Tracing theoretical concepts in student/teacher conversations during a practicum

ABSTRACT

The purpose of this article is to elucidate how a student teacher in Norwegian Early Childhood Education is enabled to relate practical experiences to theoretical concepts in conversations with a practicum teacher. We aim to demonstrate how the teacher and the student actually employ theoretical concepts during a practicum. The methodological approach in this study is audiovisual recordings from conversations between one practicum teacher and one student teacher that took place throughout a practicum. Transcriptions of these recording have been subject to discourse analysis. Findings reveal there is no room to articulate or reflect upon practical experiences. The practicum teacher dominates the conversations. Nevertheless, the student teacher does not seem to find the practicum teacher’s dominant role problematic and is very satisfied with the practicum. Thus, the satisfaction with and the lack of learning possibilities in the conversations seem to relate to how they both understand the student’s learning process.

KEYWORDS:

• Student teacher learning
• practicum feedback
• theoretical conversations
• learning in practicum
• ECE
• ECEC

Intro

The National Guidelines for Early Childhood Education (ECE) (2018) in Norway highlight that becoming a kindergarten teacher requires academic knowledge, analytical reflection, and practical experience. All areas of knowledge in education should facilitate the development of the student’s ability to explore various perspectives. According to Kvernbekk (2005), the possibility of exploring different perspectives is significantly enhanced when students gain insight into theory and theoretical concepts. This is explained by the fact that theory allows for reflection on events from various approaches, thus contributing to improving one’s ability to expand one’s perspective. This is in line with Dale (1993), who emphasizes the importance of introducing teachers to theoretical knowledge, not only because it allows for various perspectives but also because it provides teachers with the competence to direct attention toward their own ways of thinking. Hence, theoretical insight provides teachers with an increased capacity to reflect on the content of their pedagogical work as well as on the significance of their own understanding. This viewpoint is also highlighted by Søndenå (2004). Her definition of powerful reflection involves not only contemplating the academic justifications for pedagogical plans but also directing thoughts toward how we interpret our actions in the context of a given framework.

The national guidelines provide clear directions that during the practicum, student teachers should develop the ability to reflect on their experiences using theory. This implies that the practicum teacher must have insight into theory and must be able to support students in exploring their own comprehension.

A report on ECE in Norway documented that students find the practicum in kindergarten to be the most significant part of their education (Sataøen et al. 2015). The justification given is that the practicum serves to elucidate the connections between theory and practice. However, several researchers point out that theory is rather absent in kindergarten practice (Eik 2014; Ødegaard 2011; Steinnes 2014). According to Steinnes (2014), both kindergarten teachers and assistants emphasize that personal abilities and attitudes are more significant than academic knowledge. Therefore, to foster a reflective attitude toward a future professional role in student, it is essential that practice teachers serve as role models who embody an exploratory role as teachers (Bjerkholt 2013; Bjerkholt et al. 2015).

Numerous researchers have explored characteristics related to language used in Norwegian kindergartens between staff and students (Eik 2014; Larsen and Slåtten 2017; Søndenå 2004). Other studies have examined how teachers use language in encounters with children (Chan et al. 2022; Luna 2017) and how teachers use academic language to support children’s learning (Schleppegrell 2012). However, a data search reveals that how practice teachers and students actually apply theoretical concepts in their mentoring conversations has been inadequately explored. In this article, we will expose how a practicum teacher facilitates a student in applying theoretical concepts in mentoring conversations through the practicum. The essence of the article does not revolve around mentoring as a phenomenon but rather the use of theoretical concepts in these conversations.

Theoretical background

Säljö (2006) claims that language enables us to organize in various activities in society, and that the language that we use will gradually become characterized by the activity in which it is utilized. Linell (2011) states that conversation is a resource for developing common understanding, and that thereby, communication patterns that develop within a given profession are not random but relate to the focus of its members. He argues that due to the complexity of our society, activities have developed various forms of language and understanding that reflect different perspectives, knowledge and interests.

