment dialogues, information is also given about the dialogues—what aspects will be noted and how the assessment will be carried out.
Who is active in the dialogues varies depending on what is highlighted in the dialogues But the dialogues can also give us information about the framing; who is controlling the content and what is sees as relevant. In content that can be categorized as information about the assessment, it is preferable for the examiner to inform the student and supervisor about the school practice-based course and the assess-ment dialogue’s role in the education. In sections categorized as report, both students and supervisors are active. The supervisor participates in varying degrees and complements the student’s reporting: Supervisor: Sara has been with me and has had all the topics.
Student: I have been involved with slöjd [handicrafts]. And I’ve had art once. Supervisor: And physical education.
Student: Pronunciation.
Supervisor: Spelling, English vocabulary. So, you have been involved in all the topics as well as working with me here– that’s quite a lot when you also consider parental calls. (Sara) With content categorized as reflection, it is primarily the student who reflects on the school practice and their personal development. The supervisor participates in the conversation by confirming what the student has said and gives further examples of the student’s development.
Supervisor: No, that is the way you start and talk—you look more relaxed and you move more freely. It allows you to make jokes.
Student: We talked about the fact that I have the strategy [where] I am like . . . when I meet new people, I stand at a little distance. I like to seefirst, and then give a bit of myself. Luckily, I have been here 5 weeks now, so I have had enough time to show who I am. (Jeanette)
In terms of content that can be categorized as evaluation and ideological valuation, it is mainly only the examiner who executes the critical evaluation alone, while in the ideological valuation, there are negotiations between supervisors and examiners about what should be considered good and proper teaching. In sections categorized as analysis, both the examiner and the student are active, and the supervisor participates only in exceptional cases. Nevertheless, the supervisors tend to be silent when the dialogue is in regard to theory.
Learning objects and theories in assessment dialogues
One of the course’s learning objectives is to ‘in a scientific way, analyse teaching situations based on learning theories and thereby critically relate to the teacher’s assignment as well as their professional role’. However, in two of the assessment dialogues, no reference is made to theory, theoretical perspectives or concepts whatsoever. In 4 of 13 assessment dialogues, learning theories are mentioned on one or two occasions, which correspond to 5%–8% of the entire speaking time.
In the assessment dialogues, four theories are mentioned: behaviourism, constructivism, cogni-tivism and sociocultural theory. In 9 of 13 dialogues, the student refers to more than one learning theory:
Student: I want to work based on socio-cultural and cognitive learning. By that, I mean that the pupils should be active and involved during the lesson and build on their own thoughts and ideas.
Examiner: If we take today’s exercise [as an example], where are the examples of sociocultural [theory]?
Student: Today’s activity probably does not fall under [the category] of sociocultural because, at least thefirst part, or even the whole lesson pass was quite instructive by me. Examiner: Yes, though it may be anyway.
Student: But when they were out in the small groups, they got help from each other, and in collaboration, arrived at the conclusion.
Examiner: Yes, because you instructed them very clearly that it was the individual whofirst thought about it, then they could help each other. I felt there was a sociocultural [aspect].
Student: Yes, when you say so. During the reading, I perceived that I assumed, maybe not so much what they thought, but that I still had them participate in what story we were going to read and who would have read their story. I nevertheless gave them the choice.
Examiner: You showed interest in their thoughts, and they showed interest back. Then it became a giving and taking—absolutely good—so I did not feel that it was a constructivist or cognitive approach today because you gave feedback on what happened before. And that means picking them up, and they were able to come up with their views and opinions. You were good at giving that question as well. (Sara)
The student names different learning theories as the starting point for teaching, but in the conversation, only the sociocultural theory is noted. In the assessment dialogues, there is no expectation—or require-ment—for the students to use different theoretical perspectives to analyse the teaching practice as such. Instead, the examiner rather than the student shows how a certain type of teaching can be motivated based on the theory. When the student does not apply what the examiner regards as the correct theory, the examiner corrects the student and shows how the student is expected to reason. In this teaching practice, it is not primarily about the student’s ability to analyse teaching in relation to learning theories which is examined, but rather it is the student’s ability to motivate her teaching design based on theories of learning which is key here. Although the students often state that they apply different theory in their planning, the examiner leads the dialogue to make it clear that the student is expected to use one special theory, sociocultural theory, in their teaching planning. In this assessment practice, sociocultural theory becomes key in evaluating the lesson. In addition, the examiner provides feedback by, for example, confirming that ‘I felt that socio-cultural theory was applied here’. According to Bernstein (2000) vertical knowledge answer questions about how and why something is. However, it is not apparent from the dialogue why the sociocultural theory was the most relevant theory. The theory is used rather as an instruction manual than as an analysis tool. The vertical dimension of knowledge thus risks being lost and the dynamics between the vertical and horizontal knowledge are not made visible for the student.
