Learning to teach as a two-sided endeavor: mentors’ perceptions of paired practicum in initial teacher education

ABSTRACT

In this article, mentors’ perceptions of paired practicum in initial teacher education in Sweden are studied. Taking the mentors’ perspective, we describe the potentials and the pitfalls of paired practicum. The pros and cons of the model are analyzed from a  perspective of learning the vocation of teaching as a two-sided endeavor. Inspired by a modified Aristotelian perspective, we use the terms participant knowledge and spectator knowledge to conceptualize the learning of two different forms of knowledge. Qualitative data were gathered through interviews with five mentors and analyzed using an abductive process. The analysis reveals that paired practicum facilitates a potential for learning mainly a distanced and propositional spectator knowledge while the learning of a contextual and practical participant knowledge seems to be obstructed. For instance, paired practicum seems to prolong the peripheral position of the students and their opportunities to gain participatory knowledge. Results also show that there is a discrepancy between the pedagogical intentions of paired practicum and the concrete possibilities for realizing these in practice. The limitations of the paired practicum model, and how these can be overcome, both at individual and organizational level, are highlighted.

KEYWORDS:

• Paired practicum
• mentors´ perspectives
• participant knowledge
• spectator knowledge
• initial teacher education

Introduction

In recent decades, teacher education (TE) has internationally been subject to increasing criticism regarding the gap between theory and practice (Allsopp et al., 2006). This criticism is often based on the perception that TE overly emphasizes theory at the expense of actual teaching practice. Reaction to this criticism has resulted in the so-called ‘practice turn’ of TE (Reid, 2011), boosting the extent of time that teacher students spend within the school-based parts of TE and emphasizing school-based training programs as well as the specific part of practice within TE. Thus, TE has come to cooperate more with schools by forming stronger partnerships. In Sweden, this cooperation now takes place with fewer schools than previously, and they are expected to provide high-quality practicum for TE students. This collaboration with a smaller number of practice schools, together with an increasing intake of students to TE, has led to a situation whereby the students are offered to implement practice in pairs instead of, as earlier, individually.

This new model of paired practicum entails that two pre-service teachers are assigned to the same supervising teacher’s classroom for the duration of their placement. The model revolves around the idea of collaborative team teaching, with two student teachers planning, teaching, and reflecting together with the support of their supervising teacher. While such initiatives have practical and economic reasons, they are also backed up by ideas regarding the need for student teachers to develop collaboration skills in order to learn the profession. These ideas are often theoretically supported from a Vygotskian framework of learning as a social enterprise, in which the learners' zone of proximal development can be utilized by interactions with equal status peers (Gardiner, 2010). Sometimes the initiatives are also supported by Lave & Wengers' theories of ‘communities of practice’ (Wenger, 1998), especially the parts in which collaborative inquiry through dialogue with peers is said to contribute to the reflective processes and provide alternative perspectives.

A large part of the research on paired practicum links the analysis to similar theoretical reasoning (e.g. Gardiner, 2010; King, 2006). Often results are presented based on students’ experiences of the model and emphasize the positive effects on students’ learning (Lawson et al., 2015). In the present article, however, mentors’ perceptions of paired practicum are studied. As in previous research, we want to try to understand how the model benefits students’ learning, but unlike many previous studies, we draw equal attention to what mentors perceive as obstacles. The pros and cons of the model are analyzed from a  perspective of learning the vocation of teaching as a two-sided endeavor, namely that teacher knowledge consists of two different forms that are different to their characters, require the development of different abilities, are learnt in different ways but are equally important in learning to teach. Inspired by Saugstad (2002, 2005) we use the terms participant knowledge and spectator knowledge to conceptualize the two different forms of knowledge. By using these analytical tools, we want to obtain a nuanced understanding of paired practicum. Taking the mentors’ perspective, we describe the potentials and the pitfalls of the model, how it is perceived to affect the students' opportunities to learn and how mentors navigate to take advantage of the potential in what the model offers and gain access to what is excluded. Finally, we discuss paired practicum as a model for student teachers' vocational learning. The limitations of the model and how these can be overcome, both at individual and organizational level, are highlighted.