Colnerud and Granström’s (2015) research on how teachers communicate about their activities in school identified three levels of professional language: everyday, pseudo and metalanguage. According to Colnerud and Granstrøm, each of these levels has an area of use within pedagogical activity. Everyday language consists of spontaneous descriptions on a concrete action level without much reflection. Pseudo language is a kind of everyday language that includes theoretical concepts, but without putting them in context. Metalanguage, on the other hand, facilitates explanations on a theoretical level. It enables formulating hypotheses on patterns of interactions to analyze and discuss how some changes would work better than others.

Researchers who have studied the use of language in Norwegian kindergartens have demonstrated that teachers tend to practice everyday language (Larsen and Slåtten 2017; Ødegaard 2011). Ødegård documented that communication between pedagogical leaders and staff was characterized by verbal communication and a silent underlying understanding that ‘this is the way it is’. She found few traces of analysis and discussions related to routines and structures. This aligns with Eik’s (2014) findings, who asserts that kindergarten teachers often struggle with conceptualizing their practical pedagogical competence. Even teachers considered to be highly qualified professionals seemed to find it difficult to articulate, analyze and assess their own work.

There are various justifications for the use of everyday language in kindergarten. Larsen and Slåtten (2017) attribute it to a flat organizational structure that emphasizes equality between staff. According to Løkås (2022), due to a relatively low academic level among staff, everyday language is used as a strategy to make everybody feel included, and it is suitable for daily work in kindergarten. Säljö (2006) claims that the language characterizing an occupation not only supports the communication the participants find relevant but also serves as an expression of how they understand their professions. Hence, the way kindergarten teachers choose to express themselves reflects how they understand their role and their mandate. According to Linell (2011), all conversations progress in relation to internal and external framings. An internal framing concerns the dynamics between the participants in situ, which language the participants choose to use, which utterances they choose to follow up on, and the significance of the interaction. An external framing concerns the dynamics between the participants in situ and the context, and to what degree the participants choose to make aspects from the context relevant in the conversation. Furthermore, participants’ prior knowledge, earlier experiences, motivation to participate, time and space, and use of artifacts are also part of external framing and influence how the participants choose to participate in the conversation and what they choose to focus on. The division between internal and external framings is purely of analytical interest; in a conversation, these aspects will mutually interact and influence each other (Linell 2011).

According to Colnerud and Granström (2015), it is necessary to use a metalanguage to reflect on an activity and explore various perspectives. This requires knowledge and the ability to apply theoretical concepts. Säljö (2016) explains that we acquire concepts through an appropriation process, a gradual testing of knowledge that leads to an increasing degree of insight. Through testing and evaluation of our understanding, knowledge can be used in increasingly sophisticated ways and will eventually be taken for granted.

The National Guidelines for ECE (2018) require that student teachers obtain theoretical knowledge, analytic reflection, and practical experience during the practicum. This demands opportunities for the students to train the ability to reflect on the interaction between practice and theory. These opportunities are mainly located within formal mentoring conversations with a practice teacher. Attention needs to be given to how students are provided with opportunities to appropriate theoretical concepts in these conversations. Therefore, the research question is as follows: How does a practicum teacher facilitate a student teacher’s use of theoretical concepts in conversations during mentoring sessions?

Methodology

Context, participants, and data collection

The study was performed in a medium-sized town in Norway. All student teachers and teachers involved in the practicum were invited to participate in this study. Two practicum teachers and four student teachers volunteered, and audiovisual recordings were made of all of their mentor conversations. The recordings were performed by the teachers with a stationary camera. A short interview was performed individually with all the participants after the practicum to gather their perspectives on the practicum, conversations, and recordings.

The entire study material consisted of four sets of recordings. Each set consisted of 10/12 sessions. To facilitate in-depth analysis, we reviewed all the recordings looking for what Sullivan (2012) describes as ‘key moments’ which in this case was ‘use of theoretical concepts’. We selected the set that contained the most of these key moments. The conversations, ten in total, take place between one practicum teacher with more than ten years of experience and one second year ECE student.