Evaluating approaches
In all assessment dialogues, there are sections that can be categorized as evaluation. It is preferably the examiner who evaluates the completed lesson and to what extent the completed teaching is in line with the student’s planning and expressed intentions:
Examiner: My criticism is primarily on the educational plane, and then I connect to what you write in your own goals that you want to work socio-culturally.
Student: Yes, that’s what I want, but . . . Examiner: And it’s not what you do!/. . ./
Student: No, but it’s all about trying to get . . . I want to get with the students as much as possible, but that’s not possible. It’s difficult when they do not have the background knowledge/. . ./ Supervisor: You [the examiner] suggest that if the pupils communicate . . . but now it was pupil
and teachers communicated. . ..
Examiner: Yes, but it was the teacher who communicated and the pupils who mainly listened. Should we count the words that the teacher said against how many the pupils said? It is not comparable. I do not mean that you should not lecture, but rather I believe that you should not [just] lecture. This, I would say, was a very traditional lesson. That is not bad, but it was a terribly traditional lesson where you spoke and they listened. They tabbed into something here and there. And then it’s this, that, as you say, you are working socio-culturally [laughs]. (Pontus)
The excerpt shows how, in his evaluation, the examiner draws attention to the relationship between the student’s expressed intentions and the various learning activities that the student uses in his teaching. Vertical knowledge is a prerequisite for critical thinking (Bernstein,2000). But the evaluation approach provides little or no room for the student to motivate the chosen strategy and link horizontal and vertical knowledge according to Bernstein’s distinction between different knowledge discourses.
Reflective approaches
In the analysis of the assessment dialogues, reflection appears to be a central learning object. Also, in all assessment dialogues, students are invited to reflect, and this reflection occupies a great part of the assessment dialogue (seeFigure 1). However, the course learning objectives do not mention the ability to reflect but rather the ability to plan, take responsibility, analyse and critically review. In all assessment dialogues, the student’s own formulated goals for the school practice are noted. In the assessment dialogue, the student is invited to reflect on his/her own development in relation to their goals:
Examiner: I was wondering earlier about your idea of teaching and how it has changed in the meantime. You have written a little about your own goals. You have written as follows: ‘During my previous school practice periods, I have primarily taught based on beha-viourism and cognitivism.’
Student: I think that seems to have changed. Examiner: In what way?
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70
Information about the assessment dialogue Reporting Evaluation Reflection Ideological valuation Analysis Examiner 1 Examiner 3 Examine 2
Student: Because I have better subject knowledge now, I can also respond to the pupils’ questions in a better way.
Examiner: Well, how do you mean?
Student: But then it is easier to let them in. When I am a behaviourist, then I am often a bit unsure of myself. Now I let the pupils participate in discussions and feel I can answer the questions.
Examiner: But then, something else is required of you as a teacher? Student: I need to know the subject so well. Otherwise, it will not work.
Examiner: It was interesting that you discovered that, because I felt today during just this last part of the lesson [that] you are so open, and [you] welcomed the pupils and their questions. And there’s one thing that’s needed for a leader who is now more socio-cultural needs to do, besides having good subject knowledge—because I agree that it is important—and what is it?
Student: Yes, it is to let pupils in. Examiner: Yes, but how?
Student: Yes, in discussion and in every way.
Examiner: I feel you are learning how to phrase those developing follow-up questions.
Student: Often, you can reformulate the question. Often, when I am in a classroom, it becomes just a‘yes’ or ‘no’, and then the pupils just sit there, and I think, ‘Shit, now we did not get any development’.
