ASIA-PACIFIC JOURNAL OF TEACHER EDUCATION, 2016

VOL. 44, NO. 5, 470–485

http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/1359866X.2015.1136406

Fostering theory–practice reflection in teaching practicums

Katariina Stenberga, Antti Rajalab and Jaakko Hilppoc
a
Viikki Teacher Training School, University of Helsinki, Helsinki, Finland; bDepartment of Teacher Education,
University of Helsinki, Helsinki, Finland; cSchool of Education and Social Policy, Northwestern University,
Evanston, IL, USA

ABSTRACT ARTICLE HISTORY

This article presents a design for supporting theory–practice Received 17 November 2014
reflection in teacher practicums. This design is based on three Accepted 17 September 2015
design principles that promote a transformative stance towards KEYWORDS
the creation of novel pedagogical approaches: mutual transforma- Theory–practice; teacher
tion of theory and practice, co-design among supervising teachers, education; reflection;
university lecturers and student teachers, and participating in the practicum
long-term development of pedagogical practices. To evaluate the
design, we analyse and compare student teachers’ portfolios
across two implementations of the teacher practicum: a thematic
practicum based on the proposed design and the conventional
class teacher practicum of the University of Helsinki. The results
show that the student teachers who participated in the thematic
practicum used theory more frequently in their reflections.
Moreover, their theory–practice connections were more robust
than those made by student teachers who participated in the
conventional practicum. On the basis of our results, we make
suggestions regarding how to promote theory–practice reflection
in teacher education.

Introduction
The theory–practice dilemma in teacher education is old. In fact, Dewey pointed to the
gap between theory and practice about a century ago (Korthagen, 2010). A conse-
quence of this gap is that educational studies during teacher education are seldom
transferred to the instructional practices of in-service teachers (Eraut, 2004). Separating
practice from theory produces a false dichotomy since teaching is a profession in which
theory is embedded in and inseparable from practice (Allen, 2011). Further, incorporat-
ing educational theory into instructional practice is not a simple process of adding up
elements. It is a dialectical process that transforms both theory and practice (Orland-
Barak & Yinon, 2007; Smagorinsky, Cook, & Johnson, 2003). Accordingly, strong social
support is needed for teachers to fully incorporate theory into the context of their work
in schools (Edwards, 2014). If student teachers are left alone to link theoretical elements
to practice, there is a risk that syntheses will be made on the basis of immediate
demands that student teachers experience in practice (Standal, Moen, & Moe, 2014).

CONTACT Katariina Stenberg Katariina.stenberg@helsinki.fi

© 2016 Australian Teacher Education Association
 ASIA-PACIFIC JOURNAL OF TEACHER EDUCATION 471

Practicum studies during teacher education are considered as particularly important

in enhancing theory–practice reflection. Researchers often value practicums as oppor-
tunities for implementing theoretical elements and in addition, place a premium on
school–university collaboration (cf. Allen, 2011). Yet, although various kinds of support-
ing tools and structures have been proposed and studied (e.g., Cáceres, Chamoso, &
Azcárate, 2010; Gelfuso & Dennis, 2014), further research is needed on how teaching
practicums could be restructured to support theory–practice reflection via collaborative
transformation of educational theories into novel pedagogical approaches. To explore
the creation of such a supportive structure, in this study, we present a designed
thematic practicum, and investigate its potential to foster theory–practice reflection. In
particular, we analyse and compare practicum portfolios made by student teachers who
participated in either the thematic practicum or the conventional practicum in class
teacher education at the University of Helsinki.

The theory–practice dilemma in teacher education

The gap between theory and practice in teacher education is widely discussed
(Korthagen & Kessels, 1999; Shulman, 1998). Student teachers often appear to take
courses and study contents that have little connection with practice (Barone, Berliner,
Blanchard, Casanova, & McGowan, 1996). In addition, student teachers may enter
teacher education with a practical orientation that easily leads to expectations of
practical methods and activities instead of theoretical conceptualisations of teaching–
studying–learning processes (Orland-Barak & Yinon, 2007). Thus, teacher education only
partially influences the future practice of student teachers; early-career teachers largely
conform to the existing practices of their school instead of adopting a theory-informed,
critical approach to learning and teaching (Korthagen, 2010).
Various other causes of the theory–practice gap have also been presented.
Educational theories seldom provide a holistic view of the teaching profession
(Korthagen, 2010). Rather, as different educational theories are used to conceptualise
the teaching profession from specific standpoints, the complexity of the teacher’s work
is unrealistically diminished. This produces a narrower picture of the profession, one that
easily alienates early-career teachers from theory and leads them to concentrate only on
the practical aspects of their work. As a result, teachers often work within circumstances
where practical knowledge dominates a balanced integration of theory and practice
(Orland-Barak & Yinon, 2007).
Doing well as a teacher today requires teachers to go beyond the technical know-
how of classroom practice (Larrivee, 2000). Through conceptualising their practice,
teachers are more equipped to rise above the immediate here-and-now of school life
and to understand the rationalities behind the ways they teach.