Paired practicum – previous research

There are several international studies on TE that stress the value of collaborative practices such as paired practicum (Lawson et al., 2015; Staal Jenset, 2018). A significant part of the research on paired practicum has studied the phenomenon from a student perspective. According to Sorensen (2014) paired practicum can enhance the confidence of student teachers: they do not feel as disempowered as they do when individually placed with one mentor. Also, Baker and Milner (2006) claim that student teachers in paired practicum tend to address pedagogical matters with their mentors rather than personal issues, and that despite a shared mentor time, this time is perceived as dynamic and focused on pedagogical growth and teaching rather than individual and private matters. According to Bullough et al. (2002, 2003), and Heidorn and Jenkins (2015), student teachers preferred paired practicum and perceived themselves as better and more realistically equipped for their future teaching.

When student teachers are placed in paired practicum, they are facilitated to discuss their problems and concerns with each other, which reduces their isolation as well as an amount of stress which often is experienced when being one student – one mentor. Further highlighted by Heidorn and Jenkins (2015) is that student teachers are provided with feedback from two individuals, a mentor as well as their peer student, instead of just one. Additionally, the pair of students can discuss and reflect over a lesson that the mentor is instructing (Heidorn & Jenkins, 2015). Even in uneven collaborative pairs (Dee, 2012), the stronger student serves as a role model and another voice in the areas in which the partner needs to make changes. However, even where pair placement is successful and student teachers in pairs operate well together, it is also perceived that they do not automatically profit from implementing practice in this arrangement. This could be due to an ambiguity regarding what each student teacher should be working on in the classroom (Smith, 2002). Issues have also been raised regarding paired placements that student teachers are left unaided to educate each other instead of having access to the knowledge of a qualified mentor (Smith, 2002). Some students therefore acquire a dependence on peer students when it comes to their weaker areas and use them as a ‘crutch’ instead of being forced to address and develop these themselves (Guiterrez, 2016). Additionally, relations are recurring issues, as differences in personality can lead to difficulties in planning together, as one student can be more dominant than the other (Smith, 2002).

Other concerns raised regarding paired practicum involve the fact that teaching opportunities as well as managing other issues within the teaching profession are reduced for student teachers (Heidorn & Jenkins, 2015). Also, paired practicum entails two individuals in a social context where they are to demonstrate their learning capabilities as well as form relationships with pupils and the mentor. Heidorn and Jenkins (2015) suggest that this structure brings about a situation where there is a possibility that some students form stronger relationships with either pupils or the mentor which means that one student teacher may feel neglected or suspect favored treatment.

Shifting focus now to the mentor perspective advantages are, according to Bullough et al. (2002), a decreased workload for mentors. Also, mentors perceive students to be better supported and responsible for one another’s development which results in learning improvements as well as profitable collaboration between students. However, even though mentors perceive that students can share ideas and gain advantages from watching each other teach, they express concerns over how ‘realistic’ peer placement actually is for students (e.g. Bullough et al., 2002; Lang et al., 2015). Some mentors also claim that they are not able to devote sufficient time with each individual student and worries are put forward regarding competition and conflict between two student teachers and that mentors can experience inadequacy if students advance and proceed at different rates (Baker & Milner, 2006; Guiterrez, 2016). Difficulties are further increased regarding communicating critical comments or positive comments to one of the students (Guiterrez, 2016).

Maynard and Furlong (1993) notice that the paired emplacement models imply the need for mentors to situate themselves more as ‘co-enquirers’ (p. 82). This role of the mentor when supervising students in pair practicum is reinforced by Gardiner (2010) who shows that even though mentors perceive their role as positive, it is time-consuming to effectively allocate roles and duties in their responsibilities to attend to and encourage collaborative efforts. In addition, Smith (2002) points out that when structuring paired practicum, organizations are taking for granted that a supportive environment for students is created by itself, causing stress for students and mentors.

Connected to these concerns is also the individual assessment that mentors carry out of students in paired practicum, where they need to consider the formative aspects of mentoring and at the same time conduct an objective and unbiased assessment. Situations can occur where mentors are unaware of, or do not address the fact, that students are inevitably compared to each other (Smith, 2002; Walsh & Elmslie, 2005). Also, difficulties are seen regarding what each individual student is responsible for as the pair of students are seen as a whole and it is problematic to distinguish stronger or weaker features of the individual (Simons & Baetens, 2016). These issues raise concern for mentors and can be a foundation for an increased workload, which can be a reason, or an opportunity, for some mentors to deliver a reduced amount of formative feedback individually and instead leave it up to peer students to support and assist each other (Baker & Milner, 2006; Smith, 2002). Finally, it should be noted that a significant amount of literature regarding mentors’ perspectives on paired practicum is dated, which further highlights a need for this study regarding implications due to structural changes within practice.