The chosen recordings were transcribed ad verbum. Visible and audible signs of what Linell (2011) describes as an understanding response, such as ‘hm’, or a smile and nod were noted. The visual recordings simplified the interpretation of the soundtracks: who said what, nonverbal aspects, such as smiles, and disturbances that occurred, such as other people entering the room.

The recordings were deleted after transcription, and the informants were anonymized and referred to as she/student/practicum teachers/teachers.

Discourse analysis

A discourse analytic approach is about exploring patterns in what was actually said in a given situation and what consequences it might have (Jørgensen and Phillips 1999). By analyzing actual conversations discourse analysis may explain how understanding is constructed in social contexts (Jørgensen and Phillips 1999; Sahlin 1999). The analysis of the conversations is focused on the inner framings of the conversations and mainly on the content related to the research question and focuses on how the participants use the language as a tool to explore and learn. However, aspects of external framings are likely to elucidate aspects of internal framings. To increase readability of the presented excerpts and to adhere to the article format, we have simplified parts of the exchanges presented in the excerpts.

Topical episodes

The units of analysis in this study are topical episodes. A topical episode is a more or less bounded sequence of interaction that focuses on a topic and reveals both the content and how the participants construct their discourse by following each other’s contributions or not (Linell 2011). The practicum teacher and the student teacher construct a topical episode by giving each other responses to utterances related to a given topic. Mapping the topical episodes clarifies the content of the conversations and how the practicum teacher and the student teacher relate to the content and to each other. Our main focus are episodes that contained use of theoretical concepts and episodes related to the students’ learning process.

Ethical consideration

In accordance with the EECERA Ethical Code, we have taken into account the narrow focus and the sensitivity of exposing one student and one practicum teacher. Selected episodes are anonymized and not recognizable, and all participants were informed that they were free to leave the study at any time. Our research is based on the Norwegian National Research Ethics Committee’s Guidelines For Research Ethics (2019), especially point 5, which regards confidentiality in relation to how we have processed the data material.

Results

General features of the conversations

The recordings shows that the inner framing of the conversations is characterized by a friendly and positive atmosphere. There is much smiling and shared laughter. Further analysis shows that practicum teachers dominate through the actual speaking time, through introducing themes or shifting focus, and sometimes by not following up on the student teacher’s utterances. However, the student is active by confirming the practicum teacher’s statements and remarks with a verbal yes-no-hm and a nonverbal smile-nod. She is also indirectly active by delivering a written guidance document beforehand, which is the starting point for all the conversations.

The content of the conversations is mostly related to pedagogical schemes performed by the student. If future schemes are mentioned, it is to clarify information about time, place, and access to assistants. The content in one conversation is never followed up on in subsequent conversations.

The practicum teacher appears friendly and is generous with praise and positive responses. If she has critical response to a scheme, she will simultaneously give assurance that the student did well, or present criticism as an alternative option; T: but I think I would have involved the children – …  – (S: hm) – …  – it was a very nice activity you did – ‘you were a great storyteller’. The student appears assured and relaxed in the conversations and is also paying attention.

Practicum teachers often indicate that student teacher learning is a focus during the practicum. One topic in the first conversation is mutual expectations for this practicum. The student teacher says that she hopes that the practicum teacher will ‘give me as much knowledge as possible’, and the practicum teacher responds by saying ‘I will explain everything to you – …  – just follow my footsteps’. The practicum teacher also explicitly states the necessity to ask questions in order to obtain professional development: ‘I want you to ask questions’, ‘you need to ask questions in order to create your own professional foundation’. The analysis shows that the student teacher does not ask many questions, and when she does, it is mainly related to practical routines in the kindergarten. Questions from the teacher are usually rhetorical, and analysis shows that the student is not given space to elaborate an answer. The student also expresses that she wants to learn to use theoretical concepts. She justifies this with the example of winning arguments and says that her only useful experience with concepts thus far has been to pass exams.