Reflection as a bridge between theory and practice in teacher education

Reflection is a key aspect of a teacher’s professional development and an important
means for student teachers by which to integrate theory and practice (Schön, 1983). The
role of theory is essential for reflection as theory creates a frame for analysing practice.
Therefore, theory can serve as a fruitful tool for promoting professional development. If
472 K. STENBERG ET AL.

practice is only used as a basis for reflection, reflection risks being about “just talking”
(cf. Hatton & Smith, 1995).
In this study, we conceptualise reflection as critical deliberation of classroom prac-
tices. In particular, in this article, reflection is considered in relation to theory–practice
dialogue. This dialogue is potentially transformative in that it can involve using educa-
tional theory to problematise and ultimately transform practice (see also Orland-Barak &
Yinon, 2007; Smagorinsky et al., 2003).
As Marcos, Sanchez, and Tillema (2011) note in their meta-analysis of studies on
reflection, investigating reflection in the educational context is far from clear. Indeed,
various taxonomies for classifying reflection have been modelled since Van Manen’s
(1977) pioneering work of reflection. His model classifies reflection for three qualitatively
different levels which all have diverse criteria for action: technical, practical and critical.
Following Manen’s footsteps, in the most commonly used conceptual frameworks, the
highest levels of reflection involve problematising the existing practice and focusing on
the process of inquiry related to improving it (Larrivee, 2008; see also Lee, 2005;
Luttenberg & Bergen, 2008; Wallace & Louden, 2000).
Various supporting tools have been developed to promote reflection in teacher
education, for example, videos, portfolios, journals, blogs and person-to-person conver-
sations (Gelfuso & Dennis, 2014). A portfolio, for example, may enable the student
teacher to develop both personal and collective knowing and learning during the
process of evaluating learning experiences (Cáceres et al., 2010). Chamoso and
Cáceres (2009) used portfolios to explore mathematics student teachers’ reflection
during their university course. They examined whether the student teachers took an
external viewpoint only or whether they actively participated in their learning process.
Orland-Barak and Yinon (2007) used a series of guiding questions to help student
teachers in articulating the “messy side of teaching”.
However, the use of portfolios, or other supporting tools, alone is seldom sufficient to
guarantee that student teachers’ reflection reaches the level of understanding the core
of the learning process (Mansvelder-Longayroux, Beijaard, & Verloop, 2007). Student
teachers’ reflection often settles on the level of a description of experiences instead of a
deeper analysis of them (Gelfuso & Dennis, 2014; Larrivee, 2008). Similarly, in Chamoso
and Cáceres (2009), most student teachers “only” described elements of the teaching–
learning process without providing any reasoning or other input. Although it is essential
that student teachers begin their reflection by describing field experiences, using
familiar understanding alone will not produce new insights.
The provision of communal support is another common means of fostering student
teachers’ reflection. Interaction with knowledgeable others is a precondition for the
development of reflective practices (Gelfuso & Dennis, 2014; Larrivee, 2008). As such,
collaboration between critical partners, for example, other students or experienced
teachers, plays a key role when student teachers engage in meaningful reflection
processes (cf. Parsons & Stephenson, 2005). Further, it is essential that teacher educators
are able to create the possibilities for student teachers to develop their reflection skills,
which will help them connect theory with practice for their own professional develop-
ment. However, communal support does not assure that reflection will occur (Gelfuso &
Dennis, 2014).
 ASIA-PACIFIC JOURNAL OF TEACHER EDUCATION 473

In sum, although various kinds of support tools and structures have been proposed
and studied, fostering student teachers’ reflection to connect theory and practice
remains a challenging task for researchers and teacher educators.

The study
In this article, we present an investigation into supporting student teachers’ theory–
practice reflection in the context of a designed thematic practicum implemented in
Finnish teacher education. The thematic practicum is based on three design principles
that promote a transformative stance towards the creation of novel pedagogical
approaches: mutually transformative reflection between theory and practice, co-design
among supervising teachers, university lecturers and student teachers, and participation
in the long-term development of teaching and learning practice.
To investigate the potential of this design to promote student teachers’ reflections
that bridge theory and practice, we analyse and compare student teachers’ practicum
portfolios produced in the thematic practicum and in the conventional practicum of
class teacher education at the University of Helsinki. The following research questions
guide our investigation:

(1) How is the theory–practice relationship manifested when student teachers reflect
on their practicum in their practicum portfolios?
(2) How do the portfolios produced in the two practicums differ, if at all?

Finnish teacher education

The study was conducted within the Department of Teacher Education, University of
Helsinki, Finland. Class teacher education in Finland is research-based, and all teachers
graduate with a master’s degree. Research-based teacher education views teaching as a
profession based on research, and the study programme is organised according to a
systematic structure of educational sciences. Student teachers learn formal research
skills with the aim of harnessing their ability to integrate research and theory in practice
(for more, see Kansanen, 2007). The programme lasts five years and encompasses
general education studies, pedagogical content knowledge, practicums as well as
research methods, and research projects (i.e. bachelor’s and master’s theses).

Class teacher practicum studies at the University of Helsinki

During their studies at the University of Helsinki, student teachers participate in three
practicums, the third of which is investigated in this study. The third teaching practicum
(8 credits) aims to promote student teachers’ understanding of the multidimensionality
of teaching and its preconditions. Furthermore, the aim is to enable interaction between
the theoretical and practical knowledge regarding a teacher’s work and professional
development. The practicum lasts five weeks, the first of which is reserved for planning
and class observation. Student teachers teach in pairs, 20 hours per week.
474 K. STENBERG ET AL.