Theory

The theory-practice gap in teacher education is seldom perceived by scholars as something fruitful for vocational learning. Saugstad (2002, 2005) is, however, an exception, claiming that theory and practice are incommensurable units and that actors in educational settings need to pay attention to the dissimilarities in order to handle them in a productive way (cf. Cochran-Smith & Lytle, 1999; Fenstermacher, 1994; Shulman, 1986). Minding the gap instead of trying to bridge it will, according to Saugstad, increase the quality in student learning in all domains of professional education (cf. Raaen & Thorsen, 2020). In the present article, concepts within such a perspective is used as a theoretical framework for analyzing data within the domain of paired practicum. Saugstad's theoretical framework has been applied in other recent studies in the area, for example, of student teachers’ perceptions of peer learning in practicum (Jederud, 2021), and university teachers' understanding of student teachers' learning in work-integrated teacher education (e.g. Gardesten & Nordänger, 2018). The studies point out, among other things, that there is a lack of research using a theoretical framework to analyze mentors' perceptions of student teachers' learning.

With a starting point in Aristotle’s discussion of different domains of knowledge (primarily in Aristotle’s Nicomachean Ethics) Saugstad suggests the use of the terms spectator knowledge and participant knowledge as a way to open up an alternative perspective on the relationship between theory and practice. This makes it evident that (teacher) education is concerned with two different domains of knowledge that cannot be related merely as a matter of course. The philosopher Aristotle introduces three separate types of knowledge: one theoretical – episteme, and two practical types of knowledge – techne and phronesis. A significant conclusion of this categorization is that it makes it possible to distinguish the difference between the practical and theoretical, which are two significantly diverse types of knowledge. In the present study, the interest is to establish how mentors perceive paired practicum as a model of learning the teaching vocation. Taking into account that their expression concerns learning in practical situations, we do not, like Saugstad (2002, 2005), mainly connect spectator knowledge to episteme. Instead, we connect the spectator perspective to mainly phronesis but with links to techne and episteme. The participatory perspective is primarily linked to techne but influenced by phronesis.

Spectator knowledge concerns itself with general and de-contextualised knowledge and builds upon logical conclusions and abstract thought. It has a propositional character and can be described as knowledge about the practical, i.e. as the knowledge one gains by observing the practical from a distance, without being deeply involved in that which is being observed. The aim of this knowledge is to make something visible and to explain it. Spectator knowledge has only indirect importance for how to act, as this knowledge serves primarily to define and understand the area in which actions take place.

Participant knowledge is about the concrete and particular. It concerns itself with the doings and makings in a particular context. This type of knowledge is grounded in experience and builds upon an experience-based capacity with an ability to solve problems with a hands-on and interactive heuristic approach. Participant knowledge is also connected to ethical questions regarding how to act wisely in specific complex situations. It is attached to practical and social life and can be described as the knowledge one has to have in order to get on in the practical field and to make good judgements acting in the same.

The different forms of knowledge are learnt in different ways. The learning processes within spectator knowledge are de-contextualized, since they demand more loose connections to the necessity of practical life. In learning as a spectator, it is of significant importance to distance oneself from the social context to be able to generate knowledge about it. Learning is stimulated by reflection and dialogue and manifests itself in speech and writing. The learning of participant knowledge, on the other hand, demands exposure in a particular context to gain experience in different practical situations. Learning as a participant is best done by taking an active part in the situations where it is to be applied. This learning takes time since it is a process of skill acquisition combined with socialization into a (professional) identity. The learning takes place organically by close participation in real-life situations and it is fostered through imitation and skilled role models. It is through participation that knowledge can be incorporated and used in a tacit and intuitive way.