Examiner: And I take that as a sign that you are moving towards a more sociocultural way of thinking. (Christian)
This assessment dialogue is an example of an assessment practice where the students are to use their own words as they reflect on their development. The examiner assists the student and shows how the student has moved from a behaviouristic to a sociocultural approach. However, a great deal of help from the examiner is required for the student to make the desired reflections and draw the evaluable conclusions. Finally, the examiner, not the student, draws the conclusion and mentions the student’s development as‘sociocultural thinking’. This assessment dialogue is an example of a weak framed assessment practice where reflection occupies a relatively large part of the assessment dialogue, although the ability to reflect is not mentioned in the learning objects. But the assessment dialogue is also an example of a strong-framed practice. The examiner controls the conclusions and assures that the correct conclusions are drawn. How knowledge is distributed is related to the question which skills are given legitimacy and seen as valuable and‘right’ (Bernstein,2000).
Ideological approaches
In content that can be categorized as ideological valuation, the focus is not only on the relationship between planning and completed teaching, but also on the examiner’s arguments based on the student’s planning. However, the question does not seem to be primarily about any shortcomings regarding the student’s ability to implement her planning; rather, it is of what should be regarded as ideal and correct teaching.
Student: The class does not like to discuss. It is more like the kind of class that wants lectures. They want me to lead. Therefore, this was good practice for them. In the future, they will go to workplaces where nobody is lecturing, but they have to discuss things in a group./. . ./I thought I would have a more socio-cultural perspective when I had the group discussion, and then I thought that this little summary at the end would be more behaviouristic. Now, I think, it was almost completely behaviouristic.
Examiner: But do you know what I think you are doing and where you think wrong? And like most of us, you’re still so full of behaviourism and can’t think without behaviourism. Student: But I feel so too.
Examiner: Because we always think we know the answer. When you said it is not certain that the book is correct, you were a little bit in it/. . ./but if we decide that we are right, then you think as a behaviourist. But if you [want to] think in a sociocultural way, then you have to think about another way.
Student: Yes, I know. I’ve been to school myself and been in that classroom and then at university—there is also behaviourism [there]. With lectures, and then it is the semi-nars. They are socio-cultural. They should try to be this because the student is the one who decides during the seminar, and I am as a student responsible for making sure that I create knowledge there, together with others
Examiner: But it is not wrong to lecture. Even a sociocultural teacher can lecture. And I think we try to avoid thinking in a behaviouristic way.
Student: Yes.
Examiner: But then, if we succeed, that I cannot answer./. . ./As long as we have the grade system left, we have to work in a behaviouristic way. There is not an educational theorist who says that grades are good. Everyone says it’s worthless, yet we have grades. It’s only because we can sort the kids into a society that says we have to sort. (Hanna) What is highlighted in the assessment dialogues and how this is communicated with the student is related to the question about which skills are seen as valuable and given legitimacy. In this assessment dialogue, it is what pupils do, or should do, which is the focus of the assessment dialogue. The lesson is discussed in relation to how the teaching is carried out but with few links, if any, to the lesson objective and learning objectives. Teachers’ professional skills are therefore about conducting an education that enables pupils’ activity thus creating opportunities for parti-cipation and conditions for learning. The teaching ideas as reflected in this assessment dialogue primarily involve the acquired knowledge of pupils through their own discovery, not by being taught. Therefore, education is organized in such a way that conditions are created so that pupils themselves can process information through discussions. By focusing only on certain types of learning activities without relating them to a teaching content, a highly classified assessment practice is formed that visualizes some parts of the teaching design. In assessment practices characterized by ideological approaches, there is a risk that content related to vertical knowledge is not sufficiently recognized. The student develops more normative approaches but not be given sufficient opportunities to develop a critical approach.