Figure 1. The structure of fostering student teachers’ reflection in the conventional teaching
practicum.

Figure 1 illustrates the structure of the conventional teaching practicum. First, a two-
hour orientation lecture precedes the practicum, and student teachers are given detailed
instructions. Second, during the practicum, a university lecturer from the Department of
Teacher Education observes student teachers’ teaching and engages in reflective conversa-
tions with them. Altogether, four hours are dedicated to each student pair by the university
lecturer, including the lecturer’s observation of students and guiding them in reflecting on
their practice. Third, the student teachers and their supervisors from the school have
reflective conversations on the basis of daily practices. Fourth, after the final practicum,
the student teachers produce a portfolio consisting of reflection on the personal aims set
for the practicum. Although no ready-made procedure for the portfolio exists, the student
teachers are encouraged to use an exploratory approach towards it and are asked to
consider theoretical sources in their reflections. The university lecturer assigns certain
theoretical sources, normally one–two articles. Finally, depending on the lecturer, a con-
versation may be organised after the practicum to discuss student teachers’ portfolios.

“Learning Bridges” thematic practicum

In Finnish teacher education, practicum studies involve portfolios and communal sup-
port, reported as the most common means for supporting reflection in teacher educa-
tion. However, we experienced that these supporting elements are not sufficient for
fostering robust theory–practice reflection. To answer this challenge, the Learning
Bridges thematic practicum was designed in 2010. The design is based on three design
principles that promote a transformative stance towards the creation of novel pedago-
gical approaches. Thus, instead of socialising student teachers into an existing, well-
 ASIA-PACIFIC JOURNAL OF TEACHER EDUCATION 475

established teaching practice, the idea is that they learn something that does not yet
exist but is created together with the supervising teachers and the university lecturers
(see also Zeichner, Payne, & Brayko, 2014).
The first design principle involves promoting mutually transformative reflection
between theory and practice. In our design, reflection is considered in a transformative
sense, one that involves using educational theory to problematise and ultimately
transform practice (see also Orland-Barak & Yinon, 2007; Smagorinsky et al., 2003).
Student teachers are continuously provoked to question and analyse existing teach-
ing practice and to collectively model new solutions with the supervising teachers
and university lecturers. Correspondingly, pedagogical experimentation and critical
reflection of the practice during the practicum feeds back to the further development
of the theory. In our thematic practicum, this feedback loop is supported by the
selection of required reading materials from the research literature used by the
university lecturers in their ongoing research or studies that they have authored.
Another key issue in the selection of the reading materials is that they involve
theories reflecting a dialectical relationship between theory and practice. The impor-
tance of this selection criterion is underlined by a recent literature review on studies
of teacher reflection (Marcos et al., 2011). The authors conclude that most of the
reviewed studies are not likely to support teachers in changing their teaching practice
because these studies provide very little empirical or theoretical justification for the
given recommendations.
The second design principle is the emphasis on co-design among supervising teachers,
university lecturers and student teachers in pursuit of a shared aim (Wenger, 1998). In the
thematic practicum, the shared aim is to jointly develop novel pedagogical approaches
in line with a selected pedagogical theme. The shared aim enables student teachers to
establish more collegial relationships with their supervising teachers and university
lecturers than is usual in conventional teacher training. As a result, the degree of student
teachers’ and their supervisors’ commitment increases. In addition, problems and ques-
tions raised during the practicum are resolved collaboratively in conversations between
student teachers, supervising teachers and researchers. The reading materials assigned
to the student teachers provide a shared conceptual framework for these conversations.
The collegiality in the relationships between student teachers and their supervisors,
which was promoted in this design principle, contrasts with how these relationships are
conventionally conceived. In a conventional practicum, student teachers may interpret
their supervising teacher’s efforts to work alongside them as a sign that something is
wrong with their performance (Edwards, 2014).
According to the third principle, the student teachers, along with their supervising
teachers, take part in the long-term development of teaching and learning practices by
incorporating educational theory. Classroom practices develop slowly and it is seldom
possible to achieve substantial pedagogical changes during the practicum period.
Hence, we consider it vital that the pedagogical setting in which the practicum is
embedded incorporate an ethos of change and reflective practices. This way, the
student teachers have an opportunity to experience first-hand how classroom practices
develop. Participation in the thematic practicum supports the participating teachers in
engaging in such a long-term change process.
476 K. STENBERG ET AL.

Figure 2. Design for fostering students’ reflection in the “Learning Bridges” thematic practicum.

Figure 2 illustrates the design for fostering student teachers’ reflection, which has
been redrawn on the basis of the design principles of the thematic practicum. As
illustrated, the design principles add two planning meetings: a preliminary meeting
between the university lecturers and supervising teachers, in which a framework for
each practicum period is designed, and another in which the student teachers are also
invited. The aim of the meeting is to introduce the framework to the student teachers
and to plan the actual thematic practicum with them. Therefore, the thematic practicum
resembles the conventional practicum.