Saugstad (2005) connects the two different forms of knowledge and their different ways of learning to two different arenas. Learning as a spectator is related to ‘school’ while learning as a participant is linked to ‘practical life’ in general and ‘working life’ in particular. There are, however, reasons to suppose that the two perspectives on learning appear simultaneously in both arenas. For example, learning in school entails features of socialization and workplace learning involves distanced reflection (Cochran-Smith & Lytle, 2009; Ravitch, 2014). Most likely the two perspectives are also displayed in the different arenas of initial teacher education (Grossman & McDonald, 2008). The underlying hypothesis for the present study is that ideas on learning to teach from a spectator or participant perspective are exposed in the practicum periods of teacher education in general, and in mentoring of paired practicum in particular. Previous research has shown that the model of paired practicum has its pros and cons. There seem to be two sides of the same coin. To understand experiences of learning opportunities in paired practicum as a two-sided coin – learning to teach as a spectator or a participant – can hence provide a deeper understanding of previous results from research in the area and hopefully contribute to teacher educators making more informed decisions in arranging student teachers' learning in paired practicum.

Context

Within Swedish initial TE, students are required to accomplish a total of 30 ECTS [European Credit Transfer System credits] of teaching practice. Usually three or four practice periods, each consisting of five to ten weeks, are included within the TE program. During practice, students are offered mentoring by a designated teacher. The mentor is expected to support the students in their learning process as well as taking part in the assessment of their performance. At the same time, the mentor performs their regular job as a teacher. The common type of instructional practice for the mentors in this study is one teacher per classroom. Being a mentor is mandatory for the mentors as they are further educated (7.5 ECTS) for this role. They are in their mentor situation the only teacher in the classroom and they are the primary source of instruction for the student teachers. How they model practice periods for students in paired practicum is decided by them or together with fellow mentors at the same school unit. The organization of the practical parts of TE has changed over the years. Recently, following a government decision in 2014, they have been reorganized into specific practice schools cooperating with certain higher education institutions. What distinguishes these specific practice schools is that they have a high concentration of students and at least six further trained mentors. Only further trained mentors are to instruct student teachers. By having a high concentration of students and mentors, there are expectations that ‘possibilities should arise for an exchange of experiences between mentor and student but also mutually between students and between mentors’ (Ministry of Education, 2014, p. 7).

Method

This study seeks to contribute to the research on paired practicum by making use of qualitative methodology to present a nuanced understanding of how mentors in upper secondary schools perceive and experience their role when supervising student teachers. In this study, all the mentors were chosen based on the following preconditions: they are further educated and they have experience of supervising single-placed students as well as students in pairs. Qualitative data were gathered through semi-structured individual interviews with five mentors. Two of the mentors have experience of supervising several pairs of students. Three of the mentors have experience of supervising one pair of students. The five mentors who volunteered had been teaching in upper secondary schools between 16 and 22 years, and were from three different schools. The schools were chosen because they were specific practice schools and had mentors that had supervised students in paired practicum. They had been mentors for student teachers between four and 15 years. Three were female and two were male. One of the interviews was conducted person to person; the others were conducted through online meetings due to the Covid 19 situation. The mentors were not chosen for the study according to their views on the paired practicum. Data saturation was attained by five interviews due to what Burmeister and Aitken (2012) refer to as the depth of the data, which was rich in terms of complexity, details, nuances and also many-layered. Of importance is what the data comprises rather than the sample size and when the point was reached of no new data (O’Reilly & Parker, 2012); the point was also reached of no new themes and therefore data saturation was attained.

Initially, two of the research members read the same sets of transcripts several times to be able to locate patterns in the data. Transcripts of interviews were examined and data were compared and gathered in categories with the purpose of capturing what is represented in the texts (Fejes & Thornberg, 2019). The process used to code and synthesize the data was abductive, that is a back-and-forth process between research data and contemplations of theory (Rinehart (2021). Data were categorized by searching for general tendencies as well as specific and noticeable findings in relation to the overall purpose. However, the analysis process was also guided by the aim, questions and theoretical framework of the study, because thought was given to how the interviews were to be analyzed before they were conducted. This procedure, according to Brinkmann and Kvale (2015), leads to an analysis that is not only more transparent but also rests on more secure ground. Comparisons between categories resulted in the generation of themes. These themes were generated from observing what stood out in the data regarding how paired practicum might alter the role and function of the mentor as well as the opportunities for the students’ learning. The themes are not in a ranked order of importance. Direct included quotes from participants are representative quotes and were selected for inclusion due to recurrence in the data.

