Teacher Education in Transformation (TET)

Teacher Education in Transformation (TET) Transforming Teacher Education and building sustainable Professional Identity meeting the complexity of Teaching and Learning through Research oriented Practice in University Schools. 1. Relevance to the PRAKUT-programme The Programme for Practice-based Educational Research (PRAKUT) has as one of its primary objectives to enhance the quality of teacher education. This application is related to more specific objectives in the programme concerning how students develop professional competence through connecting research and practice in a new programme developing the university school concept.

2. Background and State of Art The University of Tromsø started autumn 2010 a new differentiated five year master program in teacher education: Pilot in North. This program consists of two tracks, one for grade 1 -7 and a second for grade 5-10 in compulsory education. This is the first master programme for such education in Norway. The ambition is to develop a new program increasing competence and greater professional satisfaction focusing on enchanging literacy and andacademic learning outcomes. An overall goal is to fit together theoretical and experienced based knowledge. Sharing a common understanding of the challenges facing future teacher education, has resulted in an agreement between the Faculty of Educational Sciences at the University of Oslo and the Faculty of Humanities, Social Sciences and Education at University of Tromsø in January 2011 concerning practice schools -named university schools. This is a new model for improving the integration of theory and practice, content knowledge, pedagogical content knowledge, pedagogical knowledge and knowledge growth in teaching. The development of a new contextual teacher education is important in the project meaning that the school system are focusing at and reflecting cultures sorrounding it. The ambition tied to the concept and practice of university schools is diverse. A system for accreditation schools have to meet certain criteria in order to become partners in the new programme for teacher education. This concerns existing teaching-learning quality as well as staff competence culture for learning and development. The commitment for partnership in research and development work involving teachers, pupils, teacher student and teacher educators is a core aim in the new programs. The acccreditation system is anchored in an extended partnership with the municipality of Tromsø that will be partner in the development of the university schools. The project Teacher Education in Transformation (TET) has as its material basis the new master programme and the accreditated university school model. TET links to knowledge and experiences from taking part in two nationally initiated programs; PRAKSIS FOU Fra ord til handling (2007- 2010), PIL (practice as integrating element in teacher education) as well as additional research on teacher education. (Haugaløkken og Ramberg, 2005). Both The Navigare-project and the project Learning, development and research in practice: Teacher students as research partners in the PIL- programme constitute preliminary activities in relation to TET. Results from these projects contribute to the understanding of the complex interaction between individual, professional and social components involved in developing learning arenas. Interaction quality both on individual and system level is of paramount importance. This is also reflected in different national and international studies (Lødding og Vibe 2010; Hattie 2009). When theory is rejected, when students are being socialized to existing patterns of activities, it is hard to meet the political and professional ambition of research and research-based Our point is that practical teaching knowlede is an equal partner in this party)). Korthagen (2001) has shown how this issue has to be fronted in teacher education and reflected in a professional identity. Theory and practice must be connected, related and integrated supported by organizational changes as well as developing new theoretical concepts and models adequate for the complexity of issues involved.

