Introduction

The support and guidance gained from associate teachers in enhancing theory and practice integration for student teachers is seen as a key contributor to quality practical experiences in Initial Teacher Education (ITE) (Whatman & MacDonald, 2017). Strong links between informed knowledge, theory and practice for student teachers mean that they can develop skills to understand and transfer the connection between abstract theoretical knowledge and practical knowledge into their everyday teaching realities (Bourke, 2014; Furlong, as cited in Whatman & MacDonald, 2017; Pereira et al., 2016). This process involves epistemology, the branch of philosophy concerned with the theory of knowledge. It explores questions about what knowledge is, how it is acquired, and the criteria for determining whether something is true or justified (Nogueiras et al., 2016). Epistemology links theory to practice and serves as a bridge between theoretical understanding and practical application. It enables educators to navigate the complexities of their profession, translating abstract concepts into meaningful actions within the classroom. Identification of these connections further supports self-assessment, co-assessment, reflection and co-reflection, which can facilitate a constant progressive process of transformative learning (Hamer & van Rossum, 2020; Lynam & Cachia, 2018; Nogueiras et al., 2016). When associate teachers can help students identify where the students are at, what they are making sense of and their level of understanding, associate teachers can offer relevant discussions and goal setting that build on and deepen current knowledge.

Field practice

Field practice is an experiential and intentional teaching approach that focuses on real life workplace contexts and allows for the transferring and developing of learnt concepts and skills into the workplace (Penman & Oliver, 2004). Villarroel et al. (2018) suggest that these authentic styles of learning approaches foster students’ motivation, agency, self-regulation, metacognition, employability, deeper learning, and workplace readiness. Through field practice, students cultivate evaluative judgment which supports self-assessment and recognising areas of strengths and development for goal setting (Villarroel et al., 2018).

Through the contextually mediated learning that happens in field practice (Bourke, 2018), students attain practices that are particular and relevant to the context (Penman & Oliver, 2004). This is a form of legitimate peripheral participation (Penman & Oliver, 2004), where students become actively immersed within the culture of the field, supported by associate teachers, colleagues, and lecturers. In real-world scenarios, students apply their theoretical knowledge practically, learning sector-specific terminology, practices, and regulations. For instance, they might become familiar with educational standards set by governing bodies like the Teaching Council or the Ministry of Education. This learning fosters opportunities for reflection on practice and self-correction through self- and co-assessment, and develops a deeper level of understanding (Hamer & van Rossum, 2020).

Theory and practice integration

The integration of theory and practice is important because learning just the theory or just the practice is not enough to fully grasp the fundamentals (Kegan, 2018, as cited in Illeris, 2018). Successfully linking theory and practice is about integrating “the knowing and the being, practising and learning” of a student teacher (Whatman & MacDonald, 2017, p. 2). ITE should be seen as a whole rather than a binary of theory and practice so to ensure a quality ITE experience, a key factor is that “every aspect of the ITE program is integrated and there is not a sense of ‘theory’ and ‘practice’ being enacted separately in different institutions” (Whatman & MacDonald, 2017, p. 4). During field practice, the early childhood centre can become a site for professional inquiry and research.

Our reflections: Intentional support for theory-practice integration

As lecturers, when we visit students on field practice placement, we note that theory and practice integration often does not happen without support. Therefore, intentional support from associate teachers and lecturers is crucial. Associate teachers play an especially significant role as they know the early childhood centre and children well, and are fully immersed in this site together with student teachers. Sharing ways of knowing, thinking and discussing the ideas, and setting goals, are beneficial and effective to student teachers (Whatman & MacDonald, 2017). Strategies that can help student teachers learn to teach could include modelling, sportscasting, self-assessing, reflection and co-reflection (Whatman & MacDonald, 2017).

Knowing the learners (student teachers) is important. One area to consider for associate teachers to effectively support student teachers is that they need to be able to recognise where the student’s current thinking is at, so associate teachers can provide scaffolding and experiment with new concepts to gain progressive understanding. From our reflections, associate teachers’ scaffolding is effective when associate teachers extend students’ knowledge in relevant and contextual ways. As noted by Aspden (2017), field practice assessment is a relational act and relationships and communication are key factors for associate teachers to identify students’ levels of understanding. Knowing what the student is studying, their learning outcomes and level of study is imperative, so associate teachers can engage in relevant discussions where the student can connect to the information where they can see, hear and feel it in their practice.