Results – the challenge of organizing learning of participant knowledge

The result is organized in three major themes and one concluding theme. The themes were developed in an abductive process. This means that we interpreted the empiric material in relation to the notions of spectatorship knowledge/learning and participant knowledge/learning (Saugstad, 2002, 2005), at the same time keeping an openness for findings that problematized the dualistic nature of these notions. Under the first theme, Seizing the opportunities of a spectator position, we acknowledge the positive perceptions of paired practicum in relation to the potentials of learning identified by the mentors. Under the second theme, Lingering in a peripheral position, we focus on the challenges of paired practicum, especially in terms of how it seems to prolong the period of being in a peripheral position for the students thus reducing their opportunities to gain participatory knowledge. Under the third theme, In conflict with mentor’s work situation, we analyze practical issues in relation to how paired practicum leads to unexpected challenges, on the part of the mentors, such as dealing with material and spatial restrictions as well as changes in the relational dynamics of the mentoring process. We understand this as a consequence of paired practicum as a disturbance regarding the participatory aspects of learning the teaching, something that calls for compensatory measures from the mentors. Finally, under the fourth theme, Transforming mentoring into instruction, we relate the overall result to our major conclusion, that a paired practicum risks moving mentors from a collegial to an instructive role and therefore works against the idea of practicum as an arena where teacher students are to gain participatory knowledge in real life collegial contexts. In this concluding analysis, we also problematize the clear-cut division between spectatorship knowledge and participatory knowledge, as the practical dilemmas described by the mentors pertain to a more complex picture of the teaching profession and the opportunities to learn this profession in situ.

Seizing the opportunities of a spectator position

In the material, we found several reflections on how paired practicum changed the opportunities for learning. The positive aspects identified by the mentors are the possibilities for one student to observe a peer student in teaching situations and to follow up this observation with fruitful didactical discussions and own teaching experiences. Paired practicum also leads to opportunities for a deepened didactical reflection, which can take place both between students and between students and their mentor. As one student in a teaching situation is observed by two fellow teachers (the mentor and the peer student), this can lead to discussions covering perspectives from both practical experience (the mentor) and course literature (the peer student).

Mentors also appreciate the fact that students, especially in their first period of practicum, always have a peer student to lean on and with whom they can discuss both teaching experiences and other matters.

They had help from each other, absolutely, and they came to me when it was something in particular, so I did not feel that if they were two students then it was them two and I was somewhere else, rather there was still a good balance here. (Mentor 5)

Here, Mentor 5 stresses the importance of the relational dynamics of the student pair. These dynamics affect different opportunities for role-taking as well as for learning; differences in motivation especially become a factor. Mentors deal with this in different ways. Some mentors see the advantages in having a pair, where one student is more motivated, since this student is seen as an ‘extra’ mentor who can influence the lesser motivated student in a positive direction. Mentor 2 states:

… there is a strength in that they can discuss with each other, there are things that they dare to raise with each other that they dare not raise with us teachers and mentors so to speak because they still find themselves in an inferior situation towards us due to assessment, which they do not do to each other, so there are great advantages … (Mentor 2)

To sum up, balanced relational dynamics between the students in paired practicum can support learning of spectator knowledge, according to the mentors. However, if the differences in motivation, knowledge, and understanding between two students are too big, some problematic issues are identified. We will cover some of them under the next theme.

Lingering in a peripheral position

I think it’s better with one student than when you have two, as you always have one student who steps forward a bit more and you feel that sometimes you want to hold one back and push forward the other. (Mentor 5)

Even if the mentors acknowledge the potentials of paired practicum, most of them identify several challenges. When mentoring just one student, the opportunities for learning lie close to the idea of entering into, and gradually changing your position in a community of practice (Wenger, 1998), something that the quote from Mentor 5 illustrates. Here, students move from a peripheral to a more central position, guided by their mentor, who gradually takes the identity of a future colleague. When the mentors have a student pair, this collegial form of learning is less likely to appear. Students in paired practicum are hindered from forming a teaching team with their mentor. Instead of becoming two colleagues in the classroom (one mentor and a single-placed student), a contraposition is formed, and remains, of two students and one teacher. This tends to keep students in paired practicum longer in a peripheral position, instead of practising ‘real life’ teaching as a participator. This is due to several factors, according to the mentors, such as limits in possible lessons for each student to be responsible for, relational factors and a tendency to pass over some of the mentoring aspects to the students themselves, thus keeping them a longer time in the peripheral position. This is supported by the following illustrative quote from Mentor 1:

… they identify themselves very much as student teachers and that they are here as teachers for a period, that is, they … . in some groups you strengthen this feeling of a ‘guest’ or how to express it, and here you can see that they pull a bit in different directions. (Mentor 1)