1 PIL results tell about the need for changes both in practice at school level as well as in theory teaching at the university. In USA cooperation between teacher education institutions and professional development schools (PDS) especially the last decade of the last century was developed. ”The idea is to develop collaborative partnership between institute-based teacher educators and school-based teachers, sharing the responsibility for the preparation of prospective teachers” (Korthagen 2001:11). However, research on the PDS-schools has shown a number of unsolved issues especially regarding cooperation and relations between partners. Summing up state of art in researching teacher education Darling-Hammond and Baratz-Snowden still put forward the basic challenges for teacher education: How can we create programs and learning environments that ensure this diverse teacher-candidate pool will develop the knowledge, skills and dispositions that allow success in the classroom with all the children they serve? What knowledge and skills are prerequisite to entering the classroom? What aspects of learning to teach can be acquired on the job?(2007) However, they also presents some key findings giving direction to future strategies for enhancing the quality of teacher education: ”These pedagogies of teacher education - student teaching, performance assessment and portfolios analyses of teaching and learning, case methods and practitioners inquiry- are intended to support teachers abilities to learn in and from practice. In different ways, each approach helps to build the vision, knowledge, tools, practices, and dispositions of new teachers to reflect on and analyze their practice” (Her står det ene sitatet I kursiv – det andre ikke). The new master programme i teacher education and the partnerships developed through the university schools concept is in continuity with the work in Navigare and PIL, but it is no longer piloting. Thus it necessitates once more reflecting on the questions put forward by Darling- Hammond and Baratz-Snowden and develop answers to them through the research ambition put forward in this project. 3. Theoretical basis , key research questions and methodological considerations A teacher with a reflected attitude to own teaching, being motivated for participation in systematic development work, will be best capable to contribute to developing own school (White Paper nr. 11 2008-2009:24).New professional identity, a school system developing and validating its own knowledge,appears both in new educational policy, and society’s discourses.These changed expectations to teacher education, teacher trainers, teacher students and teachers as well schools contributes to larger complexity. Teaching has developed into a demanding and complex profession where developments in society have impact on the teacher role. Teachers have to relate to new demands for documentation, evaluations and assessments, user surveys, national tests and inspections. Responsibilities are changed through decentralization of in-service-training and systems of quality monitoring. This opens possibilities for new and challenging cooperative activities for school owners, school and teacher education. Not only are teachers supposed to teach and supervise as earlier. They are expected to become team workers, master taxonomy of objectives and assessment, developing new forms of practice, evaluate research findings, have a focus on the importance of organizational development and perform qualified marketing (Imsen 2009:49). Never have demands on the individual teacher been so complex. Teacher training is expected to meet these demands by developing a research based legitimacy and creditability for teaching, teachers and the school as an organization. Correspondingly, it is a challenge for teacher education to face this situation with new forms of partnership, new tools and artefacts in teacher education integrating theory and practice and research as a fundamental asset for developing schools as well as a professional identity. Based on Qvortrup one may say that school as an organization is in need for a structure facilitating professional learning and innovation for teachers and the organization as a whole. Organizations coping with structural complexity need internal analytic complexity (Here 2 must be something wrong: These organizations don`t need internal complexity: They have it!) to cope with external complexity (Dierkes et. al 2001). Qvortrup describes this as a system where one continually reflects actions and processes. This is in line with what is described as learning organization (Hargreaves 2004, Argyris og Schön 1996, Senge 1999). Schools with such characteristics will be capable of learning within unpredictable and changing surroundings with adequate adaptation. Systems thinking offers concepts and models for relating unique schools and their learning to larger contexts and simultaneously connect personal learning with collective learning. Such professional learning communities emphasizes three main constituents: cooperation and discussion among professionals in school, strong and lasting concentration on teaaching and learning in this cooperation and collection of assessment and additional material in order to explore and reflect upon progress and challenges over time (Hargreaves 2004:150). Increased quality demands in school requires teachers contributing to school development and simultaneously improve their own teaching through professional self-development (White Paper nr.11 2008-2009). Having in mind such expectations to the teacher profession, it is of utmost importance to make available (clinical) experince in school communities fronting organizational learning keeping up with political expectations and changes in socieity. Such communities are characterized by professional teams of high quality, involvement in visons, goals, missions and learning outcomes for the school with collective processes and partnership also with parents and pupils. The accreditation system for university schools taking part in the project reflects these criteria. The main challenge in the clinical part of teacher education is a lack of quality standards and weak coupling to theory (It may also be the other way round -if we stick to the idea that there may be interestind points of departure in practice as well). Creating learning arenas connecting content knowledge, pedaogical content knowledge and pedagogy with practice could meet this challenge. Developing quality through research-based coupling of theory and practicedint though new partnerships with university schools is the fundament for the research issues and theoretical basis chosen for this research project. It is important to have positive start experiences in practice since research shows this is a key issue in influencing teacher drop out (Ulvik, 2008). Weniger has pointed out that that all theory develops out of practice and returns there, thus all pratice are theory- infused. This is ideally a good starting point for weaving the bonds beteen subject knowledge, theory in pedagogy and practice.However, according to Westbury, didactics challenges the viewpoint that individuality and character can be formed through abstract systems. They are formed by humans. Thus we have to deal with the tensions beteewn a systemtheoretical and a dadactic approach to teacher education. Didactical theory is thus more oriented to models for Bildung and the relation to content. Curriculum theory however integrates more system perspectives related to content and functional skills. 4. Key issues or focal points of reference based on state of art analysis of theory and research and political discourses are: 4.1 The Issue of Enactment and its relation to Experience, Reflection and Representation Weick (1988) coins the term enactment to represent the idea that when people act they bring structures and events into existence and set them in action. Teachers form themselves in organizations through enactment of interaction cycles and through the development of rules for appropriate behavior (Eisenberg,1986). Firstly, they achieve stability. Secondly, enactment theory can be seen as a process whereby people achieve continuity and coordination. This process requires rules and roles, so that people can coordinate their activities with another. Enactment theory gives a rationale for distinguishing strategic and routine behavior contributes to an understanding of professional identity. However, education, as all professional practice, is a normative activity building on norms of quality. To be normative the action must have an element of reflection) . Schön talks about reflective conversation with the situation (Schön, 1983) And to be professional, the norms have to be shared among the professionals. Sadler (in Gibbs & Simpson, 2004) calls the norms of the profession the guild knowledge of the profession, the quality indicators for professional performance shared by the members of a profession. To stimulate professional