At New Zealand Tertiary College (NZTC), we adopt a supervision triad model of student teacher, associate teacher and lecturer for field practice practicum. Various barriers for collaboratively assessing student teachers’ practice have been noted by researchers, such as lack of teacher knowledge (Forsythe & Johnson, 2017), time, attention and the fear of critiquing (Quesada et al., 2017), being a friend to the student and being fearful of upsetting them (Dunning et al., 2004), and students’ inauthentic practice due to the need to perform and please associate teachers (Aspden, 2017). To overcome some of these challenges NZTC has a mentoring support system, including Associate Teacher Professional Development (ATPD) workshops where associate teachers are invited to participate online. The workshops are designed around various topics to help associate teachers engage in healthy and successful mentoring relationships with their student teachers.

Given the importance of intentional support for students’ deeper learning at field practice, where students are expected to integrate theory and practice, we argue that Hamer and van Rossum’s (2020) levels of understanding can be a useful pedagogical tool for associate teachers. Associate teachers can utilise this tool to identify students’ current levels of understanding and in collaboration with student teachers, set goals for deeper learning.

Levels of understanding and theory-practice integration

We recognise that learning is constructed through interactions with the environment and others from a constructivist theoretical perspective, such as Piaget’s cognitive and Vygotsky’s social constructivist theories (as cited in Santrock, 2017). Hamer and van Rossum’s (2020) constructivist position outlines different levels of understanding for adults in higher education, highlighting depths of learning and thinking and what a person can do with the knowledge from their education programs to their practice.

With a focus on learning for comprehension, associate teachers can refer to the different levels of understanding to create learning paths towards more complex forms of deep comprehension. Hamer and van Rossum (2020) suggest that this categorisation of understanding provides a useful assessment tool and this could be beneficial for associate teachers to see student teachers’ knowledge at different levels, and how their levels of understanding apply to practice.

An overview of the six levels of understanding adapted from Hamer and van Rossum’s work (2020, p. 1608) includes:

• Level 1: Acceptance of the way something is, without thought, consideration or critique
• Level 2: Acceptance of the way something is, without thought, consideration or critique, and can replicate it
• Level 3: Knowing when and how to use the information and can apply it appropriately in a practical sense
• Level 4: Understand the thinking, reasoning, and logical structure in transferable ways
• Level 5: Can see the concept from a different perspective with perhaps a different conclusion
• Level 6: Make connection to the learning and can feel the understanding and how to implement in transferable contexts

In practice, as visiting lecturers, we have noticed that each student has their own unique learning journey and their learning is place-based. Their progression to deeper learning may occur in a non-linear way, although the levels often happen in sequence. At times, however, lightbulb moments happen with the support of professional discussions and co-reflection, and students can move through the levels more quickly. When a concept is newly learned, introduced and slightly explored, the understanding could be at a surface level (Level 1). As understanding becomes more complex, student teachers become capable of utilising knowledge or information in more sophisticated ways. For example, we can see students’ levels of understanding by noticing whether learners are aware of what they are doing (Level 2) or not (Level 1), doing it intentionally (Level 3), intentionally with critique (Level 4), being able to articulate and justify what they are doing (Level 5), and transferring it across contexts (Level 6).

The levels of understanding (Hamer & van Rossum, 2020) can help achieve a better theory-practice integration because it provides mentors a tool to be more aware of what and how the learner is thinking, from which scaffolding and goal setting can be established. A deeper level of understanding is seen as more enduring, attained through grasping the concepts and comprehending how they facilitate the learning process (Lynam & Cachia, 2018). Professional discussions deepen learning, and this learning is enhanced when learners connect contextually and emotionally, experiencing the subject firsthand (Hamer & van Rossum, 2020). This understanding is evident when knowledge about the topic can be transferable through both theory and action in practice (Hamer & van Rossum, 2020). Deep learning is highly regarded for its ability to reach various levels of understanding. More advanced methods of learning, referred to as supercomplexity, offer insight into handling unpredictability and inconsistency, which in turn helps students develop self-directed and transferable learning skills. This is particularly evident in Levels 5 and 6 as identified by Hamer and van Rossum (2020), where skills can be applied in different contexts. Identifying and acknowledging the progressions through these levels of understanding support students’ feelings of motivation, empowerment and achievability (Hamer & van Rossum, 2012), which are beneficial for fostering ongoing learning.

Levels of understanding can look different to everyone, as mentoring for understanding is individual and contextual (López-Pastor & Sicilia-Camacho, 2017). Relationships and communication are key (Cook-Sather et al., 2014). In addition to relational mentoring, levels of understanding as a tool has the strength of offering general and analytical ways that associate teachers can apply to specific teaching tasks. We suggest that associate teachers can draw on the levels of understanding and adjust them with their kete of knowledge, centre and ITE providers’ expectations, and the given timeframe of a student’s expected progression during a practicum. It will be useful to discuss these different levels of understanding with students at the beginning of the practicum, agreeing on where they are at, and then develop study goals for more complex learning over the practicum duration.

