The Practicum in Pre-service Teacher

Education: A Literature Review Based on Empirical Studies

Etty Cohen (Sayag), Ron Hoz & Haya Kaplan

Kaye Academic College of Education, Israel

Ron HozBen-Gurion University, Israel

35th Conference, Budapest

What does research on practicum tell us?

• Why, or What for? The ideological aspects

• What' there? - institutional, and personal/functional relationships

• What then? – the outcomes

The search framework

The Included articles

• Refereed journals • Empirical studies • From 1996 to 2009

• This search yielded a database of 113 articles

Data Analysis

• Summarizing the articles in three phases:

• 25 joint reports

• 23 revised reports

• 65 individual reports

Findings

A. What for? Ideology - 7 Types of Goals of the practicum

in 55 articles

1.To direct student teachers to apply specific

teaching approaches (19 articles)

2. To better know the school's environment

(18 articles)

3. To expand the acquaintance with the

teacher’s role (13 articles)

4. To develop student teachers’ didactical

knowledge (13 articles)

Ideology- Goals

5. To develop student teacher’s cognitive skills

(10 articles)

6. To develop student teacher’s personal

identity

(9 articles)

7. To impact the school via mentors or student

teacher’s teaching / activities

(6 articles)

Ideology- Four kinds of rationales of the practice

Inferred from the descriptionsa. The practicum can reduce the gap between

theory and practice (22 articles).b. The practicum is a proper environment for

student teachers to develop professionally through reflection on their teaching (16 articles).

c. The practicum settings can acquaint student teachers with the realistic settings (10 articles).

d. The mentor teacher is important figure in the learning to teach during the practicum (3 articles).

B. Relationships -Four kinds of relationships between teacher education and the practicum inferred

from the participants’ activities.

1. Asymmetric: slanted towards teacher education (43 articles)

2. Asymmetric: slanted towards the school (19 articles)

3. Balanced/collaborative (19 articles)4. Uninstitutionalized and unformalized

(8 articles)

1 .Asymmetric relation slanted towards teacher education (43

studies)

(a) Applying teaching approach which the

teacher education program decided on. (19

articles)

(Garton & Cano, 1996; Friel & Carboni, 2000; Tillema, 2000;

Moore, 2003; Duffy & Atkinson ,2005)

(b) Complying with state legislated

requirements

(4 articles)

(Blasi, 2002; Montano et al., 2005; Colby & Stapleton, 2006)

1 .Asymmetric relation slanted towards teacher education (43

studies)(c) Adopting approaches, or ideas about teacher

preparation and development. (7 articles)

(Hawkey, 1998; Tsang, 2003; Hudson, 2005; Anderson et al., 2006;

Dinsmore& & Wegner, 2006; Weinberger, 2006; Goodnough et al.,2009).

(d) Conducting the practicum as a research

model

(4 articles) (Lake & Jones, 2008; Yayli, 2008; Breidenstein, 2002;

Epanchin & Colucci, 2002).

3 .Balanced/equivalence relations.(19 studies)

(a) The mentor teachers teamed up as equals with their mentees.

(b) The mentor teacher helped the student teachers understand the schools' complex and multidimensional realities.

(c) The mentor teacher took part in the teacher education program preparation of the mentees for the practicum.

(Graham, 1997; Vacc & Bright 1999; Epanchin & Colucci, 2002; Hayes, 2002; Reichel et al. 2002; Dawson, 2006; Perry et al.; 2006; Velez-Rendon, 2006;

Yendol-Hoppey, 2007; Scantlebury, Gallo-Fox, & Wassell, 2008; Roger & Quinn, & Morton, 2009).

2 .The asymmetric relations is slanted towards the school

(19 studies)

(a) Get acquaintance with the student populations,

curricula, instructional materials and standards.

(b) Get acquaintance with the numerous teachers'

roles.

(c) The teacher education program recognized school

autonomy and role in preparing student teachers.

(Black, 2005; Santoro & Allard, 2005; Glenn, 2006; Nokes, 2008;

Ping &Chunxia, 2006; Doering et al., 2003; Brown & Warschauer,

2006; Gurvitch & Metzler 2009; Penso & Lazarowitz, 1997; Dunn

et al., 2000; Chang & Winton, 2005; Skamp & Mueller, 2005)

Un institutionalized relationships

(8 studies)• The university supervisor was only

little involved in the practicum.

• The university supervisor guidance had been detached from or opposed to the mentors’ guidance

(Kahn, 2005; Siebert, 2006; Brown, & Warschauer, 2006 ; Reichenberg,1998;

Slick,1998; Doering et al.; 2003)

C. The outcomes of the practicum- student teachers’

perceptions and reflective abilitiesIn the majority of the studies (22/24)

practice changed student teachers’ perceptions mainly in multicultural approach .

(research tools- students’ self report )

(Vacc & Bright, 1999; Proctor et al., 2001; Almazara, 2005;

Abbate-Vaughn, 2006; Fran-Doppen, 2007; Velez-Rendon,

2006; Knutson et al., 2007 Pence & Gillivray, 2008 ; Miller,

2008; Goodnough et al., 2009; Brindley et al., 2009 ).

The outcomes of the practicum- Student Teachers' Efficacy and

Self- confidenceIn 18 /22 studies the desired results

obtained in improving student teachers' efficacy and self- confidence.

(research tools- students’ self report)(Hawkey, 1998; Brush et al., 2003 ;Hudson,

2005; Colby & Stapleton, 2006; Richard & Brumfield, 2003; Thompson & Smith, 2005;

Duffy & Attkinson, 2005; Vuchic & Robb 2006; Anderson et al., 2006;).

The outcomes of the practicum- Applying Specific Teaching

Approach

In 9/14 studies student teachers did not

achieve the desired results in applying specific

teaching approach.

(research tools- supervisors and

mentors’ observations and reports)

(Garton & Cano, 1996 ; Tillema & Knoll, 1997; Kowalchuk,1999;

Puk & Haines, 1999; Moore, 2003; Montano et al., 2005 ;

Burke, 2006; Brown & Warschauer, 2006; Dawson, 2006) .

The outcomes of the practicum- applying technology

In 6/10 studies student teachers

succeeded to apply technology in their

instruction at the practicum.

(research tools- supervisors and mentors’

reports)

(Halpin, 1999 ; Snider, 2002; Pope et al., 2005;

Brush et al., 2003; Anderson & Puckett, 2005;

Basham & Pianfetti, 2005;),

The outcomes of the practicum- Promoting School

Students' Achievements

In 5/5 studies the improvement of school students’ achievements was

reported. (research tools- school exams)

(Nevin et al., 2002 ; Otaiba, 2005; Lomeli et al., 2006; Lake & Jones, 2008;

Nokes et al., 2008).

Summary of the outcomesDesired results achieved in: 1. Student teachers' perceptions changed

(22/24) 2. Efficacy and self- confidence increased

(18/22)3. Applying instruction and communication technology (ICT) (6/10)

4. School Students' Achievements improved (5/5)

Desired results was not achieved : 1. Applying specific teaching approaches

(9/14)

Critical Point of view

a. Involvement of the researchers to the teacher education program and the practicum.

b. Reliability of the instruments was rarely reported.

c. The participants were captive audience.

The complexity of the practicum