3 development, we should focus on teaching as problematic and complex (Loughran, 2006). But then the teachers have to learn to reflect on experience and evaluate teaching practice according to professional quality standards. From a social-constructivist point of view, learning is both a social and a personal process where a learner adapts his/her ideas and convictions to new knowledge and understanding in an interactive dialogue. This has implications for the engagement of teachers in processes of professional development and change. When teachers feel ownership towards a shared definition of professional quality (the guild knowledge) or towards the change process, professional development and change are more likely to occur (Fullan, 2007). According to Fullan, ownership of quality through reflection involves and improves thinking about planning and the changing of approaches. It encourages adaptation and most importantly results in meta-cognition, an understanding of one’s own learning. The case for ownership of change by self-reflection is supported by Hopkins et al (1994, Fullan,1999) who point out that having the control of initiatives for change is essential for the individual if success is to be assured. Rea (in Bush & Middlewood, 2005) also stresses the need for self-motivation to bring about change. Fullan (2007) adds further to this argument by professing that ownership is essential if change is to be a progressive process in that it has to encourage and bring out commitment and increase skills.

4.2 The Issue of Complexity As teaching is becoming more and more complex and demanding this has implications for teacher professionalism, which, as described above, is characterised by different (and conflicting) views in recent times. As Day (1999, p.12) states changes in the operational practice of professionalism reflect the increasing complexities and contradictions of teachers’ work. Their work embodies both challenge and threat. They may be both autonomous and accountable to others, independent and collaborative, in control and not in control. Rasmussen states that complexity is a phenomenon confronting and challenging society and its organizations. is at the same time a challenge to society and the principle explaining society (2004: 17-18). The concept of complexity implies the idea that there is always unresolved issues- more to reflect than is possible and more to communicate about than is realistic. Complexity theory treat change and development of schools and teacher training as expansion of possible choice, as an continual multiplication of all social connection and not as linear and incremental improvements in fixed patterns (Rasmussen 1997: 53). A basic function in a hypercomplex society is thus to develop formulas of contingencies for every functional system (Qvortrup 2004: 54). As a consequence of contingencies, Qvortrup (2004:55) and Rasmussen (2004:54) claim that the concept of Bildung (dannelse) has changed in substance. To them it is problematic to understand Bildung as a normative content canon. The concept has to be reflected though devleoping formulas of contingencies where contingency is met through the present processes, not the past. People and organizations are all the time learning something that is not stable, not even defined or understood ahead of time. In important transformations of our personal lives and organizational practices, we must learn new forms of activity which are not yet there. They are literally learned as they are being created. There is no competent teacher or quick fix. Standard learning theories have little to offer if one wants to understand these processes. (Engeström, 2001:137-138) Teacher education has in this theoretical perspective to consider the many roles and systems of discourses teacher students /TS) must experience, reflect and enact upon and and switch between. TS have to acquire role competencies and transformation competence for enlarged rooms actualizing new formulas of contingencies.(Qvortrup 2004:183). This implies switching between discourse systems and in the transformation process change repertoire of behavior as desribed through Qvortups concepts of medium, code, reflection and function. These challenges applies also for teacher trainers, and teachers in the university schools. For teachers , the teacher role, there are basically two forms of discourses in relation to teaching and learning, one related to profession and the other related to care

4.3 Connecting Enactment and complexity through four pillars of research activity

4 The two issues beeing the focal point in this project bring together the issues connected to theories is based on a systemtheoretical perspective inspired by Bateson and Luhman complemented with complexity theory drawing on Rasmussen, Qvortup, Doll, Lemke and Sabelli with enactment- theory (Weick). Enactment theory gives a rationale for an understanding of professional identity and the norms involved. This foundation serve as points of reference for the understanding of the challenges the preservice training face in developing a research-based modell for teacher training.The two perspectives are further developed and connected through four specific pillars in the project where we draw on theory that can be related to the issues of enactment and complexity, but are also being more specific in its relation to school teaching and learning and and teacher education