S: and to use more theoretical concepts

T: yes that is important

S: - … - if we are to win an argument - … - know more than the others – then we need to use the theoretical concepts

T: hm – when you are collaborating with other parties you do need that

S: we never knew this at school really – it has only been about words we need to learn – only to pass the exam kind of - … - but that is like most of us feel – that they are words for the exam.

Application of theoretical concepts in the conversations

Analysis of the conversations shows little use of theoretical concepts. The most frequently used concept is ‘the didactical relational model’.

Didactical relationship model

In the first conversation, the practicum teacher expresses the importance of learning how to use all the different categories in the didactical relationship model, such as goals, working methods, content, frames, conditions, and evaluation.

T: I want you to understand the totality in the didactical relation model (s:hm) so that you have it under your skin - … - so you get a kind of system in your head

S: that is important

T: and when you write it down - … - then it will be stuck in your spinal cord

As the following quotation shows, the teacher regularly itemizes the importance of using all of the categories in the model: ‘You are going to execute leadership days by using the didactical relationship model (s:hm) – and then I do not mean “what-how-why” – but I want the whole model – because “what-how-why” is what we teach the assistants’.

The most extensive use of the didactical relationship model emerges in a conversation in which the topic is an excursion with a group of children and two assistants organized by the student. The practicum teacher had accompanied them as a participant observer. The practicum teacher starts the conversation by reading from the guidance document delivered by the student.

She then praises the student teacher for using the didactical relationship model as the basis for planning and asks how she felt about the excursion. The student says that she has learned to adjust schemes according to children’s age, ‘so I learned to reduce things – so they can be active participants –  … – and not take a long walk’. The practicum teacher supports this statement and advises her to concentrate on one thing at the time and to evaluate afterward, ‘but it is what it is, you just have to evaluate it (S:hm) – right?’. Furthermore, the practicum teacher reads from the student teacher’s guidance document, ‘Winter clothing is a precondition for children’s mastering of a rough terrain’. Without commenting on that, she says that a precondition for small children’s concentration and understanding of verbal instructions are limited and that the student did not take this into consideration when she tried to engage them in play activities. The practicum teacher asks whether the student teacher felt that she obtained the goal with the excursion and whether she had managed to stimulate children’s motor skills. The student says no, and the practicum teacher points toward the relationship between the goal and the children’s conditions. She continues by saying that the student has too many ideas simultaneously, and then she asks why the goals of the kindergarten are not included in the plan, without specifying what these are.

T: It is fine that you have written these goals - … - but then you must take into consideration their [learning] conditions – so where are one- and two-year olds when it comes to physical activities? – maybe you have too many things in your head? (S:hm) – because what I’m missing here (S: ok) is that you have not included the goals of the kindergarten

The practicum teacher then directs the attention toward the student’s management of the activity and demonstrates her approach to safely rolling downhill with the children. The student says that she had noticed how the practicum teacher engaged with the children but that she did not dare to try. The practicum teacher then advises her to train in this activity because it stimulates the vestibular sense and asks whether she understood this concept. The student teacher says yes, and the practicum teacher follows up with an account of what it means to train the vestibular sense and how it should be done.

T: so I don’t know if you noticed how I did with the children that had never rolled [downhill] before?

S: you rolled with them

T: - … - and there is a certain way where you kind of [shows with her elbows]

S: yes I saw it – but I did not dare to take the chance myself

T: you can train yourself in that – they really enjoy it - - … - what else do you stimulate - other than - what you have written down? - … - what I think is the most important anyway

S: wow – that is? [smiles]

The vestibular sense – do you know what the vestibular sense is?

S: yes – is it not the balance?

T: yes – it is what contributes to the basic movements – you see that – at some of them [the children] have started to jump and such

S: yes I see that

T: - … - you can actually encounter children who will never dare to roll downhill because they get very dizzy (S: yes) – they are the ones who need training.

