Theory and practice in teacher education

Theory and practice in teacher education

Over the last decades, the problem of theory versus practice in teacher education has increasingly become of interest. A teacher decides on the basis of all kinds of situation-related components. Theoretical knowledge and insight do play a part, but they do not unambiguously determine the behavior of the teacher. It is clear that practical training of student teachers is a factor in the tension between theory and practice. 

On the one hand both teacher educators and student teachers consider practical training to be an effective way to acquire (practical) knowledge, on the other hand it is claimed that the realization of teacher education goals – also in terms of integrating theory and practice – is occasionally impeded by the conformist and conservative influence that practical training can have on student teachers. 

Over the last few years, research into the relationship between theory and practice in teacher training has focused on the question of how student teachers can integrate theory and practice and in which sense the design of the learning environment can contribute to that integration. However, no unambiguous conception of theory exists, nor of practice or the relationship between the two.

 In the context of the discussion about relating practical and propositional knowledge Thiessen (2000) distinguishes three orientations that have been emphasized in teacher education:

Orientations in Teacher Education

 ‘Impactful behaviors,’ leading to the training of prospective teachers in behaviors

that appeared to be effective in process-product research;

2. ‘Reflective practices’ and,

3.  ‘Development of professional knowledge.’

The three orientations should not be seen as mutually exclusive, all are more or less recognizable in current programs. 

The ‘impactful behaviors’ orientation dominated in the 1970s. Particularly according to the initial teaching preparation programs, this orientation appeared to be unsuccessful in linking student teachers’ theoretical and practical knowledge.

The ‘reflective practices’ orientation emerged in the 1980s, after increasing criticism on the empirical base underlying the ‘impactful behaviors’ orientation. According to Thiessen, the reflective practices orientation concentrates on skills which help beginning teachers think through what they have done, are doing or are about to do. In his view, while there are numerous published reports on program innovations in support of the reflective practices orientation, the conceptual rigor and empirical foundation of this work are uneven and less developed.

The third orientation , the ‘development of professional knowledge’  is the most recent one. It claims that this orientation is the most promising for teacher education. In  this view – considering the image of teaching as ‘knowledge work’ – the emphasis on concurrent use of practical and propositional knowledge distinguishes this orientation from the impactful behaviors and the reflective practices orientations.

Theory in teacher education

Research literature shows a large variation of definitions and opinions concerning the meaning of the concept of theory. A prominent function of theory is providing an orientation base for reflection on practice. Studies into research of professional knowledge for teachers, particularly into views on the knowledge-practice link, describe a range of ideas and tools for teachers that are seen as useful for fruitful recognizing and analyzing matters of practice.

According to Van Beugen (1988) the reflective attitude in teacher education emerges on three levels:

1. The reflective attitude that one can adopt in contact with the surrounding reality as an expression of the human ability to know;

2.  Knowledge that rests on generalized experiences;

3.  Knowledge as a system of verifiable judgments according to epistemological rules

Reflection can lead to ‘theory,’ according to our view meaning a coherent collection of underpinned judgments or predictions concerning a phenomenon. At the highest level – that of scientific theory – we then end up at the development of a theory that can be expressed in theoretical terms and laws. 

Eraut’s description of what he defines as theory reflects the common 

interpretation of researchers: “Educational theory comprises concepts, frameworks,

ideas, and principles that may be used to interpret, explain, or judge intentions, actions, and experiences in educational or educational-related settings”

An important question is to what extent the underlying intentions of theoretical

reflecting, namely: understanding, formulating, describing, explaining, and improving practice can be realized for student teachers.

Practice in teacher education

The concept of practice can perhaps be best translated as ‘professional situation.’ It is a (learning) environment – with materials, tools and actors – in which a profession is practiced. The professional worker in that environment has been trained to act professionally, that is to say to act adequately on the basis of (practical) knowledge. 

Practice has many representations, which can be based on a number of views. In the case of teacher education, school practice is an important representation of practice, being a learning practice for prospective teachers. We will stress that teacher (practical) knowledge is not opposite to theoretical or scientific knowledge. In fact, knowledge gained from lectures, self instruction and other sources of teacher education may be absorbed and integrated into (student) teachers’ practical knowledge. Because practical knowledge is often not simply discernible in teachers’ actions, it needs expertise to make practical knowledge explicit.

Various knowledge that teachers Possess

Shulman  studied the kinds of teacher knowledge that teachers possess and that underlie their actions, and developed an overview of domains and categories of teacher knowledge . They are as follows.

1.  Content knowledge;

2.  General pedagogical knowledge, with special reference to those broad principles and strategies of classroom management and organization that appear to transcend subject matter;

3.  Curriculum knowledge, with a particular grasp of the materials and programs that serve as ‘tools of the trades’ for teachers;

4.  Pedagogical content knowledge, that special amalgam of content and pedagogy that is uniquely the province of teachers, their own special form of professional understanding;

5.  Knowledge of learners and their characteristics;

6.  Knowledge of educational contexts, ranging from the workings of the group or classroom, the governance and financing of school districts, to the character of

communities and cultures;

7.  Knowledge of educational ends, purposes and values, and their philosophical and historical grounds.

The relationship between theory and practice in teacher education

Teacher training colleges have already struggled for decades with the problem of how to define the theoretical dimension of the training programs (Kennedy, 1987). The simplest approach was: we will learn theory during lectures and will then apply it in practice. Drever & Cope (1999) had to say the following about that: “Theory, in this context, was presented as a kind of pseudo-scientific justification for practitioner action, the implication being that, by using it to generate hypothetical solutions to problems, it could be ‘applied in practice.’ 

 Student teachers often indicated that knowledge acquired in teacher training

did not enable them to handle the uncertainty, the complexity and the instability of actual practice situations. By now one can state that the training philosophy slogan

‘Learning theory at academy and applying theory in practice’ is outdated. Over the last few years a number of researchers have brought up the problem of the relationship between theory and practice. Some authors express – often implicitly – the belief that there should be no gap between theory and practice in an appropriate teacher training program.