As described under the previous theme, the relational aspects are also dependent on the dynamics of the student-pair. Several mentors describe their respective pairs in terms of ‘the more active student’ and ‘the more passive student’ or ‘the relaxed student’ and ‘the ambitious student’. Those respondents who have acknowledged that the dynamics of the student-pair is a factor when considering their opportunities for learning the profession take different measures as regards structuring, planning and staging learning-situations. In some cases, the relational dynamics of the student pair is seen as a strength but in other cases, especially when the students are very different, mentors have to decide whether they should split up the student pair. Some mentors think that they should split up the pair in order for a lesser motivated student to be able to participate more fully. One of the mentors raises the fact that mentoring in these cases show similarities with managing group work with pupils, where some are more determined whilst others withdraw to a more passive position.

Concerns especially arise regarding the last practice period, where mentors stress the importance of being able to experience practice as close to professional life as possible. Overall, several of the mentors are quite aware of how the dynamics of the mentor–student relationship affects the opportunities for student learning as well as their own approach to their mentoring. However, while mentors perceive the very form of paired practicum itself as affecting opportunities for learning there are also other, more practical factors, which seem to affect its outcomes. These factors will be the topic of the next theme.

In conflict with mentor’s work situation

They simply get less time, less time to see how they perform in the classroom. If they are here eight weeks and they are two students, then it is half the time that they get, if one should be fair. (Mentor 4)

What constrains the possibilities for learning by participation are primarily timely, quantitative and spatial factors. The mentors have a certain number of lessons per week, and they feel pushed to hand over a greater part of their own teaching than they would like to. Even when mentoring one student, this is seen as a challenge. One can describe this as a conflict between their responsibilities as mentors vis-à-vis the teacher–students and their responsibilities as teachers vis-à-vis their own pupils.

Students in paired practicum are supposed to be facilitated with a certain number of hours of practical experience. How this is organized, however, differs. Several mentors leave it up to the students to organize the hours between themselves which leaves it undefined who is responsible for what. Plenty of time is therefore spent on observations of peer students and of the mentor, which leads to reduced time practising teaching and being fostered by their mentor.

Another constraint is the lack of proper situations for reflection. One of the respondents described experiences of teaching practice as a sort of perishable experience that had to be discussed as soon as possible in order to be able to pick up the more subtle aspects of teaching, such as particular student reactions, student-teacher actions and other micro-situations of which lessons are filled. At best, the mentors have time for a short debriefing on the way to the next lesson. Regarding these difficulties, some mentors see an advantage in having a student-pair if they take their own initiative to engage in didactical and other reflective discussions, without their mentor. This provides time for mentors to catch up in an overloaded work situation and leave the students to discuss questions raised. Some mentors however, raise the issue of spending less time as a mentor with the students, as learning is left unattended to the students themselves.

In some groups their feeling of being a ‘guest’ is strengthened and one can see that they are pulling in different directions. Some seek help from the supervisor and others tend to go and observe elsewhere, or they go and observe together and get into a feeling of ‘group work’ rather than a curious student teacher looking for answers how to run this profession of teaching in different ways. (Mentor 2)

What the quote from Mentor 2 illustrates is that paired practicum, to some extent, seems to blur the distinction between learning as a spectator and learning as a participant. As the mentors must see to it that both of their students get a fair amount of practical experience, there is an increased sense of instructing pupils rather than mentoring students. This is partly predicated upon the timeframes of their own work schedule, as they must find time to attend to their own teaching, in which they also have the opportunity to act as role models for their teacher-students. All in all, due to especially time-issues and a non-optimal physical environment, some mentors find it difficult to both provide enough practical experiences for the students as well as engage in didactical and other reflective discussions about teaching situations that just have taken place. This in turn alters the function of the mentors, who in some cases need to think and act more in line with being instructors than future colleagues. This will be explored further in our final theme.