Analytical approaches
In the few assessment dialogues that contain content that can be categorized as analysing, it is usually about the relationship between the teaching content and the pupils’ knowledge develop-ment. However, it is not the relationship between the planning and its implementation which is given attention in the assessment dialogues, but rather the teaching itself. What is reviewed is whether the planning and the completed teaching gave the pupils sufficient prerequisites for achieving the goals. The following example is taken from a mathematics lesson about geometry in grade three. In the assessment dialogue, the student is given the opportunity to analyse the learning objective and the way in which the education created sufficient conditions for the pupils to achieve the learning objective:
Examiner: You write in your planning that the pupils can describe different concepts and use different words such as ‘page’, ‘corner’, ‘edge’, ‘pyramid’ and ‘cube’./. . ./the strategy you have chosen, to cut and paste, how does it harmonize with the learning objectives you have formulated?
Student: I wanted the children to make it more practical. I have seen that many of the children learn better when they cut and paste. They can see it in front of them. Therefore, I choose to do this. It works better for many of the children.
Examiner: Did you have any more thoughts with your planning?
Student: No, I wanted it more practical. Moreover, that we would have more of a two-way communication. I am not saying how to build a pyramid, but rather, to try doing it themselves.
Examiner: When you look back, and on the basis of that, do you think it is important to think concretely and that the pupils do something themselves? Would you like to reformu-late the learning goal? What did the pupils learn today in relation to the chosen strategy? [Pause] Is it primary in their conceptual development? They cut and paste in ... I take the time for us to reason about it . . . for 28 minutes. Almost half an hour. Is there any other ability that they develop?
Student: Fantasy. They had to build the rhomb. The other group got to see what a pyramid looks like. They developed that kind of knowledge.
Examiner: In many schools, they have boxes with triangles, rectangles and squares in different dimensions. This could also illustrate different geometric shapes and resonate about what differentiates the different shapes from each different form. If that was what you were looking for, the conceptual concept itself—being able to see differences. . .? Student: Here, the children make their own shapes, and they can sit and compare with each
other./. . ./
Examiner: But I am curious about how you reflect on your strategy in relation to your intended learning object. (Victoria)
In this category of assessment dialogue, the content of the teaching, the method of implementation and the pupil’s knowledge development are in focus. This assessment practice is an example of how horizontal and vertical knowledges create a dynamic that can promote the student’s analytical and critical ability (Bernstein,2000). It requires students to use models and theories, not just label different teaching methods in theoretical terms. Pupils’ learning is central to the assessment dialogue and is emphasized by the way the relationship between teaching method and the pupils’ learning is noted in the assessment conversation. The assessment dialogue characterize as a weak classified practice where different categories are held together and related to both the teaching content and the pupils’ knowledge development. The focus on the ability to analyse corresponds to the learning goals and creates a strong-framed assessment practice where the assessment criteria is made transparent and communicated in the beginning of the assessment dialogue.
Learning theory as an instruction manual for the correct way to teach
The concept of‘classification’ (Bernstein,2000) focuses on the ways in which different categories emerge and are made visible. All examiners pay attention to the relationship between the student’s planning and the implementation of his/her teaching. But one of the examiners (Examiner 3) makes a clear distinction between the subject and subject didactics on the one side and pedagogy on the other.
Examiner: That’s not what we’re talking about, but as a historian, I react because I think it’s a waste of time to watch a whole movie.
Student: Oh, yeah. . .?
Examiner: But that’s like history teachers. But that’s not what we’re going to do now. I’m a history teacher.
Student: A-ha, okay.
Examiner: I can accept watching a movie forfifteen minutes. Student: You do not show the whole movie . . .?
Examiner: I would never do that/. . ./. This is valuable lesson time, and instead, you see this American useless rubbish, and it’s so terribly angled and there’s actually no reality in this other than many die and the bloodflows. (Jacob)
According to Bernstein, in a context, it is not the categories themselves that are interesting but rather the relations, the strengths and characteristics that exists between the categories. The examiner clarifies which parts of the teaching will be assessed and which will not. By the way the examiner categorizes, the learning object and teaching methods are separated, and the relationship between the two categories are not noted in the assessment dialogue. The teaching method constitutes the actual teaching objective, while the assessment is not focused on the skills and abilities that the pupils will develop based on the teaching. This can help us understand why, in a strong classified assessment practice, learning theories are used as an instruction, a manual for‘correct teaching’ rather than as analysis tools to critically review the relationship between the intended learning outcomes and how the teaching is conducted. A strong classification between pedagogy and subject didactics makes it difficult to create assessment dialogues that move between the horizontal knowledge and vertical knowledge as stipulated in the syllabus.