4.3.1 Learning organization and co-configuration The understanding of this pillar is based on theory linked to the methaphor of learning organisations and co-configuration and to the activity theory of Engestrøm .The reorganizing of teacher education at the UiT has as one its main characteristics a co-configuration of teacher education orientated towards the development of evidence-based professional identity and new formulas of contingency. This necessitates a dynamic, dialogic relationship between the multiple actors and contexts in teacher education. It is a relationship marked by mutual learning and by the collaborative and discursive construction of tasks (cf. Engeström and Middleton, 1996, Engeström, 2002, 2004). This interdependency is predicated upon working alliances that are qualitatively different from conventional team formations or consensus-built communities of practice (cf. Lave and Wenger, 1991; Nardi et al, 2000; Lathlean and LeMay, 2002). In co-configuration work participants are required to recognise and engage with the expertise distributed across rapidly shifting professional groupings e.g working with engineers, carpenters, ICT-experts. Crucially, co-configuration is a participatory model. Participants are active in the shaping and reshaping of the learning system and in the development of the interdependent learning relationships via which practice is transformed. This implies a notion of interagency relationships that is not confined to collaboration between professional interest groups but which includes pupils and parents as as active subjects. Relationships between horizontal and vertical learning are integral to the analyses of organisational learning. Engeström emphasises the importance of horizontal movement in expansive learning processes situated in organisational fields that are moving toward co-configuration work. These horizontal processes include boundary crossing, multi-voiced dialogue and negotiated knotworking (Engestrøm,1987,1996,2001,2004) Key questions researched in this pillar are: What are the horizontal and dialogical actions, interactions and transactions being developed through co-configuration of teacher education in Tromsø? How do the co-cofiguration of the inservice training through new contexts, partnerships and dialouge conferences impact the quality of learning. The general working hypothesis of this study is that expansive learning of the kind required and generated by co-configuration is horizontal and dialogical. It creates knowledge and transforms activity by crossing boundaries and tying knots between activity systems operating in divided multi- organisational fields (cf. Engeström, et al 1999). 4.3.2 Didactical theory Traditional didactical theory are challenged by expectation related to more functionalistic perspectives defining new norms for teaching and learning. Wenigers stated paradox that professionalization through theoretical learning is significant in order to improve practice but at the same time such professionalization contributes to sharpen the potential opposition between theory and practice, especially when knowledge capital for use in practice is becoming more and more elaborated. In this context we draw on perspectives from Klafki`s critical-constructive didactical theory as well as more functionalistic oriented assessment theory (Black&Wiliam, Hattie) and theories concernning the development of specialized content knowledge (SCK), knowledge of

5 content and student (KCS) and knowledge of content and teaching (KCT). and and theories of content knowledge. (Shulman). Key questions researched in this pillar are : Are new formulas of contingency developed in relation to evidence-based teaching and learning in school for TS and teachers? How and why? Which formulas are unlearned?Why? How do the formulas reflect the issues of enactment and complexity? 4.3.3. New tools for new literacy in teaching and learning The understanding of this pillar is based on the perspective of learning as mastery and appropriation of cultural tools, a perspective that is rooted in a sociocultural approach, which has the aim to account for the relationship between mental processes and their cultural, historical and institutional settings. The concepts of affordances and constraints of tools are incorporated into a conceptual framework on use of tools, and how this is applied in understanding and analysing tools and mediated actions in developing teacher competences in university school contexts. New tools are defined on the basis of Vygotskys`s distinction between pscychological and material toos and Wertsch`concept (cultural) tools. Key questions researched in this pillar are: How do new tools impact students’ and teachers’ actions and interactions and transactions in practice, in the school context and what are the challenges connected to them? What are the contextual and cultural factors that explain how, why and for what reasons certain tools are adopted, whether as standalone tools or as integrated with older or more established tools? 4.3.4. Redefining Professional Identity This study appoaches identity formation from a psycho-sociological perspective. From this viewpoint, identity is constructed though interaction with the outside world. Personal and professional identity are theorethically distinguished although they are deeply united in teachers work. In contemporary educational studies, the question of professional development is often connected to reflection (Korthagen&Vasalos 2005) and the process of extending teachers self- knowledge (Hamacheck 1999). The personal history approach in techer education may serve as a meaningful way of preparing student teachers towards their professional practice. This is underlined by Goodson (2003, pp. 53-54) in suggesting focusing on both the personal and professional aspects of teching in order to achieve new and diffferent kinds of perspectives on developing one`s practice.. This kind of holistic approach may be seen through the term ”reframing” (Schön) or through Mezirows theory of transformative learning. In current educational research the term identity is increasingly allocated to the context of discourses. The work of Bakhtin is a central basis for dialogical, multiple identity, which is seen as constructed and produced by different discourses( Moen&Gudmundsdottir, 2002).The other apporoach is sociocultural where identity is situated in a larger socio-cultural matrix (Smith&Sparks,2008). Postcolonial epistemology opens up for uttering of multiple voices, in mutual respect. Different kinds of actors with different modes of ordering in a network define and shape one another, also through Othering one another. Each practice also generates its own reality, and this performativity can tell us of a heterogeneous network of knowledge production. But theory is only translated into practice if it is enacted – in practice and generates realities (Law 2007). From this perspective, the context has an essential role in teacher identity. Development in technology and in the distribution of the learning system widen the possibilities for different learning trajectories as part of teacher education. Key questions researched in this pillar are: How do teacher students develop their professional identities? What identity work processes are evolving in the university schools. How is it manifested? How do differences and similarities challenge borders between theoretical and practical knowledge traditions 5.Methodology