Transforming mentoring into instruction

A common feature in the above themes is that paired practicum, even if it can lead to certain constructive and fruitful processes concerning learning the profession in a spectator position, it also creates unexpected challenges, alters the relational dynamics, and hinders participation towards teacher students' professional development in a community of practice. In this final analysis, we relate the above analysis to what we have identified as a didactical struggle on part of the mentor. The most significant change in the role and function of the mentor is how paired practicum tends to transform mentoring into a form of instruction. In the material, this is shown through responses that reflect how mentors have to move from a collegial role (inviting and guiding the apprentice from a peripheral to a central position into a community of practice) towards a more instructive role (staging or simulating opportunities for learning the profession). For instance, discrepancies in student participation and motivation become more significant and pedagogically relevant when they have a paired practicum. There are occasions that force mentors to actively provoke their students to engage in their own learning. For example, some of the mentors have experiences from students who, according to them, do not seem to be interested in learning the profession or, at least, seem to have a surprisingly small interest.

Well, I do not believe that they should be two, partly that I do not have enough of the relevant subject for two, but also that the one that was stronger, pulled the other one along, so that student leaned back a bit and thought ‘well she has control over what is going on and I trust her’, instead of stepping forward himself. So, I said that it is time to split these two students up this spring. (Mentor 4)

The mentors state that some students tend to understand their practicum as any other course, i.e. they want to pass with minimal effort (or efforts similar to those in theoretical courses). These students are especially problematic to handle in a paired practicum context according to the mentors, at least in terms of acquiring a professional identity. This has to do with the decrease of opportunities for real-life teaching experiences, something that was seen as a practical effect of the paired practicum. The mentors state that a student with a small interest in learning the profession tends to become even more passive, when a greater part of their practicum consists of observing their mentor, other teachers and their student-colleague. This is illustrated by the following quote from Mentor 1

Yes, but I think it is those students who partly see practice as a kind of continuation of secondary school rather than, you know, the first step to a new profession, those who primarily want to be approved, who are focused on the smallest possible effort […] here it often becomes wrong in relation to our pupils, because our pupils expect something, and they do not expect for someone to come in who primarily wants to attain a grade. (Mentor 1)

Another factor that complicates this further, according to one of the mentors, is the occasion when students do not have a particular interest in the subject matter. A student, with no interest in either the profession or the subject matter, forces the mentors into not only a teaching role but also a sort of instructional role, where they need to teach both the subject matter and its didactical underpinnings. In a more clear-cut mentoring position, mentors can show the student what the profession is all about, simply by performing activities that are integral to the profession. However, some mentors sometimes feel the need to complement this with more pedagogically driven strategies that push or provoke students into a process of self-reflection on their own motives for being there in the first place, as shown by Mentor 5:

Well, there is a feeling of becoming a bit off when you have two students. But I take a straight-forward approach and tell them what I think to the students, ‘It's going to be like this, you are going to have to do these things even though you don't like them’. I told him to start reading himself. ‘Start reading by yourself to get into reading’, I said the last time that he was here, so I hope that he has embraced that. (Mentor 5)

The mentors see that there are many opportunities for observations in paired practicum, of the mentor as well as the peer student but they have concerns about time in the actual role as a teacher being reduced. Measures are taken from some mentors and examples are given where mentors must engage other teachers as to provide time where students get practical experience, as their own schedule holds too little of the relevant subject for two students. This means, however, that other teachers than the intended mentor become responsible for mentoring students which can have an effect on the assessment of the students' efforts as well as on the sense of responsibility towards the students.

To sum up, the analysis points towards a didactical struggle in the mentorship of paired practicum, where both parties in the mentor–student relationship try to navigate in a context where the borders between participant and spectator knowledge are blurred. Especially, we see that the notions of learning of spectator and participant knowledge pertain to a form of ideal situation, where motivated students gradually are merged into a collegial context. While the motivated student gains benefit from both observing and participating, the less motivated student tends to treat observation as the passing of time and participating as following the steps of their more motivated student colleague. In those cases, there will not be any learning from a spectator nor from a participatory perspective.

Discussion – the challenge of organizing learning of participant knowledge

Well, I think it is for better or for worse that they are a pair of teacher students, as they drift away from you and become more independent. I think that you might spend less time as a supervisor on them than you do when they are on their own, if this is good or bad, I left unsaid, but still, this is a consequence. (Mentor 1)