Strong classified assessment dialogues are characterized by a strong communicative framing. The roles are clear: it is the examiner who asks questions and corrects the student when the answers are not considered satisfactory. But there is no explicit requirement for the student to motivate his or her choices based on theoretical perspectives or to argue for his choice of teaching design. Therefore, the dialogues are conducted mainly within the horizontal knowledge. How the examiner frames the assessment dialogues gives the student only limited opportunities to demon-strate the abilities mentioned in the syllabus, such as analytical ability and critical review of the lesson, which are abilities that can be related to vertical knowledge. According to Bernstein (2000), vertical knowledge is more general and conceptual and answers questions about how and why something is. Therefore, vertical knowledge is a prerequisite for critical thinking and is required for the evaluation of teaching and other school activities and thus seen as a necessary teacher competence (Creemers & Kyriakides,2012; Good et al.,2009).
In the discussion of what it means to be a professional teacher, a number of aspects are emphasized today, such as the research-based knowledge base (Lawson et al., 2009), which is expected to give teachers the legitimacy of controlling their own practice and ensuring its quality. It is worth noting that the‘how’ dimension occurs in all categories in combination with a ‘what’ dimension. Only in one of the categories (analysis) are the‘how’ and ‘why’ dimensions combined. This suggests that the vertical knowledge is clearly represented in only one of the categories. Given that this category is unequally represented between the different assessment dialogues (seeFigure 1), different conditions are created for the students to demonstrate that they have developed the expected knowledge and abilities.
In the assessment dialogues of Examiner 1 and Examiner 3, the relationship between what is noted in the dialogues and what is stated in the syllabus is weak. The students are not assessed on the basis of clear and well-articulated criteria but rather the student’s self-formulated goals, which in practice, mean that it becomes the assessment criteria by which the student’s teaching is assessed, not the learning objectives of the syllabus. The assessment practice can therefore be said to be weakly framed.
Learning theories as an intellectual tool
The assessment dialogues of Examiner 2 focus on the relationship between teaching and the pupils’ learning. The conversation style of the assessment dialogues is characterized by open questions:
Student: I applied a behaviouristic approach in the first lesson. What I mean is that I was presenting it. It’s really just the element that is behaviourism when I inform about the guidelines for the work. I want to create a common picture [and make sure] that everyone knows the guidelines for the essay.
If we say to not use a behaviouristic approach, how would you introduce the structure of the essay? (Oscar)
The conversation style of the assessment dialogues is also characterized by the highlighting of several perspectives:
Examiner: How do you think [turns to the supervisor] that the discussion about learning theories has been reflected in other contexts? What reflection and what awareness is there about theory? (Stefan)
The amount of time spent speaking is relatively evenly distributed between examiner and student, while the supervisor’s speaking time is more limited. Therefore, the assessment dialogues can be said to be weakly framed in terms of communication. The examiner often refers to the syllabus and its learning objectives. The assessment dialogues can therefore be said to be strongly framed according to the assessment. In the assessment dialogues, the student is given the opportunity, with help from the examiner, to analyse the relation between the intended learning goals and how the teaching method has created the conditions for pupils to achieve the intended learning goals. Here, a link can be found between horizontal knowledge and vertical knowledge, where the learning object is related to the teaching object. When the examiner in the assessment dialogue relates to the leaning content (the subject) and the learning activities (pedagogy), and creates a link between the pedagogy and the subject didactic, the assessment dialogues can be seen as weakly classified.