6 The scale of this project and the number of participants taking part as reseachers with their specific subprojects, practice teachers and TS contributing through their master projects raises the issue of what methodology could underpin the overall theoretical and material basis of the project and the project aims. It is an additional challenge in the project that the accredidation of schools still is in process and it is part of the theoretical basis that schools and practice teachers shuld be involved in the operationalization of of research issues, methodology and activity schedules. The theoretical basis and key concepts are – as system and complexity theory- abstract and not contextualized yet. This has to be done in cooperation with the participants, through the planned processes in the project. It can be argued that complexity theory can provide a valuable theoretical underpinning for action research. Furthermore, action research provides a valid methodological approach to the study of complexity. According to Underwood (2000), complexity provides three key implications in the social sciences. Firstly, it places an increasing stress on self-organisation and a realistic awareness that sociological phenomena often cannot be forecast. Secondly, the theory recognises that all living organisms are self-steering within certain limits and that their behaviour therefore can be steered from the outside only to a very moderate extent. Thirdly, complexity theory highlights the continuous emergence of new levels of organised complexity within society. the complexity paradigm requires a shift in thinking, although it makes more explicit what many social scientists and practitioners have known as they recognized that human institutions are not amenable to prediction and manipulation in simple linear terms . Few authors have drawn an explicit connection between action research and complexity theory, however recent action research literature provides indications that this might be beginning to occur. The capacity of action research to address complex issues was pointed out, metaphorically, by Kemmis & McTaggart (1988) when they described action research as a way of managing complex situations critically and practically. Does it mean that a complex approach of learning can only be relative? According to Morin, the promotion of the paradigm of complexity suggests researchers to reflect on the contradictions, complementarities and antagonisms inherent to the relationships between generality and singularity. Any system requires a subject who isolates it, cuts it up, qualifies it, hierarchizes it, based on her/his selective interests and the cultural and social context of scientific knowledge. In educational sciences,systems always involve human factors.physical entities. In addition to a history, they always involve meanings, values, and behaviors, which are never indifferent to the researchers who study them, may it beconsciously or not. One way to reflect on the dialogic between generality and singularity is to take into consideration the implication of the researcher her/himself.

The Openness of Action Research to Mixed Method Approaches Action research are thus a key methodological approach in the project. The institution has as part of its staff researchers with theoretical publications in the field and experience through decades using and developing the methodology in their research project. In the instituional context this basis is very well catered for. It is ,however, reflected in the different subporjects that this is not a sufficient methodological basis for the variety of approaches connected to the foour pillars. The range of methods varies from design studies connected to the appropriation of new tools, narrative and biographical approaches and mixed methods combining qualitative and quantitative data. The discourse analysts Koselleck (2004 and Fairclough (1995 og 2005) are regarded to represent a basis for connecting a theoretical and a methodological platform.Åkerstørm Andersen points to the basic similarities between perspetives in discourse analytic and system theoretical perspectives. Complexity theory focus on using concepts and the concepts of teaching and learning are key concepts in Qvortrup and Rasmussens texts. At the same time we regard their ambition to liberate the concepts from their traditional normative their strength. 7 Common to the methodological approaches in the project is the ambition to generate output from the projects that can be continually be used to feed forward and feed back and thus create individual and organizational learning.

6. Subprojects within the overall framework The table below shows the researcher from the institution taking part in TET. amounting to 14 researchers connected to 10 subprojects. All projects will develop partnership with the university schools sfter they are selected and operationalize detailed plans for the subject through this partnershipin thereafter.