Data handling
Data gathering
The data consist of 16 practicum portfolios. Eight portfolios are from female student
teachers who participated in the Learning Bridges thematic practicum. The other eight
portfolios are from student teachers who participated in the normal practicum (six
female, two male). Informed consent was obtained from all research participants in
accordance with the ethical guidelines of University of Helsinki. In the portfolios, the
student teachers were instructed to reflect on their practicum in the light of the aims
they had set for themselves. In addition, they were asked to include their evaluation of
the different elements of teaching, for example, lesson planning, curriculum, tests and
 ASIA-PACIFIC JOURNAL OF TEACHER EDUCATION 477

learning environment. The structure of the portfolios varies; for example, some student
teachers reflect on their practicum experiences chronologically while others choose
certain themes for reflection (I as a teacher, pupils and their learning). Furthermore,
student teachers were instructed to reflect on their practicum experiences in relation to
certain theoretical sources, which they were free to choose. Apart from these guidelines,
the student teachers were free to construct their portfolios in an informal way. The
number of pages in the portfolios varied from 6 to 22 while the number of references
ranged between one and nine.

Data analysis
In this study, the student teachers’ portfolio reflections were analysed by exploring
the parts of the texts in which theoretical sources were used. Thus, the unit of
analysis was a continuous passage of text where reference to a theoretical source
was made. To assess the use of reflection between theory and practice, an analytical
tool inspired by Chamoso and Cáceres (2009) was created. Chamoso and Cáreres’
initial rubric depicted the depth of student teachers’ reflection in three categories:
description, argumentation and contribution. To provide for a more nuanced descrip-
tion of the qualitatively lower reflection levels in our data, we further developed this
rubric by dividing the first category of “Description” into two new categories:
“Unconnected” and “Identification”. While the first author did all the coding, the
analytical framework was inductively and iteratively refined in joint conversations
between the authors during the analysis. Also, instances in which a passage could
not clearly be coded by the first author, the authors established agreement on its
categorisation through joint conversation.
The examples in Table 1 illustrate the reflection categories used in the analysis. In the
examples, the boldfaced text depicts the theoretical source the student teachers used
for their reflection. The underlined text depicts student teachers’ reflection in relation to
the theoretical source.

Results
The results show that the student teachers who participated in the Learning Bridges
thematic practicum used theory–practice reflection in their portfolios almost twice as
much as those in the conventional practicum (Table 2). The eight Learning Bridges
thematic practicum portfolios contained 59 references to literature while the eight
conventional practicum portfolios made only 33 references to theory. Also evident in
Table 2 are the differences in the ways that theory–practice connections were used in
the portfolios. What follow are exemplifications of the qualitative differences between
the types of reflection in the portfolios.
Unconnected reflection (i.e., isolated theory use without connection to practice)
appeared six times (10%) in the Learning Bridges portfolios whereas in the conventional
practicum portfolios the student teachers made six (18%) unconnected-level connec-
tions. The following passage exemplifies unconnected reflection between theory and
practice.
478 K. STENBERG ET AL.

Table 1. Analytical tool for investigating the use of theoretical literature in student teachers’
portfolios.
Reflection
category Explanation Portfolio examples
Unconnected ● Theory is presented in the text without con- Thomson & Hall’s (2008) article examines ‘lost
necting it to the practice described. possibilities’. The thought is: what does a school’s
● General school practices may be described, success mean? Is it based on grades or student success?
but the connection with the student teacher’s Children draw so much from outside the school
own practice or experiences during the prac- that it is a pity that it cannot be brought to
ticum is not specified. school to spur on conversation – conversation
● Theory is presented in isolation without based on students’ experiences and everyday
attempting to relate it to the practice situations.
described.

Identification ● Theory is presented in relation to the practice Mental well-being, according to research (Toivonen,
described in the text, but theory is used in 2006, pp. 38–40), is increased by fair-work demands,
facile ways; it is presented in the text without good possibilities to develop and influence, interaction
clearly specifying its connection to the prac- and the support of school managers and colleagues. It
tice described. is also connected to authority and responsibility, i.e.
they are in the same hands. In the practicum, the
arrangement is different. It is the responsibility
of student teachers to go through all contents
in a given time. We had several supervisor
teachers, and how well the specific contents are
defined depends on the supervisor.

Argumentation ● Theory is used to argue, justify, explain or There can’t be a gap between everyday life and
make conclusions about practice. science. Scientific explanations should be
● Theory is used for the purpose of clarifying brought up but in a way that pupils understand
the importance of practice. them and connect them to their life as
meaningful knowledge. Scientific concepts should
be explored and understood, and their use should be
thought of in terms of their usefulness (Scott,
Mortimer & Aguiar, 2011, pp. 5–9).
Further, using the concept of link-making, I
sometimes felt that we were talking about
something other than what I was thinking.
Although I felt that link-making was happening
all the time, during conversations, I started to
doubt myself: “was it really link-making?” Now,
after the practicum, I am satisfied with our link-
making. It can always be better, and it depends
on the aims that you emphasise [. . .] We
employed pedagogical link-making to everyday
life, and this was on our mind all the time. So
we succeed in that – link-making between
contents. I was especially happy about how
easily and sometimes surprisingly link-making
took place. For example, we brought poetry
naturally from grammar to music, the whole
Europe project was crystallised as a poem and a
rap was made of that. This way, it hopefully
became clear to students how poetry can be
close to them.
(Continued )
 ASIA-PACIFIC JOURNAL OF TEACHER EDUCATION 479