The conversation ends with the practicum teacher advising the student to think about learning conditions. The student says she finds this concept difficult to grasp. Then, the practicum teacher explains the concept by using a parallel scenario, and she exemplifies her explanation by stating that a condition for the student’s pedagogical activity was the presence of known adults.

S: the conditions are very difficult compared to the others [categories in didactical relationship model]

T: if you think – you think of conditions and the individual child – then you think of conditions for the group – then you think of conditions for the staff – then you think conditions for – the day – what kind of conditions do we have to succeed and implement this (S: yes) – right? (S: yes – yes) conditions for your ability to implement this is of course that familiar adults are present – right?

Apart from the practicum teacher mentioning that the conditions must relate to the goal for the activity, there are no comments related to the other connections between the categories in the model. When the practicum teacher insists that the student needs to limit her goals, she does not relate to the model. Neither the teacher nor the student pick up on the student’s categorization of winter clothing.

The practicum teacher states in several conversations that she has an important role to play for the student’s learning outcome in general, as well as demonstrating her understanding of how to use theory in practice, ‘my role is to make sure that you are trained to be good kindergarten teachers and that you somehow learn to use the theory – and entwine it in your practice experience’. However, the analyses of the conversations do not show many signs of the latter goal being achieved. Some of the advice the practicum teacher provides in the excerpts presented is repeated in other conversations. She is, for instance, concerned that students learn from evaluating mistakes. She states, ‘So you should never be afraid of failure (S:hm) because that is how you actually learn – it is the mistakes you should write about in the evaluation’. She regularly states the importance of evaluation,

evaluation is one of the most important things you do – then you have an explanation about why things happened (S:yes) –  … – you need to evaluate all the time – …  – so evaluation is actually very important (S:hm) for your professional development (S:yes).

In the interviews after the practicum, both participants expressed their satisfaction with the conversations. The practicum teacher described the student as smart, responsible, and always prepared for the conversations. The student said that she had learned a lot during this practicum and that she felt very much taken care of by the practicum teacher, both professionally and personally.

Discussion

The purpose of this article is to explore how a practicum teacher facilitates a student’s use of theoretical concepts in conversations during mentoring sessions. The analysis reveals that the practicum teacher seems to be genuinely concerned that the student feels secure and supported during the mentoring conversations. She demonstrates a generous use of praise and encouragement and a willingness to cater to the student’s needs. This result is in line with Solstad (2013), whose study on student’s experiences with mentoring during the practicum also highlighted that practicum teachers tend to emphasize the importance of providing praise.

Our study reveals that the practicum teacher dominates the conversations through monologues, use of time, and choice of topics, and there is limited space for the student’s active participation or exploration. It is interesting that the practicum teacher does not seem to emphasize the student’s articulated need as a starting point for the mentoring conversations but rather relies on her own conceptions of what is significant. According to Søndenå (2004), the dominance of the teacher in mentoring conversations contradicts the Norwegian mentoring practices, which places importance on maintaining a symmetric relationship between students and practicum teachers. Furthermore, the student’s articulated needs should be a central focus of mentoring sessions and should be highlighted. The Norwegian ECE guidelines stress the role of students as active participants and driving forces in mentoring sessions. Our finding aligns with the work of Søndenå (2002, 2004, 2009), which suggests that conversations related to mentoring during the practicum tend to be heavily influenced and dominated by practicum teachers.

As our study reveals, the focus during the conversations is primarily centered around the student’s experiences in the practicum. Nevertheless, there appears to be limited opportunity for the student to articulate or reflect upon her experiences. The student does not seem to find the practicum teacher’s dominant role problematic but appears to feel comfortable and at ease during the conversations. She confirms her satisfaction in the interview in which she expresses appreciation for the advice regarding pedagogical work given by the practicum teacher. This finding aligns with other research in the field. Solstad (2013) found that mentoring sessions often lacked critical thinking or theory-based argumentation. Nevertheless, the students in her study expressed that they benefited and learned a great deal from these sessions. They attributed this effect to the positive feedback received when they followed the practicum teacher’s advice. Solstad suggests that this positive feedback loop may contribute to students’ confidence in their existing knowledge and skills but that it does not necessarily enhance their ability and competence to assess their own choices. Her view aligns with Eik (2014), who emphasizes that the supporting behavior of practicum teachers may have limited significance if students are not adequately challenged and provided with opportunities to articulate their theoretical justifications.