Title Coordinator Research Additional Methodology Pillar ambition theory Knowlegde Torun G. Students' Postcolonial Action Professional assemblies in Ekeland og experiences in theory research Identity Teacher Kirsten E. shaping methodology Education Stien professional identification.

What New Vegard Learning Learning Learning are Nergård organization organization developing and co- and co- through the co- Stipendiat configuration configuration configuration of theory and practice Professional Karin Rørnes The contribution of Situated Dialogue- Didactical learning and dialogue learning theory conferenc theory dialogue Stipendiat conferences to Critical- combined with conferences research-based construtive qualitative and practice didactical quantitativ theory data Transformative Gerd Stølen How do teacher Transformative Biographical, Professional Learning in students develop learning theory longitudinal Identity Teacher Stipendiat their professional and reflexive Education. identities methodology

Developing Ove Dragseth Develop/use Cognitive Design study Didactical Maths knowledge to raise guided theory Knowledge for quality of teaching instruction Teaching maths Using social Lisbet Exploring Vygotsky Action reseach New tools media as tool for Rønningsbakk blogging as a tool Wertsch Text analysis for new academic for learning and literacy learning and professional networking identity Writing Audhild What awareness Empirical New tools strategies and Nedberg, and training is study action for new tools for Kjell important for research literacy teaching and Heggelund teachers to foster assessment. professionalism in writing across 8 learning areas Appreciative Odd Arne How can virtual Conversation Action appraisal and Thunberg dialogues learning and research virtual dialogue Line Husjord contribute to communication reflective and theory organisational learning? Aesthetic, New Tove Leming Developing Mixed Tools in Annelise alternative methods: Linguistics Brox Larsen, aesthetic and Observation, Anne Eriksen kinesthetic interviews, learning triangulating, trajectories text analysis

Connecting new Kari Doseth Integrating literacy Assesssment Mixed method Didactical literacy learning Opstad learning and theory, lesson action and assessment academic content study model research, for learning with Post doc. through new interview, the new models for survey curriculum teaching, learning models e.g. art and assessment. and crafts

6. Literature and References Andersen, Niels Åkerstrøm (1999) Diskursive analysestrategier. København: Nyt fra Samfundsvidenskaberne. Argyris, Chris & Schön, A. Donald (1996): Organizational LearningII,Theory, Method and Practice. Reading Massachusetts. Addison-Wesley. Ball, D. L., Thames, M. H., & Phelps, G. (2008). Content Knowledge for Teaching: What Makes It Special? Journal of Teacher Education, 59(5), 389-407. Bateson, Gregory (2005): Mentale systemers økologi. København: Akademisk forlag Black, P. & Wiliam, D. (1998) Inside the Black Box: raising standards through classroom assessmentLondon: School of Education, King’s College. Brown, J., & Isaacs, D. (2005). The World Café : Shaping Our Futures Through Conversations That Matter. San Francisco: Berrett- Koehler Publishers, Inc. Bruner, J. (1985). Narrative and paradigmatic modes of though. In E. Eisner (Ed.),Learning and teaching the ways of knowing. (84th yearbook of the National Society of the Study of Education) (pp. 97–115).Chicago: University of ChicagoPress. Bruner, J. (1990). Acts of meaning. Cambridge: Harvard University Press Carpenter, T. P. (1999). Children's mathematics: cognitively guided instruction. Portsmouth, N.H.: Heinemann. Carr, W., & Kemmis, S. (1990) Becoming Critical: Education, Knowledge and Action Research. Geelong: Deakin University Day, Ch. (1999) Developing Teachers - The Challenges of Lifelong Learning.London: Sage. Dierkes, M. et.al. (eds.) (2001): Handbook of Organizational Learning and Knowledge. Oxford University Press Dewey, J. (1933). How we think: A restament of the relations of reflective thinking to the educative process. Boston: D: C th. Doll,W.et.al.(eds)(2005) Chaos, Complexity and Culture.Peter Lang. Educational Horizons winter 2007 Darling-Hammond,L. and J.Baratz-Snowden excerpts from A Good Teacher In Every Classroom: Preparing the Highly Qualified Teachers Our Children Deserve. Elbaz-Luwich, F., Moen, T., & Gudmundsdottir, S. (2002). The multivoicedness of classrooms. Bakhtin and narratives of teaching. In R. Huttunen, H.L.T. Heikkinen & L. Syrjala (Eds.), Narrative research: voices of teachers and philosophers (pp. 197–218). Jyvaskyla: Jyvaskylan Yliopisto. Engeström, Y. (1987) Learning by Expanding: an activity-theoretical approach to developmental research (Helsinki: Orienta-. Engeström, Y. (2001a) Expansive learning at work: toward an activity theoretical reconceptualization, Journal of Education and Work, vol. 14 (1), pp.133-156. Engeström, Y. (2001b) The horizontal dimension of expansive learning: weaving a texture of cognitive trails in the terrain of health care in Helsinki. Finland. Paper presented at the international symposium 'New Challenges to Research on Learning', March, 2001, University of Helsinki, Finland. Engeström, Y. (2004) New forms of learning in co-configuration work. Paper presented to the Department of Information Systems ICTs in the contemporary world’ seminar, LSE, January 2004. Engeström, Y., & Middleton, D. (Eds.) (1996). Cognition and communication at work. Cambridge, UK: Fairclough, Norman (1995) Critical discourse analysis: the critical study of language. New York: Longman Publishing.