Concluding reflections
When researchers describe teachers’ professional knowledge, these descriptions often contain knowledge with a scientific basis (Cochran-Smith & Lytles, 1999; Darling-Hammond; 2008; Lawson et al.,2009). This study shows how a scientific and critical approach is used and examined during the school-based part of teacher education in the final semester. Although the learning objectives in the syllabus require both analysis and critical review, only in a minority of assessment dialogues are students expected to use different theories to analyse and motivate their chosen teaching design. In the majority of the assessment dialogues, one theory—the sociocultural theory —dominates, and it appears to be the only reference point. However, this study does not aim to investigate how theories are defined and understood. Rather, the study shows how the theories are used. The study also aims tofind explanations as to why theories are used in these different ways in the studied assessment dialogues. The results show that the students are expected to show how theory is applied in practice rather than use theories to analyse the teaching practice as such. The sociocultural theory risks being used more like an ideological tool than as an analytical tool to review and develop the curriculum in the local school activity.
These assessment practices differ from the university’s critical tradition and transfer between different educational contexts, the campus-based part and the school-based part of the teacher education, thus becoming more limited—if they take place at all. This is in line with Gustavsson’s (2008), Nilsson’s (2008), Hegender’s (2010), and Hatlevik and Smeby’s (2015) results about how, in the practical, school-based training, the students’ experiences often lack any reference to research or theory. Thus, the link between general academic knowledge and more school-based contextual knowledge is missing or not made visible by the students or the examiner. The dynamics that exist between horizontal knowledge and vertical knowledge risk being lost, along with the possibility to deepen teachers’ professional skills.
The research base of the Swedish teacher education was studied on the basis of several aspects and was conducted based on interviews and questionnaires for teacher educators and students, in addition to (e.g. Gustavsson, 2008; Jedemark, 2007;15; Wahlström & Alvunge 2015) teaching observations (e.g. Gustavsson,2008; Hegender,2010; Jedemark,2007) and reviewing both learning
objectives (Hegender, 2007) and literature lists (e.g. Wahlström & Alvunger, 2015). However, research on student teachers’ knowledge in a summative assessment perspective is rare (Goodwin & Oyler,2008; Hegender,2010; Raths & Lyman,2003). Because assessment has multiple functions (Goodwin & Oyler,2008), and has a major impact of student learning (Brew et al.,2009; Marton,1997; Ramsden,2003; Sambell & McDowell,1998) this indicates the need for more studies of assessment and examinations in teacher education, with a focus on the school-based part of teacher education, whereby this study contributes to the body of knowledge.
The assessment dialogues are realized in the form of different practices where different acts and tools are employed to choose, formulate and develop different assessment. The assessment that is chosen and how this content is shaped in the assessment dialogues are to be understood from how the university teachers conceptualize their task of assessing future teachers. The university teacher has a central significance for what knowledge and values are made possible for the student to learn during their practical, school-based studies. The study shows that how the university teacher designs the assessment dialogue is crucial for what is visible and in what ways and to what extent the teacher’s student is given the opportunity to demonstrate the ability to analyse and critically review his own teaching practice. The academization of teacher education raised great hopes and was intended to develop the profession and also counteract normative attitudes (Fransson, 2009; SOU2008:109). This study shows that although teacher education has been an academic education for 40 years, the reproductive elements still appear clearly today. If a profes-sional approach means that reflection and evaluation is based on theoretical reasoning, then the normative use of theory becomes problematic. This presupposes that teachers have access to the intellectual tools to develop their thinking about school activities as well as good preparedness to act in relation to pupils’ changing prerequisites.
Note
1. The study was conducted at the teacher education programme’s final practical, school-based training course included as one of the six modules in a course of 30 credits, of which the practical, school-based training comprises 7.5 credit points.
Disclosure statement
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author.
Notes on contributor
Marie Jedemark, PhD in education and senior lecturer in the Department of School Development and Leadership, Malmö University, SE-205 06 Malmö, Sweden. marie.jedemark@mau.se. Her interests centre on higher education, curricula and the professions of higher education.
ORCID
Marie Jedemark http://orcid.org/0000-0002-3371-8559
References
Abbott, A. (1988). The system of professions: An essay on the division of expert labor. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
Alexander, R. (Ed.). (2010). Children, their world, their education. Final report and recommendations of the Cambridge Primary Review. Abingdon, Oxon: Routledge.
Bernstein, B. (2000). Pedagogy, symbolic control and identity: Theory, research, critique. Lanham, Md.: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers.
Brew, C., Riley, P., & Walta, C. (2009). Education students and their teachers: Comparing views on participative assessment practice. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 34(6), 641–657.