Table 1. (Continued).
Reflection
category Explanation Portfolio examples
Contribution ● Theory is used to construct students’ own Sahlberg (2002) criticises the emphasis on cognitive
knowledge with the aim of improving teach- learning results and the definition of a good school on
ing and learning practices. the basis of them instead of other salient growing
aims in relation to life (cf. Sahlberg, 2002, p. 13). In
addition to achieving cognitive readiness, it is desirable
that children become ‘good people’ with sufficient
capabilities to act in society and the wider world by
taking responsibility for and having respect for others.
Our lesson plans for students contained mainly
aims that develop students’ cognitive
capabilities, but I think that an educational goal
went hand in hand in all our practices. In my
opinion, in my future work, I will be able to
concentrate even more clearly on the
achievement of educational aims. The short
period of the final practicum and the
consciousness of my role as a visitor made me
focus more strongly on achieving cognitive aims
(Student teacher from general practicum)

Table 2. Theory–practice reflection in student teachers’ portfolios.

Conventional practicum Learning Bridges practicum
Unconnected 6/33 (18%) 6/59 (10%)
Identification 18/33 (55%) 21/59 (35%)
Argumentation 8/33 (24%) 23/59 (38%)
Contribution 1/33 (3%) 9/59 (15%)
Total number of connections 33 59

The ways in which teaching is carried out are strongly connected to knowing all of the
pupils. Teaching is based on the curriculum, and each teacher may realise his/her
teaching by the way he/she chooses to take the pupils needs’ into account (Byman,
2006, pp. 115–116). The best benefit of the practicum concerning the development of my
practical theory was understanding the importance of reflecting on my work. It is essential
to ponder the things that succeed as well as issues that need to be changed or developed.
Following other student teachers’ teaching may, at best, generate new ideas that may be
exploited in one’s own teaching. Sharing experiences with a colleague also helps teachers
cope with their work. (Student teacher from a conventional practicum)

In the passage above, the student teacher begins by providing a general statement
about the importance of the pedagogical relationship between a teacher and the
students. She then cites literature on the possibilities of teachers conducting their
practice by taking their pupils’ needs into account. She then continues her reflection
by pondering over the effectiveness of the practicum in relation to the development of
her practical theory of teaching.
Although the student teacher clearly identifies the importance of reflecting on
practice as a vehicle for the development of her personal theory, the citation remains
disconnected from her reported experience. How, or in what way, are Byman’s ideas
connected to her practical theory or reflecting on it are not elaborated. Theory is thus
touched on only superficially in this passage.
480 K. STENBERG ET AL.

In contrast to unconnected reflection, reflection based on identification was charac-

terised by an explicit connection between theory and practice (i.e., activities or experi-
ences during the practicum). However, in these passages, theory was not used to
explore the practice or to develop it further. This type of reflection was most frequent
in the conventional practice portfolios where more than half of the reflections (55%)
were based on identification. In comparison, in the Learning Bridges portfolios, 21
theory–practice reflections (35%) were coded as identification-level reflection. The fol-
lowing excerpt exemplifies this type of reflection:

The students were surprisingly talented in the conversations and had a lot of knowledge
and experiences about Asian countries. The conversations were interesting, and the pupils
taught us by recounting their knowledge of, for example, the electronics industry [. . .]. In
schools, attention should be focused even more on pupils’ everyday knowledge, which is
normally more evident at the beginning of a lesson when pupils are more motivated.
Sometimes, pupils’ experiences could be the starting point of teaching: that pupils teach
each other and the teacher. According to studies concerning giftedness, underachieve-
ment is a significant problem in schools. There are a lot of reasons for underachieve-
ment, one being the fragmentation of teaching, which lowers the inner motivation of
a pupil (Reis & McCoach, 2002). Students are skilful in many areas in which only a small part
corresponds with the subjects taught at schools. It is important, for example, that an expert
user of computers or an accomplished dancer present his or her skills and knowledge to the
classroom. (Student teacher from a Learning Bridges practicum)

In the above passage, the student teacher starts by reflecting on his surprise about his
pupils’ knowledge and competence regarding Asian countries. He then moves on to
describe his own thoughts on how schools could, in general, be more attentive to
pupils’ everyday knowledge. He then cites literature concerning underachievement,
motivation and the fragmentation of teaching in schools. The passage ends with an
acknowledgement of students’ own competencies and the importance of providing
space for these competences in classrooms.
In contrast to unconnected reflection, the substance of the literature that the student
teacher uses is clearly connected to his experience of teaching and to the general
normative stance he takes on classroom practice at the end of the passage. However,
although the citation is related to these themes, the student teacher’s reflection does
not employ theory to further examine or problematise his practicum experiences.
Whether or not the classroom practices relating to his practicum or his own teaching
needed to be changed in the light of the theory and its critique was not explored.
What sets argumentation reflection apart from the two previous levels is that theory
was used to explain, justify or make conclusions about practice as well as to understand
different viewpoints on practice. Theory was also used to elucidate the relevance or
importance of the practice for the participants and to explore their experiences during
the practicum. Reflection as argumentation was represented in eight connections to
theory in the conventional practicum portfolios (24% of all connections). In the Learning
Bridges portfolios, the corresponding number of argumentative reflections was 23 (38%
of all connections). The following passage exemplifies this type of reflection:

In her article, Niemi (2003) considers incompleteness in school life. In my opinion, all of
life is about struggling with incompleteness to some degree. Niemi (pp. 120–121) writes
that incompleteness may, at its worst, be dangerous, a threat to identity or a
 ASIA-PACIFIC JOURNAL OF TEACHER EDUCATION 481

challenge and lifelong growth process. According to her, it is dangerous if a teacher

does not recognise any shortcomings in his or her professionalism. I think that in our
education, this is prevented by sufficient theoretical, educational and psychological studies
and other content as well as the gaining of reflection skills [. . .]. During this practicum, I
noticed my incompleteness in many situations, but this did not alarm me. I believe that
during my studies, I have acquired a substantial theoretical foundation for assessing my
teacher identity. I don’t think I am actually ready, although my graduation looms closer. I
know I am ready to become a teacher, and I’m good enough, but I don’t view myself as
perfect because I see that I am challenged everywhere: in relation to pupils’ individuality
and their families, to pedagogical content knowledge, social relationships in the classroom,
working with classroom management and so on. (Student teacher from a conventional
practicum)

In this example, the student teacher raises the theme of imperfection in the teaching
profession. She then cites literature on the importance of being aware of one’s own
incompleteness as a teacher. She then connects this theoretical viewpoint to both
teacher education in general and her experiences during the practicum in particular.
With the help of Niemi’s work, she maintains that first her theoretical reading will keep
her from falling into false impressions regarding her teachership and that she had
noticed moments of incompleteness during her practicum. In short, she uses the theory
to clarify and justify as well as to highlight the importance of her way of seeing herself as
a teacher.
Lastly, in reflection based on contribution, theory was used to construct students’ own
knowledge with the explicit aim of improving teaching and learning practices. What
thus made contribution-level reflection different from the previous types was its critical
stance towards one’s own understanding and teachership and the practices of the
classroom in which the practicum was done. The main difference between reflection
as argumentation and reflection as contribution is in the way the theory and practice
interact. Reflection as argumentation uses theory to understand the different viewpoints
of practice; reflection as contribution creates a mutual dialogue between theory and
practice. Therefore, practice is not only investigated in the light of a specific theoretical
source; theory is applied as a means to changing practice.
Only one of the theory–practice reflections in the conventional practicum portfolios
was identified as contributory. By contrast, in the Learning Bridges thematic practicum
portfolios, nine reflections (15% of all reflections) were contributory in nature. The
following excerpt exemplifies a contribution to theory:

I think I have found a certain balance in relation to various of the methods used in the
classroom. Still, I am aware of being at the beginning with participatory methods. A good
example is this: in my teaching, “dialogue” often occurs in a way that I present some
initiation, which a pupil answers; after this, I easily comment on a pupil’s response and
allow the next student a turn to speak. My interaction thus follows a typical I (initiation)
– R (response) – E (evolution) – formula (Scott & Mortimer, 2008, p. 609). I want to learn
more dialogical interaction and would rather follow, for example, the formula of I-R-P
(prompt) – R-P-R (E). In that way, I would not close the chain of interaction by assessing,
strengthening or rejecting; I would create the space where the matter under investigation
would progress towards a conclusion with the help of the real dialogue (Scott & Mortimer,
2008, pp. 612–613). (Student teacher from a Learning Bridges practicum)
482 K. STENBERG ET AL.

This passage begins with the student teacher identifying a balance in his classroom
instruction skills. This observation is, however, immediately challenged by a second
observation concerning his position as a newcomer to participatory teaching methods.
He then proceeds to provide a generalised example of his own teaching and his critical
assessment of it. After citing relevant literature, the student teacher expresses his desire
to learn more about dialogical interaction and how he sees this as helping him to create
new, more desirable pedagogical spaces.
In the passage, the student teacher uses theory to reflect on his current way of
orchestrating classroom interaction with the pupils and of facilitating pupil participation.
With the help of Scott and Mortimer’s article, he becomes aware of the different ways of
guiding classroom interaction. Although he talks about finding a balance with his
teaching methods, at end of the passage, he also explicates his need to further develop
his own practice. Therefore, in addition to conceptualising his own practice and explor-
ing his experiences in the light of the theory (reflection as argumentation), he also
engages in envisioning his future actions and the learning opportunities those actions
would offer his pupils. Here, theory does not only serve as a mirror for reflection but also
helps to transform his practice as a teacher.