The analysis of the conversations in the study uncovers traces of various language types, including everyday language, pseudo language, and metalanguage. Everyday language, as described by Colnerud and Granström (2015), is characterized by spontaneous descriptions of events and experiences without incorporating theoretical concepts. The findings indicate that the most prevalent language used in these conversations is everyday language. This can be exemplified by the practicum teacher’s informal language, which primarily consists of simple sentences and a lack of theoretical concepts. According to Säljö (2006), this indicates that the practicum teacher and the student find the everyday language suitable to meet their needs for discussions related to the student’s experiences during the practicum. Pseudo language, as outlined by Colnerud and Granström, contains traces of theoretical concepts but lacks contextualization. This is observed when the practicum teacher advised the student to apply the didactical relationship model to ‘get it under her skin and in her spine’. Additionally, the practicum teacher repeatedly insists that the student should utilize the entire model and not just focus on using ‘what-how-why’ without clarifying the difference. Given that both practicum teachers and students receive training in the use of this model, this finding is unexpected. According to Engelsen (2006, 47), the didactical relationship model is part of the Norwegian didactical culture and emerged as a response to the inadequacy of the earlier Tyler goal-oriented model, which placed heavy emphasis on goals and means without addressing the nuances of teaching and learning. A prominent feature of the model is the inclusion of a broader spectrum of categories beyond just goals. These categories are framework conditions, goals, content, methods, preconditions for participation, and evaluation. All categories are of equal importance, and their interdependence should be continuously assessed. Furthermore, Engelsen emphasizes that in the didactical relationships model, unlike the earlier goal-oriented model, the goal category does not hold precedence over the other categories. As the analysis reveals, the student expresses uncertainty about how to use the model, and the practicum teacher does not seize the opportunity to provide an explanation and explore the model further. Another instance of pseudo language is how the category of evaluation is utilized within the conversations. The practicum teacher explicitly underscores the significance of evaluation as a means of fostering professional competence. However, she leaves the student to evaluate the pedagogical activities by herself after the conversations. Hence, the practicum teacher does not provide opportunities within the conversations for the student to evaluate her practice experiences. It is not turned into an exchange or developed into a topical episode. According to our analysis the didactical relationship model is never thoroughly reviewed in conversations. This finding corresponds with Ottesen (2006), who documented that theoretical concepts are often used in discussions primarily to describe situations rather than to serve as a tool for facilitating a deeper understanding.

Our analyses also reveal traces of metalanguage within the conversations. Theoretical concepts are occasionally used to enlighten and analyze the student’s experiences. An example is the evaluation of the excursion when the student had applied the didactical relationships model to plan the event. The practicum teacher directs the attention to the category of preconditions and highlights the link between children’s abilities to comprehend verbal instructions and the content and management of the activity. Furthermore, the practicum teacher introduces the term ‘vestibular sense’ to underline the importance of the content in the plan. However, instead of giving room for the student to explore her understanding of the term ‘vestibular sense’ and thereby facilitating the student’s appropriation of this theoretical concept, the practicum teacher leads the conversation though a monologic performance and disregards the student’s input. Säljö (2016) emphasizes that the process of appropriating concepts necessitates the opportunity for active exploration and testing of ones’ understanding. These findings reveal a missed opportunity for the student to actively explore both the concept ‘vestibular sense’ and its relation to the ‘didactical relationship model’.