Cochran-Smith, M. (2004). Ask a different question, get a different answer. The research base for teacher education. Journal of Teacher Education, 55(2), 111–115.
Cochran-Smith, M, & Lytle, S. L. (1999). Relationships of knowledge and practice: teacher learning in communities. Review Of Research in Education, 24, 249-305.
Creemers, B. P. M., & Kyriakides, L. (2012). Improving quality in education: Dynamic approaches to school improvement. Abingdon, Oxon: Routledge.
Darling-Hammond, L. (2008). Knowledge for teaching: What do we know? In M. Cochran-Smith, S. Feiman-Nemser, D. John McIntyre, & K. E. Demers (Eds.). Handbook of research on teacher education. Enduring questions in changing contexts. Tredje upplagan. (pp. 1316–1323). New York: Routledge, Taylor & Francis Group and The Association of Teacher Educators.
Darling-Hammond, L., & Snyder, J. (2000). Authentic assessment of teaching in context. Teaching and Teacher Education, 16(5–6), 523–545.
Edwards, A. (2001). The role of research and scientifically - based knowledge in teacher education. In P.O. Erixon, G.M. Frånberg & D. Kallós ( Eds.), The role of graduate and postgraduate studies and research in teacher education reform policies in the European Union. (pp. 19-32). Ume: Umeå University.
Edwards, A., & Protheroe, L. (2004). Teaching by proxy: Understanding how mentors are positioned in partnerships. Oxford Review of Education, 30(2), 183–197.
Erixon Arreman, I. (2005). Research as power and knowledge: Struggles over research in teacher education. Journal of Education for Teaching, 31(3), 215–235.
Erixon, P.O, Frånberg, G.M, & Kallós, D. (2001). Postgraduate studies and research in teacher education within the european union. . In P.O. Erixon, G.M. Frånberg & D. Kallós (Eds.), The role of graduate and postgraduate studies and research in teacher education reform policies in the Euopean Union (pp 47-60). . Umeå universitet.
Evans, R. J., & Donnelly, G. W. (2006). A model to describe the relationship between knowledge, skill, and judgment in nursing practice. Nursing Forum, 41(4), 150–157.
Fernandez, M. L., & Erbilgin, E. (2009). Examining the supervision of mathematics student teachers through analysis of conference communications. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 72(1), 93–110.
Fransson, O. (2009). Epistemisk förskjutning och autonomi [Epistemic displacement and autonomy; in Swedish]. In I. I. O. Fransson & K. Jonnergård (Eds.), Kunskapsbehov och nya kompetenser: Professioner i förhandling [Trans. Knowledge needs and new skills: Professions in negotiation] (pp. 21-44). Stockholm: Santérus Förlag.
Freidson, E. (2001). Professionalism. The third logic. Cambridge: Polity Press.
Good, T. L., Wiley, C., & Florez, I. R. (2009). Effective teaching: An emerging synthesis. In L.-J. Saha & A. G. Dworkin (Eds.), International handbook of research on teachers and teaching (pp. 2). New York: Springer.
Goodwin, A. L., & Oyler, C. (2008). Teacher educators as gatekeepers. Deciding who is ready to teach. In I. M. Cochran-Smith, S. Feiman-Nemser, D. J. McIntyre, & K. E. Demers, (Eds.). Handbook of research on teacher education: Enduring questions in changing contexts. New York, NY: Routledge.
Gruber, H., Law, L., Mandl, H., & Renkl, A. (1996). Situated learning and transfer. In P. Reimann & H. Spada (Eds.), Learning in humans and machines: Towards an interdisciplinary learning science (pp.168-188). Oxford: Pergamon. Gustavsson, S. (2008). Motstånd och mening. Innebörd i blivande lärares seminariesamtal [Trans. Resistance and
meaning in student teachers’ seminar discussion] Doktorsavhandling. Acta Universitatis Gothoburgensis. Göteborg Studies in Educational Sciences, 266. Göteborgs universitet.
Hatlevik, I., & Smeby, J. C. (2015). Programme coherence and epistemological beliefs. Journal of Nordic Psychology, 67 (2), 136–153.