9 Fullan,M. (2007)The New Meaning of Educational Change. Teachers College Goodson, I. (2003). Developing life and work histories of teachers. In I. Goodson &A. Hargreaves (Eds.), Professional knowledge, professional lives. Studies in Education and change (pp. 49–62). Philadelphia: Open University Press. Goodson, I., & Hargreaves, A. (1996). (Eds). Teachers’ professional lives. London:Falmer PressGoodson Gumundsdottir, S. (1995). The narrative nature of pedagogical content knowledge. In H. McEwan & K. Egan (Eds.), Narrative in teaching, learning, and research (pp. 24–39). New York: Teacher College PressGumundsdottir, S. (1995). The narrative nature of pedagogical content knowledge. In H. McEwan & K. Egan (Eds.), Narrative in teaching, learning, and research (pp. 24–39). New York: Teacher College PressHaugaløkken og Ramberg: NTNUs partnerskapsmodell – evaluering og analyse. Ntnu 2005 Hamacheck 1999 Hamacheck, D. (1999). Effective teachers: what they do, how they do it, and the importance of self-knowledge. In R.P. Lipka & T.M. Brinthaupt (Eds.), The role of self in teacher development (pp.189–225). State Universityof New York Press. Hargreaves, Andy 2004: Læring og undervisning i kunnskapssamfunnet. Utdanning i en uttrygg tid, Abstrakt Forlag AS, Oslo Hattie, J. and H. Timperley:: The Power of Feedback. Review of Educational Research; Mar 2007; 77, 1; Academic Research Library Hattie, John (2009) Visible learning, A synthesis of over 800 meta-analyses relating to achievement, Routledge Heggen, K (2005): Fagkunnskapens plass i den profesjonelle identiteten. In Norsk Pedagogisk Tidsskrift nr. 6 Hopkins, D. (2002) A Teacher’s Guide to Classroom Research. Buckingham Philadelphia: Huberman, M. (1995). Working with life-history narratives. In H. McEwan & K.Egan (Eds.), Narrative in teaching, learning, and research (pp.127–166). New York: Teacher College Press. Imsen, Gunn 2009: Lærernes profesjonalitet og nye styringsregimer. I: Bedre skole. 1/2009, Klafki, Wolfgang (2001) Dannelsesteori og didaktikk – nye studier, Forlaget Klim Kartlegging av praksisopplæringen i lærerutdanningene .Sluttrapport November 2007Kunnskapsdepartementet Kemmis, S., & McTaggart, R. (1988) The Action Research Planner. Geelong: Deakin University Press. Kemmis, S., & McTaggart, R. (2000) Participatory action research. In N. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), Handbook of Qualitative Research (pp. 567-605). Thousand Oaks: Sage Koselleck, R.(2004):Futures Past by. Columbia univ. Press Korthagen, Fred. A.J (2001) Linking practice and theory, The Pedagogy of Realistic Teacher Education, Lawrence Erlbaum Korthagen, F.A.J. (2001). Linking practice and theory. The pedagogy of realistic teacher education. NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Korthagen, F.A.J. (2004). In search of the essence of a good teacher: towards a more holistic approach in teacher education. Teaching and Teacher Education, 20(1), 77–97. Korthagen, F., & Vasalos, A. (2005). Levels in reflection: core reflection as a means to enhance professional growth. Teachers and Teaching: theory and practice,11(1), pp. 47–71. Lave, Jean & Wenger, Etienne (1991/2008) Situated learning, Legitimate peripheral participation, Cambridge University Press Lathlean, J. and Le May, A. (2002), Communities of practice: an opportunity for interagency working. Journal of Clinical Nursing, 11: 394–398. doi: 10.1046/j.1365-2702.2002.00630Lathlean and LeMay, 2002. Lave, J. and E. Wenger (1991): Situated Learning - Legitimate Periphal Participation. Cambridge University Press. Law, J (1994): Organizing Modernity, Oxford UK – Cambridge Law, J. (2007) Actor Network Theory and Material Semiotics, in B. Turner (eds.) Social Theory West Sussex, pp. 141-158. Blackwell Lieberman, A.