Let’s take building relationships with parents and families as an example of how to apply the six levels.

• Level 1: Students accept the current centre practice of whānau relationship building, i.e., through daily chats, social media, learning story comments, and so on. Students do not have questions or thoughts to share with associate teachers.
• Level 2: In addition to Level 1, students can replicate the current centre practice of whānau relationship building. Associate teachers may notice a lack of flexibility in students’ practice, that is students may use the same communication style with all parents.
• Level 3: Students demonstrate flexibility and are able to select the most appropriate communication method with each parent.
• Level 4: Students understand the rationale of whānau relationship building, and know the why.
• Level 5: Students develop multiple perspectives of whānau relationship building, that is, the Māori perspective of whanaungatanga, family-centred practice, sociocultural perspective of learning which highlights the role of families/parents, and so on.
• Level 6: Students demonstrate confidence that they have grasped the knowledge of whānau relationship building. They can articulate the connection between their new knowledge and practice.

Partnering with students through co-assessment and students’ self-assessment

To be able to identify and work with these levels of understanding, relationships are key. A partnership approach as a base for the mentor-mentee relationship brings in ako (reciprocal teaching and learning) and professional learning for both. Through this collaboration, both partners mutually enhance their pedagogical repertoires as they work together (Hendrie & Thynne, 2023). For learning to happen, Race (2009) emphasises that students need to have open and willing dispositions where they take ownership and make a conscious effort to comprehend guidance and feedback. Incorporating Buchanan and Edward's (2017) emphasis on the importance of guiding students in communicating their knowledge to others in light of factors such as culture and context that influence their understanding, it is essential to provide opportunities for professional discussions.

In New Zealand, this partnership approach is reflective of Te Tiriti-based practice and Te Whāriki: He whāriki mātauranga mō ngā mokopuna o Aotearoa: Early Childhood Curriculum (Te Whāriki), the early childhood education (ECE) curriculum (Ministry of Education, 2017) which views learning and teaching from a kaupapa Māori approach where education is learner-centred, and is responsive and emergent (Quesada et al., 2017). This approach is essential regardless of whether the learner is in higher education or ECE education.

Using partnership-based mentoring and learning tools, such as co- and self-assessment and co-reflection, supports students’ understandings and perceptions to move through the levels of understanding and develop ways to articulate and explain, add ideas to, and transfer into various contexts (Hamer & van Rossum, 2020). What this means is that students can reflect and self-assess their levels of understanding, and articulate and explain examples of where they achieve a particular level of understanding and what they want to improve on.

Elements of co-assessment, short for collaborative assessment (Quesada et al., 2017) are evident throughout field practice, where associate teachers work in partnership (Bourke, 2018) with students, alongside lecturer support. Co-assessment also supports the development of self-assessment as the feedback and discussions promote understanding which is empowering and fosters confidence (Bourke, 2018). Quesada et al. (2017) describe how co-assessment helps with deeper learning by providing opportunities to understand actions better and their reasons.

Self-assessment is empowering (Sendziuk, 2010) and as a catalyst for agentic behaviour it fosters self-regulation and self-efficacy through transferable learning and practices (Fraile et al., 2017). Moreover, it supports students' understanding of their learning – of who they are as a practitioner and what they bring to the field (Bourke, 2018; 2014), their strengths and their areas of development – all of which supports goal setting. A key area in self-assessment is around the relationship between the kaiako (teacher) and the learner, as the learning task is individually contextual to the learner (Bourke, 2018). An important consideration here is that interpretations and understandings by individuals may differ from what was initially intended (Engeström et al., 1996, as cited in Bourke, 2018). This can be influenced by cultural perspectives and understandings.
These styles of mentoring are motivating and empowering to the learner, and foster skills in ongoing learning where students develop self-reflection and self-awareness. Aligning with kaupapa Māori approaches to learning, it is also a credit-based way of learning focusing on what the student is able to achieve (Cookson, 2018).

Conclusion

It is imperative for ITE mentors to support students in developing deeper levels of understanding. Associate teachers must possess knowledge of this learning approach to effectively mentor and support student teachers with confidence. Understanding these levels can help associate teachers identify students' current learning stages and establish effective, contextually relevant goals. This process builds a foundation for transferable learning and fosters meaningful theory-practice connections. We also urge associate teachers to review and affirm their partnerships with students when assessing their learning to create an ako environment.