Hattie, J. (2009). Visible learning. A synthesis of over 800-meta-analyses relating to achievement. London: Routledge. Hegender, H. (2007). Lärarutbildningars kunskapsmål för verksamhetsförlagd utbildning. Ett mischmasch av teori och
praktik. [Trans.Learning objectives of school-based teacher education. A mishmash of theory and practice]. Pedagogisk forskning i Sverige, 12(3), 194–207.
Hegender, H. (2010). The assessment of student teachers´academic and professional knowledge in school-based teacher education. Scandinavian Journal of Educational Research, 54(2), 151–171.
Higher Education Ordinance1993:100
Jansen, F. (2001). Teacher training and research in the Netherlands. In P.O. Erixon, G.M. Frånberg & D. Kallós (Eds.), The role of graduate and postgraduate studies and research in teacher education. Reform policies in the European Union (pp. 47–56). Umeå, Umeå University.
Jedemark, M. (2007). Lärarutbildningens varierade undervisningspraktiker. En studie av lärarutbildares olika sätt att praktisera sitt professionella uppdrag. [Trans. Various teaching practices in teacher education: A study of teacher educators’ different ways of understanding their professional tasks] (Doctoral dissertation). Retrieved fromhttp:// lup.lub.lu.se/record/25247
Jedemark, M. (2015). Studenter i gränszonen mellan högskoleförlagd och arbetsförlagd utbildning. Är kunskapstrans-ferering möjlig? [Trans. Students in the border zone between university education and workplace training: Is knowledge transfer possible?]. Pedagogisk forskning i Sverige, 20(3–4), 221–246.
Kennedy, M. (Ed.). (2010). Teacher assessment and the quest for teacher quality. A handbook. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Korthagen, F. A. J., & Kessels, J. P. A. M. (1999). Linking theory and practice: Changing the pedagogy of teacher education. Educational Researcher, 28(4), 4–17.
Kosnik, C., & Beck, C. (2003). The internship component of a teacher education program: Opportunities for learning. The Teacher Educator, 39(1), 18–34.
Lawson, M., Askell_Williams, H., & Murray-Harvey, R. (2009). Dimensions of quality int teacher knowledge. In I. :. L. J. Saha & A. G. Dworkin (Eds.), International handbook of research on teachers and teaching (pp. 1). New York: Springer. Marton, F. (Ed.). (1997). The experience of learning: Implications for teaching and studying in higher education (2nd ed.).
Edinburgh: Scottish Academic Press.
Nilsson, P. (2008). Learning to teach and teaching to learn: Primary science student teachers’ complex journey from learners to teachers (Doctoral dissertation). Retrieved fromhttps://doaj.org/article/84c7158f93224193a48b3bf53e31634b
Ottesen, E. (2007). Reflection in teacher education. Reflective Practice, 8(1), 31–46. Ramsden, P. (2003). Learning to teach in higher education (2nd ed.). London: Routledge.
Raths, J., & Lyman, F. (2003). Summative evaluation of student teachers: An enduring problem. Journal of Teacher Education, 54(3), 206–216.
Roberts, P. (2016). Reflection: A renewed and practical focus for an existing problem in teacher education. Australian Journal of Teacher Education, 41(7), 19–35.
Sambell, K., & McDowell, L. (1998). The construction of the hidden curriculum: Messages and meanings in the assessment of student learning. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 23(4), 391–402.
Sjølie, E. (2014). The role of theory in teacher education: Reconsidered from a student teacher perspective. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 46(6), 729–750.
Smeby, J. C., & Heggen, K. (2014). Coherence and the development of professional knowledge and skills. Journal of Education and Work, 27(1), 71–91.
SOU 2008:109 En hållbar lärarutbildning: Betänkande av Utredningen om en ny lärarutbildning [Trans. A sustainable teacher education: Report of the Investigation on a new teacher education] (HUT 07). Stockholm: Utbildningsdepartementet.
Wahlström, N., & Alvunger, D. (2015). Forskningsbasering av lärarutbildningen: Lärarutbildningen [Research based on teacher education; in Swedish]. Delrapport från SKOLFORSK-projektet. Vetenskapsrådet.