Discussion
Several studies have sought to promote student teachers’ professional development by
connecting theory and practice during teacher education (Korthagen & Kessels, 1999.).
However, even with support, it appears that student teachers are seldom willing or able
to use educational theory in significant ways to assess or contribute to their teaching
practice. This study contributes to research on teachers’ professional development by
presenting and analysing a design that successfully promoted robust theory–practice
reflection during student teacher practicum studies.
The results of the study strongly suggest that theory–practice dialogue can be
effectively supported by developing the structure of teacher practicums. In this study,
the practicum was developed by using three design principles: (1) mutual transforma-
tion of theory and practice, (2) co-design among supervising teachers, university lec-
turers and student teachers, and (3) participation in the long-term development of
teaching and learning practices. Although promoting theory–practice reflection was
also one of the aims of the conventional class teacher practicums analysed in the
study, in these practicums, the students’ reflection remained at a descriptive level
without further argumentation or contribution. Considering the relatively small addition
of contact hours required by the design, our results suggest that the support organised
in the context of the design principles fostered a more robust theory–practice reflection
on the part of the student teachers than usual. We now consider each principle in turn in
order to weigh their importance more closely.
First, regarding our first principle (mutual transformation), our results suggest that the
designed Learning Bridges practicum created a learning environment in which theory
and practice did not appear as separate entities but rather as connected in a dialectical
relationship, that is, as aspects of the same process of understanding and improving
education. That is to say, theory was used to problematise and transform teaching
practice. Both the regular and thematic practicums involved demands that promoted
 ASIA-PACIFIC JOURNAL OF TEACHER EDUCATION 483

theory–practice dialogue. A significant difference between these two designs was,

however, that in the thematic practicum, these demands were more thoroughly
embedded in the daily practice of the student teachers while they taught (see also
Edwards, 2014).
Second, in relation to our co-design principle, the results also point to the importance
of a shared and focused theme among teacher educators and supervising teachers. In
relation to Allen’s (2011) results on supervising teachers’ dissatisfaction concerning
communication with university staff, the results suggest that the focused theme might
act as a shared aim (Wenger, 1998) and hence foster collegial relationships between
supervising teachers and university lecturers that would be beneficial to theory–practice
discussions. In addition to teacher educators, supervising teachers should be able to use
theoretical language as “mediators” between a student teacher’s practical experiences
and the use of conceptual language to reflect on them (Edwards, 2014). A strong
collegial relationship between teacher educators and supervising teachers, therefore,
can also provide favourable conditions for the emergence of student teachers’ own
contributions to the developing practice. In addition, being involved in a community of
practice can make the assignment of reporting the reflections in the portfolio more
meaningful to students. Writing to an interested audience may help student teachers
expand their interpretation of the assignment, beyond merely completing another
school task, to foster emotional engagement with the reflection task.
Third, participating in the long-term development of teaching and learning practices
seems to provide a rich context for observing and learning how to incorporate educa-
tional theory into practice. That is, student teachers hear “war stories” (Suchman, 1986)
between supervising teachers and teacher educators about developing practice, experi-
encing the results of previous efforts as well as the trial-and-error method of putting
one’s ideas to use with those of others. Although these elements are, to some extent,
part of any given practice, making a deliberate effort to embed student teachers’
reflections within practice that endorses an ethos of progress might partly account for
our results.
Finally, new educational theories and research findings need to be translated into
new teaching and learning practices, pedagogical tools and practical expertise before
they can be employed. This transformation occurs in, and needs to be supported by, the
social context in which these new ideas are put to practice. Resources need to be
allocated to this transformational work, which will involve a range of stakeholders. Our
design principles thus provide a potential model for building mutually beneficial colla-
borative networks between universities and schools whereby universities support the
pedagogical development efforts of schools and in turn have an opportunity to dis-
seminate and further develop their research work (see also Zeichner et al., 2014). A long-
term prospect with respect to this collaboration would be that the still-so-dominant
theory–practice divide would narrow as the implementation of education theory and an
appreciation of its relevance might become more common. As with university hospitals
where frontline medical research is being shaped into new medical practice, so will this
collaborative network be an important nexus in shaping new educational theory and
practice. We believe that the development of such collaborative networks is especially
important in countries where teacher education is less research-based than in Finland; a
wider gap between educational theory and teaching practice cannot arguably be
484 K. STENBERG ET AL.

overcome without an intensive collaboration between multiple stakeholders to trans-

form educational theory and practice.
We are keen to determine in future research how student teachers’ theory–practice
reflection during thematic practicums transfers to their daily work as teachers. Our
present results highlight the need to look more closely into the practicum learning
process in order to more fully understand how our principles work from the student
teacher’s perspective.

Disclosure statement
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.

Notes on contributors
Katariina Stenberg (Ph.D.) works as a lecturer at the Viikki teacher training school in the University
of Helsinki. Her research focuses on teacher education and teacher professional development.

Antti Rajala, Doctoral Student, works in the Department of Teacher Education at the University of
Helsinki. In his research, he focuses on agency and dialogic pedagogy.

Jaakko Hilppo, Pre-doctoral fellow, works in the School of Education and Social Policy at
Northwestern University. His research focuses on children’s sense of agency and participatory
research methods.