The results of the study suggest that paired practicum is a two-sided coin, which offers both opportunities and obstacles for learning the teaching profession. Previous research highlights the advantages and, to some extent, the disadvantages of paired practicum, some of which we can identify in our own results. In previous research on paired practicum, student learning is often framed within social constructivist perspectives (cf. Guiterrez, 2016; King, 2006; Smith, 2002), where paired students construct knowledge together in the social context of the school. By partaking in discussions, giving as well as receiving feedback, students thrive by contributing to each other's learning. However, research framed in social constructivist paradigms, and especially with reference to the Vygotskian notion of the zone of proximal development (ZPD), seems to downplay the role of the mentor or takes its pedagogical function for granted. In our findings, this rather uncritical stance towards learning as a social phenomenon becomes problematic, as paired practicum, according to the mentors, tends to push students farther away from the social practice of teaching and thus also from their opportunities of learning as participants. Instead of taking full responsibility for student teachers' learning, the mentors have to leave important matters in the hands of the student pair to deal with themselves. Therefore, they cannot monitor actual learning or potential learning opportunities, as found in research that stresses the importance of using ZPD. In order to make use of ZPD as a method within paired practicum, students need to be under mentor monitoring and guidance or otherwise be matched more accurately in order to create a dynamic learning relation.

In our analysis, we have taken the theoretical point of departure in Saugstad’s (Saugstad, 2002, 2005) notion of the incommensurability of theoretical knowledge and practical knowledge, in order to probe further into the preconditions for mentoring novice teachers in paired practicum. Our results point to a number of aspects that need to be taken into consideration in order for productive learning to take place, regarding participatory as well as spectatorship knowledge. These aspects are related to practical and structural issues, the relational dynamics of paired practicum, and different perspectives on learning. The results suggest that there is a discrepancy between the pedagogical intentions of paired practicum and the concrete possibilities for realizing these in practice. What additionally stands out in our results is that a productive (paired) practicum is dependent on an active reflection on changes in learning opportunities (on the part of both mentors and students), somewhat new structural and practical factors, and how to deal with divergent student motivation. Also, results from the study show that paired practicum on the one hand appears to blur the borders between participating and spectating, and on the other hand seems to favor learning to teach from a spectator position while a participant position becomes less accessible to students. Furthermore, this brings into question whether Saugstad’s notion pertains to rather idealistic circumstances that are difficult to bring about when paired practicum meets the practicalities of the school and the work of the mentors. In our material, paired practicum seemed to bring fewer opportunities to gain experience in different practical situations and to learn organically by close participation in real-life situations. Such an imbalance seems to push mentors into a more instructive rather than collegial role as they need both to construct and to search for opportunities for learning the profession. Thus, organizing for paired practicum is perceived as a challenge, not only in terms of time and facility but also in terms of pedagogy.

As a final remark, we would like to stress the importance of teacher education programs analyzing the possibilities as well as the limitations of paired practicum on both an individual and an organizational level. On an individual level, mentors need to be provided with contextual conditions together with fellow mentors so they can reflect upon and organize according to changes in learning opportunities for students in paired practicum. On an organizational level, further thought is needed regarding consequences that arise when implementing structural changes such as paired practicum. Such a consequence is, for example, the impact of paired practicum as regards students' participatory learning. Structure and support therefore need to be initiated in order to balance the spectator/participant gap. Also, TE programs themselves must provide relevant knowledge and understanding regarding how to become a teacher within this practice.

A way forward research-wise, as regards paired practicum, could be to conduct observation studies of students in paired learning situations to further explore how this organization of practice contributes to the professional development of future teachers. Another fruitful research initiative could be to follow these paired students into their first independent teaching assignment in order to relate their teaching in this new situation to the mentor's assessment of their skills in the paired practicum situation. This kind of research could contribute to a more systemized organization of paired practicum in TE as well as providing mentors with relevant support as they navigate between being on the one hand instructors, and on the other hand collegial role models.

Disclosure statement

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

Additional information

Notes on contributors

Sandra Jederud

Sandra Jederud is a doctoral student at the School of Education, Communication and Culture at Mälardalen University. She is involved in teacher education as well as conducts research within teacher education. Her research concerns specifically practice within teacher education and cooperative practices between University and schools.

Johannes Rytzler

Johannes Rytzler is a Senior Lecturer at the School of Education, Communication and Culture at Mälardalen University. He conducts research within philososophy of education as well as educational theory. He is particularly interested in theoretical analysis of educational concepts and phenomena. He is involved in teacher education, as both teacher and organizer, and conducts research on cooperative pracitices between the University and the surrounding society.

Per Lindqvist

Per Lindqvist is a professor in education at Lineaus university and Mälardalen university. His special interests are teacher education, the teaching profession, teachers´ work, life and knowledge.