The analysis reveals a contradiction that may hinder the student’s appropriation of theoretical concepts. Even though the practicum teacher insists on the significance of using theoretical concepts, she does not facilitate the student to do so in the mentoring conversations. In contrast, she explicitly advises the student to rely on everyday language both in conversational interactions and written documentation. Larsen and Slåtten (2017) argue that the shortage of teachers in kindergartens results in reduced usage of theoretical concepts and language, which leads to teachers adapting to assistants. Another hindrance in the conversations is the student’s passive role. According to Saljö, appropriation requires an active participant role, but the student in our study takes a rather passive role. Whenever theoretical concepts are included in conversations, it is primarily due to the practicum teacher’s monologues that the student assumes a passive role. This result confirms the worry articulated by Søndenå (2004; 2009), who states that conversations between practicum teachers and students contribute more to adaptation than to exploration and hence appear to be more inhibiting than promoting students’ professional development. Furthermore, when the student makes attempts to incorporate theoretical concepts, the teacher does not follow up, on the contrary she advices the student to avoid using theoretical concepts. This advice does not stimulate further active attempts to test the understanding of theory; it is also a contradiction to previous advice about learning theory.

Interestingly, in the interview, the practicum teacher describes the student as eager to learn, and the student says she learned a lot from the practicum teacher. Their understandings of what learning is and how they justify the learning of theoretical concepts appear in the data material in various ways. When the student asks the practicum teacher to give her ‘the most possible knowledge’, and the teacher asks the student to follow her around it, it reflects an understanding of learning in which the learner is ‘sitting at the feet of a master’. This understanding of learning is based on Lave and Wenger’s (1991) apprenticeship as a model of learning. Furthermore, when the teacher asks the student to evaluate her mistakes on her own after the conversations, as mentioned above, it points toward a solitary learning process. In addition, all justifications for learning how to use theoretical concepts are related to the student’s future profession as a kindergarten teacher, to enhance teachers’ competence in meetings with other professions, or as a tool to facilitate collaboration with older colleagues, among other reasons. The fact that theoretical concepts may be useful as tools to expand the understanding of the student’s experiences at present is, however, never mentioned.

Conclusion

The lack of focus on theoretical concepts in the conversations included in our study aligns with prior research demonstrating the limited presence of theoretical language in Norwegian kindergartens (Eik 2014; Larsen and Slåtten 2017). According to our analysis, both the practicum teacher and the student appear interested in the student’s appropriation of theoretical concepts. Nevertheless, the conversations may be characterized more as an assessment of the student’s performance rather than providing an opportunity for the student’s appropriation of concepts. Therefore, the student is not given the possibility to explore her experiences from various perspectives, as recommended both by national guidelines for ECE (2018) and researchers (Bjerkholt et al. 2015; Dale 1993; Kvernbekk 2005).

The lack of theoretical concepts shown in this study may have implications both for ECE and the field of practice. Teaching at the university needs to focus explicitly both on how theory may expand the student’s understanding of activities in the practicum, and that the appropriation of academic language demands active student participation. Practicum teachers need, to a greater extent, to actively apply academic language in meetings with ECE students and keep in mind students’ learning processes as well as their suitability for the profession in the future. Engaging in theoretical concepts will give both students and teachers the opportunity to develop a professional language that is necessary in discussions with colleagues, other professions, policymakers, parents, stakeholders, and others. We are calling for more research that can elucidate students’ acquisition of theoretical concepts in practicum as well as how the understanding of learning can be related to facilitation in learning processes.

Limitations

Discourse analysis is subjective, as it relies on the interpretation of researchers. However, having two researchers interpreting the data material has enhanced this aspect of validity. As this is a qualitative study, our intention is not to produce generalized findings but to contribute to discussions concerning students’ appropriation of theoretical concepts. We could have strengthened the validity by expanding the sample but conducting discourse analysis require extensive resources. Third, the presence of audiovisual recordings could have influenced the behavior and responses of the participants. Despite these limitations, discourse analysis remains a valuable method for understanding language use.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).