(1988)(ed.) Building a Professional Culture in Schools. Teachers College Press, N.Y. Lithner, J. (2008). A research framework for creative and imitative reasoning. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 67(3), 255-276 Loughran, J. (2006). A response to “Reflecting on the self”. Reflective Practice,7( 1)43–53. Lødding, B. og N. Vibe: Utdypende undersøkelse av funn i Elevundersøkelsen om mobbing, urettferdig behandling og diskrimering. Rapport 48/2010. Nifu Mason, M.(ed)(2008) Complexity Theory and the Philosophy of Education. Wiley-Blackwell Qvortrup, Lars (2001): Det lærende samfund: hyperkompleksitet og viden København: Gyldendal Qvortrup, Lars (2004): Det vidende samfund : mysteriet om viden, læring og dannelse Viborg: Forlaget UP Mezirow, J.: Transformative Dimensions of Adult Learning. John Wiley 1991, Mortimer, E. F., & Scott, P. (2003). Meaning making in secondary science classrooms. Open Univer Press Nardi et al, 2000; Nielsen, K. og S. Kvale (1999): Mesterlære som aktuell læringsform. In Nielsen, K. og S. Kvale (red.): Mesterlære - Læring som sosial praksis. Oslo: ad Notam Rasmussen, Jens (1996) Sosialisering og læring i det refleksivt moderne. København Rasmussen, Jens (2004) Undervisning i det refleksivt moderne: politikk, profession, pædagogik. København: Reitzel Rea in Bush & Middlewood, (2005). Leading and Managing People in Education. London: Sage. Noffke, S.: Professional, Personal and Political Dimensions of Action Research. P. 251-304 in Review of Research in Education, no.22, 1997 Sadler (in Gibbs & Simpson, 2004. Does your assessment support your students’ learning? Journal of Learning and eaching in Higher Education, 32(2), pp. 175-187 Schön,D,A.(1983) The Reflective Practitioner: how professionals think in action London: Senge, P.M. 1999: Den femte disiplin, Kunsten å utvikle den lærende organisasjon.: Egmont Smith, B., & Sparkes, A.C (2008). Contrasting perspectives on narrating selves and identities; an invitation to dialogue. Qualitative Research, 8(1), 5–35. Shulman, L.S. (1986). Those who understand: knowledge growth in teaching. EducationalResearcher, 14(2), 4–14. Ulvik, Marit (2008): Hvorfor vil ikke lærere jobbe i skolen? I: Utdanning Underwood, M. (2000) Complexity.Vygotsky, L.S. (1987) The collected works of L.S. Vygotsky: Vol.1, Problems of general psychology. Including the volume Thinking and speech. New York: Plenum. (N. Minick, Trans.) Westbury, Ian: ”Didaktik and Curriculum studies: Two sides of the same coin?” I: Gundem, Bjørg Brandtzæg og Hopmann, Stefan: Didaktik and/or Curriculum, 1998, New York: Peter Lang Westbury Wertsch, J.V. (1991) Voices of the mind: A sociocultural approach to mediated action. Cambridge, White Paper nr. 11,2008-2009: Læreren. Rollen og Utdanningen. Merrill, B. and L. West (2009): Using biographical methods in social research. Los Angeles:Sage.

10 Salling Olesen, H. (2007): Professional Identities, Subjectivity, and Learning. Be(com)ing a General Practitioner. In West, L., Alheit, P., Siig Andersen, A. and M. Merrill (eds): Using Biographical and Life History Approaches in the Study of Adult and Lifelong Learning: European Perspectives. Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang. Schön, D. (1983): The Reflective Practitioner. New York: Basic Books. Shulman, L. S. (1986). Those Who Understand: Knowledge Growth in Teaching. Educational Researcher, 15(2), 4-14 Skemp, R. R. (1976). Relational Understanding and Instrumental Understanding: Mathematics Teaching Wahlgren, B. et al. (2002): Refleksion og læring - kompetenceudvikling i arbejdslivet. København: Samfundslitteratur. West (1996): Beyond Fragments. Adults, Motivation and Higher Education. London: Taylor & Francis. Weick, K. E. (1988). ‘Enacted sensemaking in crisis situations’. Journal of Management Studies,,305–25,17. . . . .