References
Allen, J. (2011). Stakeholders’ perspectives of the nature and role of assessment during practicum.
Teaching and Teacher Education, 27(4), 742–750. doi:10.1016/j.tate.2010.12.004
Barone, T., Berliner, D., Blanchard, J., Casanova, U., & McGowan, T. (1996). A future for teacher
education. In J. Siluka (Ed.), Handbook of research on teacher education (2nd ed., pp. 1108–1149).
New York, NY: Macmillan.
Cáceres, M., Chamoso, J., & Azcárate, P. (2010). Analysis of the revisions that pre-service teachers of
mathematics make of their own project included in their learning portfolio. Teaching and
Teacher Education, 26, 1186–1195. doi:10.1016/j.tate.2010.01.003
Chamoso, J., & Cáceres, M. (2009). Analysis of the reflections of student teachers of mathematics
when working with learning portfolios in Spanish university classrooms. Teaching and Teacher
Education, 25, 198–206. doi:10.1016/j.tate.2008.09.007
Edwards, A. (2014). Learning from experience in teaching: A cultural historical critique. In V. Ellis &
J. Orchard (Eds.), Learning teaching from experience: Multiple perspectives and international
contexts (pp. 47–61). London: Bloomsbury.
Eraut, M. (2004). Transfer of knowledge between education and workplace settings. In H. Rainbird,
A. Fuller, & A. Munro (Eds.), Workplace learning in context (pp. 201–221). London: Routledge.
Gelfuso, A., & Dennis, D. (2014). Getting reflection off the page: The challenges of developing
support structures for pre-service teacher reflection. Teaching and Teacher Education, 38, 1–11.
doi:10.1016/j.tate.2013.10.012
Hatton, N., & Smith, D. (1995). Reflection in teacher education: Towards definition and implemen-
tation. Teaching and Teacher Education, 11(1), 33–49. doi:10.1016/0742-051X(94)00012-U
Kansanen, P. (2007). Research-based teacher education. In R. Jakku-Sihvonen & H. Niemi (Eds.),
Education as a societal contributor (pp. 131–146). Frankfurt-am-Main: Peter Lang.
 ASIA-PACIFIC JOURNAL OF TEACHER EDUCATION 485

Korthagen, F. (2010). The relationship between theory and practice in teacher education. In E.
Baker., B. McGaw, & P. Peterson (Eds.), International encyclopedia of education (Vol. 7, pp. 669–
675). Oxford: Elsevier.
Korthagen, F., & Kessels, J. (1999). Linking theory and practice: Changing the pedagogy of teacher
education. Educational Researcher, 28(4), 4–17. doi:10.3102/0013189X028004004
Larrivee, B. (2000). Transforming teaching practice: Becoming the critically reflective teacher.
Reflective Practice, 1(3), 293–307. doi:10.1080/713693162
Larrivee, B. (2008). Development of a tool to assess teachers’ level of reflective practice. Reflective
Practice, 9(3), 341–360. doi:10.1080/14623940802207451
Lee, H.-J. (2005). Understanding and assessing pre-service teachers’ reflective thinking. Teaching
and Teacher Education, 21, 699–715. doi:10.1016/j.tate.2005.05.007
Luttenberg, J., & Bergen, T. (2008). Teacher reflection: The development of a typology. Teachers
and Teaching: Theory and Practice, 14(5), 543–566. doi:10.1080/13540600802583713
Mansvelder-Longayroux, D., Beijaard, D., & Verloop, N. (2007). The portfolio as a tool for stimulat-
ing reflection by student teachers. Teaching and Teacher Education, 23, 47–62. doi:10.1016/j.
tate.2006.04.033
Marcos, J., Sanchez, E., & Tillema, H. (2011). Promoting teacher reflection: What is said to be done.
Journal of Education for Teaching: International Research and Pedagogy, 37(1), 21–36.
doi:10.1080/02607476.2011.538269
Orland-Barak, L., & Yinon, H. (2007). When theory meets practice: What student teachers learn from
guided reflection on their own classroom discourse. Teaching and Teacher Education, 23, 957–
969. doi:10.1016/j.tate.2006.06.005
Parsons, M., & Stephenson, M. (2005). Developing reflective practice in student teachers:
Collaboration and critical partnerships. Teachers and Teaching: Theory and Practice, 11(1), 95–
116. doi:10.1080/1354060042000337110
Schön, D. (1983). The reflective practitioner: How professionals think in action. New York, NY: Basic
Books.
Shulman, L. (1998). Theory, practice, and the education of professionals. The Elementary School
Journal, 98(5), 511–526. doi:10.1086/esj.1998.98.issue-5
Smagorinsky, P., Cook, L., & Johnson, T. (2003). The twisting path of concept development in
learning to teach. The Teachers College Record, 105(8), 1399–1436. doi:10.1111/tcre.2003.105.
issue-8
Standal, O., Moen, K., & Moe, V. (2014). Theory and practice in the context of practicum: The
perspectives of Norwegian physical education student teachers. European Physical Education
Review, 20(2), 165–178. 165. doi:10.1177/1356336X13508687
Suchman, L. (1986). Plans and situated actions. New York, NY: Cambridge University.
Van Manen, M. (1977). Linking ways of knowing with ways of being practical. Curriculum Inquiry, 6,
205–228. doi:10.1080/03626784.1977.11075533
Wallace, J., & Louden, W. (2000). Teachers’ learning. Stories of science education. Dordrecht: Kluwer
Academic Publishers.
Wenger, E. (1998). Communities of practice: Learning, meaning, and identity. New York, NY:
Cambridge University Press.
Zeichner, K., Payne, K. A., & Brayko, K. (2014). Democratizing teacher education. Journal of Teacher
Education. doi:10.1177/0022487114560908
Copyright of Asia-Pacific Journal of Teacher Education is the property of Routledge and its
content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the
copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email
articles for individual use.