References

• Aspden, K. M. (2017). The complexity of practicum assessment in teacher education: An examination of four New Zealand case studies. Australian Journal of Teacher Education, 42(12), 128–143.
• Bourke, R. (2014). Self-assessment in professional programmes in tertiary institutions. Teaching in Higher Education, 19(8), 908–918.
• Bourke, R. (2018). Self-assessment to incite learning in higher education: Developing ontological awareness. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 43(5), 827–839.
• Buchanan, T., & Palmer, E. (2017). Student perceptions of the history lecture: Does this delivery mode have a future in the humanities? Journal of University Teaching & Learning Practice, 14(2), 1–17.
• Cookson, C. J. (2018). Assessment terms half a century in the making and unmaking: From conceptual ingenuity to definitional anarchy. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 43(6), 930–942.
• Cook-Sather, A., Bovill, C., & Felten, P. (2014). Assessing processes and outcomes of student-faculty partnerships. In Engaging students as partners in learning and teaching: A guide for faculty (pp. 187–201). Jossey-Bass.
• Dunning, D., Heath, C., & Suls, J. (2004). Flawed self-assessment: Implications for health, education, and the workplace. Psychological Science in the Public Interest, 5, 69–106.
• Education Council New Zealand/Matatū Aotearoa. (2017). Our code, our standards: Code of professional responsibility and standards for the teaching profession. 
  https://teachingcouncil.nz/assets/Files/Code-and-Standards/Our-Code-Our-Standards-Nga-Tikanga-Matatika-Nga-Paerewa.pdf
• Forsythe, A., & Johnson, S. (2017). Thanks, but no-thanks for the feedback. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 42(6), 850–859.
• Fraile, J., Panadero, E., & Pardo, R. (2017). Co-creating rubrics: The effects on self-regulated learning, self-efficacy and performance of establishing assessment criteria with students. Studies in Educational Evaluation, 53, 69–76.
• Hamer, R., & van Rossum, E. J. (2020). Students' conceptions of understanding and its assessment. In Learning and Performance Assessment: Concepts, Methodologies, Tools, and Applications (pp. 1596–1617). IGI Global.
• Hendrie, M. & Thynne, A. (2023). Leadership in the role of the Associate Teacher: Enacting teacher leadership and mentoring. He Kupu, 7(4), 11–18.
• Illeris, K. (Ed.). (2018). Contemporary theories of learning: learning theorists ... in their own words (2nd ed.). Routledge.
• López-Pastor, V., & Sicilia-Camacho, A. (2017). Formative and shared assessment in higher education. Lessons learned and challenges for the future. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 42(1), 77–97.
• Lynam, S., & Cachia, M. (2018). Students’ perceptions of the role of assessment at higher education. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 43(2), 223–234.
• Ministry of Education. (2017). Te Whāriki: He whāriki mātauranga mō ngā mokopuna o Aotearoa: Early childhood curriculum. Author.
• New Zealand Tertiary College. (n.d.). AT Professional Development. https://at.nztertiarycollege.ac.nz/at/professional-development
• Nogueiras, G., Herrero, D., & Iborra, A. (2016). Teaching for epistemological change: Self-direction through self-assessment. In E. Cano & G. Ion (Eds.), Innovative Practices for Higher Education Assessment and Measurement (pp. 207–225). IGI Global.
• Pereira, D., Flores, M. A., & Niklasson, L. (2016). Assessment revisited: A review of research in Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 41(7), 1008–1032.
• Penman, J., & Oliver, M. (2004). Meeting the challenges of assessing clinical placement venues in a Bachelor of Nursing program. Journal of University Teaching & Learning Practice, 1(2), 59–73.
• Quesada, V., Garcia-Jimenez, E., & Gomez-Ruiz, M. A. (2017). Student participation in assessment processes: A way forward. In E. Cano & G. Ion (Eds.), Innovative Practices for Higher Education Assessment and Measurement (pp. 226–247). IGI Global. https://doi.org/10.4018/978-1-5225-0531-0
• Race, P. (2009). Towards assessment as learning. The All Ireland Journal of Teaching and Learning in Higher Education (AISHE-J), 1(1), 6.1–6.11. https://ojs.aishe.org/index.php/aishe-j/article/download/6/6
• Santrock, J. (2017). Life-span development (16th ed., pp. 20–27). New York.
• Sendziuk, P. (2010). Sink or swim? Improving student learning through feedback and self-assessment. International Journal of Teaching and Learning in Higher Education, 22(3), 320–330.
• Villarroel, V., Bloxham, S., Bruna, D., Bruna, C., & Herrera-Seda, C. (2018). Authentic assessment: Creating a blueprint for course design. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 43(5), 840–854.
• Whatman, J. & MacDonald, J. (2017). High quality practica and the integration of theory and practice in initial teacher education: A literature review prepared for the Education Council. New Zealand Council for Educational Research.